Just curious

[hitekredneck]

how does everybody feel about cell research, i.e. stem cells, dna, rna etc...
do you feel like mankind is playing god, and if so, do we have the right?:confused:

[Ausinus]

Im in full support of all those things. Looking into these things will help people.

[hitekredneck]

Im in full support of all those things. Looking into these things will help people.
with all the arguing i've got with you today, ya gotta say something i agree with?!

[ajk]

I'm completely against stem cell research using aborted children as the source. If we are using adult stem cells, then fine. But not by abortion. Even if it would help people, you cannot justify taking another life in order to do that.

[something]

I'm completely against stem cell research using aborted children as the source. If we are using adult stem cells, then fine. But not by abortion. Even if it would help people, you cannot justify taking another life in order to do that.

You don't use aborted childrens as a source. That's just rumors.

[ajk]

Well what would you call the source then?

[Ausinus]

IVF embryos. We waste so many, lets just use them for stem cell research instead.

[ajk]

But again you're missing the point. Those embryos represent a life, and we cannot take that life away no matter what good may come out of it.

[Ausinus]

Come off it, IVF embryos are a bunch of cells that would be wasted anyway.

Talk about eschatological irresponsiblity. Its you people that tried to prevent the HPV vaccine from coming out.

[ajk]

Come off it, IVF embryos are a bunch of cells that would be wasted anyway.


Not if people wouldn't snuff it out.

[Ausinus]

Do you even know what IVF is?

[yea_thats_right1]

I'm completely against stem cell research using aborted children as the source. If we are using adult stem cells, then fine. But not by abortion. Even if it would help people, you cannot justify taking another life in order to do that.
you can use the ambilical chord too.......and if the babies are being aborted why not donate their body to science just as you or i could if we should die... at least give what little "life" they had a meaning.... if their life helped to save 100000 cancer patients... wouldnt that be worth it?

[yea_thats_right1]

by the way... your answer should be YES... and even if you say no the answer is still yes because its opposite day for you bud!

[ajk]

Come again? What do you mean opposite day?

[ajk]

you can use the ambilical chord too.......and if the babies are being aborted why not donate their body to science just as you or i could if we should die... at least give what little "life" they had a meaning.... if their life helped to save 100000 cancer patients... wouldnt that be worth it?

No, because they never had a chance to make a difference on their own. Every life deserves to a chance to live, be it baby or adult.

[Ausinus]

No, because they never had a chance to make a difference on their own. Every life deserves to a chance to live, be it baby or adult.

I have two words.

:mad:ESCHATOLOGICAL:mad: :mad:IRRESPONSIBILITY:mad:

[yea_thats_right1]

never heard of opposite day... where you do everything opposite of your norm... something from back in grade school?? please someone tell me im not the only one who has heard about this.

[yea_thats_right1]

No, because they never had a chance to make a difference on their own. Every life deserves to a chance to live, be it baby or adult.


ok but if the babies are being aborted anyway... because they are and will be and that prolly wouldnt change... why not do some good? have something posotive come out of a negative situation?

[Ausinus]

Yeah we used to do it all the time. We were like "sir its opposite day, so we dont have to if homework if you say we do" to the teacher. :D

[yea_thats_right1]

i knew it!!!!!!!!!!!

[ajk]

ok but if the babies are being aborted anyway... because they are and will be and that prolly wouldnt change... why not do some good? have something posotive come out of a negative situation?

Because the ends do not justify the means. That's why.

[ajk]

I have two words.

:mad:ESCHATOLOGICAL:mad: :mad:IRRESPONSIBILITY:mad:

I have two words too: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If more people had it, they wouldn't be having abortions.

[Ausinus]

I have two words too: PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. If more people had it, they wouldn't be having abortions.

Oo, so raped women are responsible for their own rape?

[yea_thats_right1]

baaah whatever... if some teen wants to abort her baby i say use it to do some good! hell one abortion vs saving countless lives is well worth the cost... esp. since the abortion ws going to happen anyway... see AJK you want to live in a perfect world....but there is no such thing! sacrafices must be made for our species to continue on...not saying it isnt sad... but still

[ajk]

Oo, so raped women are responsible for their own rape?

No of course not. However you cannot take another life (which is what abortion does) regardless of circumstance.

[who897]

No of course not. However you cannot take another life (which is what abortion does) regardless of circumstance.

I still have a hard time believing you were the fastest sperm.

[theicidal maniac]

I'm completely against stem cell research using aborted children as the source. If we are using adult stem cells, then fine. But not by abortion. Even if it would help people, you cannot justify taking another life in order to do that.

First off, there are reports this week that stem cells are found in amniotic fluid, which can be collected without harm to mother or child. Secondly, once again AJK, congratulations on being a paranoid idiot. You don't have abortions for the purpose of stem cell research. Nobody is getting pregnant and having abortions "in order to do that" (your words.) That's completely ignorant. It's not like some evil female scientist is having tea with Satan and says; "Hmmm, I sure do like stem cell research and killing babies...say, why don't I get pregnant, then kill the baby, and FORCE AJK to use it's stem cells in an operation!" Jesus titty-fucking Christ, man!

[Ausinus]

The report still acknowledges that embryonic stem cells are more potent, but it is still a breakthrough.

[General Septem]

I don't really care. I have nothing against any form of cell research as long as they don't kill anyone to harvest them. Apparently they have ways of getting embryonic stem cells without killing the donor.

[who897]

I don't really care. I have nothing against any form of cell research as long as they don't kill anyone to harvest them. Apparently they have ways of getting embryonic stem cells without killing the donor.


In either case, I affected in the least.

[hitekredneck]

the question was about cellular research, not abortion...and not just stem cell research, either...as we speak, scientists are getting much better at manipulating genes and adding genetic code that wasn't there before. making mice glow in the dark might seem frivolous and harmless, but anything they do gives them practice changing things at a cellular level. the problem i forsee is that soon, people will be able to have the perfect children, ie, healthy, intelligent and very strong. i'm only questioning if this is ethical to you. i don't have a problem with it. i'm a firm believer in god, but feel that He gave us intelligence to use and the free will to decide how far we go with it. i do like the fact that thru gene therepy we are getting closer to helping people with debilitating diseases such as md, and ms....:rolleyes:

[General Septem]

That just goes with what I said. As long as they don't kill a human donor.

But on-topic, I wonder what kind of problems eugenics would cause in society.

[something]

That just goes with what I said. As long as they don't kill a human donor.

But on-topic, I wonder what kind of problems eugenics would cause in society.

But what if the human donor knowed about the risks. It makes it right in most cases.

[theicidal maniac]

the question was about cellular research, not abortion...and not just stem cell research, either...as we speak, scientists are getting much better at manipulating genes and adding genetic code that wasn't there before. making mice glow in the dark might seem frivolous and harmless, but anything they do gives them practice changing things at a cellular level. the problem i forsee is that soon, people will be able to have the perfect children, ie, healthy, intelligent and very strong. i'm only questioning if this is ethical to you. i don't have a problem with it. i'm a firm believer in god, but feel that He gave us intelligence to use and the free will to decide how far we go with it. i do like the fact that thru gene therepy we are getting closer to helping people with debilitating diseases such as md, and ms....:rolleyes:

Didn't I already see a movie about this in the 90's? It was called GATTACA! It was neat in the 90's.

[General Septem]

But what if the human donor knowed about the risks. It makes it right in most cases.

Well that would be different., but embryos rarely know the risks and consent to it.

[theicidal maniac]

Well that would be different., but embryos rarely know the risks and consent to it.

And why is that? Perhaps because cognition isn't really their specialty. Or understanding abstract concepts like reality or "self." In fact, they don't really have any distinctly human characteristics at that point, do they? So you can't say it's "wrong" to abort them but that it's "ok" to kill the other billion sperms that didn't make it to the womb.

[who897]

Well that would be different., but embryos rarely know the risks and consent to it.

Ignorance is no excuse. If they are too dumb to object it's their own damn fault.

[hitekredneck]

people are more concerned on where we get the cells from and don't really care what we do with them...:confused:

[something]

people are more concerned on where we get the cells from and don't really care what we do with them...:confused:

Yeah, it's stupid. But of course, you cant just get them from anywhere.

[hitekredneck]

Yeah, it's stupid. But of course, you cant just get them from anywhere.
don't get me wrong, i don't believe in aborting fetus or killing people to get em, but man, i sure would like to know what the hell they're gonna do with em when they have em....

[something]

don't get me wrong, i don't believe in aborting fetus or killing people to get em, but man, i sure would like to know what the hell they're gonna do with em when they have em....

Well, with a aborted fetus, you could test things that may affect a fetus while it's in a pregnant women. Like, what the women should eat and drink and so. But I don't know much about the genetic tests that is possible.

[ajk]

Ignorance is no excuse. If they are too dumb to object it's their own damn fault.

No it isn't, the fetus in the womb can't do anything about this. But that doesn't mean you can just kill it. It would be like saying you can kill a mute because he can't speak up for himself. In both cases it's discrimination.

[who897]

No it isn't, the fetus in the womb can't do anything about this. But that doesn't mean you can just kill it. It would be like saying you can kill a mute because he can't speak up for himself. In both cases it's discrimination.

Shouldn't you be out hugging a tree? I can kill anything I see fit to. Also, mutes have something called sign language...they can object to things. You just discriminate against woman's rights, plain and simple bub.

[ajk]

What right? A right to kill? In most cases (sans rape) they gave up their rights when they had sex. After that you don't have any rights as to what to do with that baby. You made the choice now you must deal with the results of that choice.

[Ausinus]

What right? A right to kill? In most cases (sans rape) they gave up their rights when they had sex. After that you don't have any rights as to what to do with that baby. You made the choice now you must deal with the results of that choice.

"No state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

You give it to raped women, you give it to all women. Plus they still have rights, even if they do have sex, so stfu asshole.

[ajk]

True but not when it comes to the baby they shouldn't. It's their own fault if they can't learn to keep their legs closed. (same applies to the guy involved as well)

[General Septem]

No it isn't, the fetus in the womb can't do anything about this. But that doesn't mean you can just kill it. It would be like saying you can kill a mute because he can't speak up for himself. In both cases it's discrimination.

I think he was mostly just being funny.

[theicidal maniac]

No it isn't, the fetus in the womb can't do anything about this. But that doesn't mean you can just kill it. It would be like saying you can kill a mute because he can't speak up for himself. In both cases it's discrimination.

All humans have language, even mutes...that's what makes a person human...imagine someone who had no way to communicate his thoughts or feelings or to receive such communications....would you even call that person human? No. You couldn't evn learn things from others. Language makes us what we are in very important way. Without it we are liitle more than a very large amoeba. Like a fetus.


What right? A right to kill? In most cases (sans rape) they gave up their rights when they had sex. After that you don't have any rights as to what to do with that baby. You made the choice now you must deal with the results of that choice.

Well that used to be the case until technology came about that DOES ALLOW us other options. It's called progress.

[ajk]

When you're allowing innocent life to die, that's not progress. That's regress.

[theicidal maniac]

When you're allowing innocent life to die, that's not progress. That's regress.

You kill life with every breath you take. Every hamburger you eat was once alive.

[ajk]

Yes but again that is entirely different then this. You need food to live, you need to breathe to live, etc.

[theicidal maniac]

Yes but again that is entirely different then this. You need food to live, you need to breathe to live, etc.

Yes...how is that different? You don't HAVE to eat a cow. You could eat plants...at least they don't scream. Neither do fetuses, by the way, as they are incapable of it, given the lack of the proper organs.

[ajk]

Some can feel pain you know.

[who897]

Pain? What is pain, just a chemical process that we percieve. Pain is just weakness leaving the body. Give me a freaking break man, your just being a pansy.

[theicidal maniac]

Some can feel pain you know.

Yes I do know. Pain is a sensation that your body is being damaged, so many living things experience pain. Does a fetus? Well, I don't know. And neither do you.

[ajk]

Yes...how is that different? You don't HAVE to eat a cow. You could eat plants...at least they don't scream.

We need a balanced diet if we want to survive though, and that includes some meat (for most of us at least).

[theicidal maniac]

We need a balanced diet if we want to survive though, and that includes some meat.

WRONG. It includes protein, which is found in meat, but you can get that from soy, or beans, or dairy.

[ajk]

Either way the majority of this country and world does eat meat. It's called the food chain. Animals such as pigs and cows are generally there for food more then anything else.

[theicidal maniac]

The only nutrient that you can ONLY get from meat is Vitamin K...and that can be administered in pill form

[theicidal maniac]

Either way the majority of this country and world does eat meat. It's called the food chain. Animals such as pigs and cows are generally there for food more then anything else.

Only because we've bred them for that. You're saying that it's right BECAUSE WE DO IT. You can justify abortion by the same argument.

[who897]

Either way the majority of this country and world does eat meat. It's called the food chain. Animals such as pigs and cows are generally there for food more then anything else.

I like to eat fetus. I am at the top of the food chain, guess that makes it right.

[ajk]

Only because we've bred them for that. You're saying that it's right BECAUSE WE DO IT. You can justify abortion by the same argument.

Bulllshit. Abortion is wrong, it's nothing but murder for no good reason at all. Humans are not meant to be food, certain animals are. That's the difference.

[General Septem]

Animals aren't human beings. We're not talking about killing any living being (plants live too), we're talking about humans.

Fetuses can scream after a certain age (they can't because of the fluid in the womb, but cases in which a bubble has formed in the fluid has proven this to be true), as well as feel pain. We do know this for a fact.

[theicidal maniac]

Bulllshit. Abortion is wrong, it's nothing but murder for no good reason at all. Humans are not meant to be food, certain animals are. That's the difference.

How can you say "certain animals are MEANT for food." That is complete and utter speculative bullshit. You assume that because you believe God put animals here for you, but again, speculative bullshit. There's no way you could ever show that to be true. Humans have turned cows into cattle, but that doesn't MEAN that's why they are here

[theicidal maniac]

Animals aren't human beings. We're not talking about killing any living being (plants live too), we're talking about humans.

Fetuses can scream after a certain age (they can't because of the fluid in the womb, but cases in which a bubble has formed in the fluid has proven this to be true), as well as feel pain. We do know this for a fact.

That's my point, there is nothing about a human being, no HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC that can be assigned to a fetus. Nothing that makes us human is there...except the dna, but our dna is over 99% the same as a chimpanzee or an orangutan. In fact many taxonomists once thought that Orangutans were a human subspecies. The same logic you use to call us human and animals animals can be used to say that fetuses are not humans.

Also there are more explanations for bubbles than just a scream...in fact, if the bubble was there from a scream, that could only mean that there was air in the fetus's lungs, since a scream is produced by exhalation, but fetuses don't breath, so it's more likely that it was a belch

[ajk]

How can you say "certain animals are MEANT for food." That is complete and utter speculative bullshit. You assume that because you believe God put animals here for you, but again, speculative bullshit. There's no way you could ever show that to be true. Humans have turned cows into cattle, but that doesn't MEAN that's why they are here

Well we have to get our food from somewhere now don't we?

[who897]

Well we have to get our food from somewhere now don't we?

I told you I eat fetus for breakfast.

[theicidal maniac]

Well we have to get our food from somewhere now don't we?

Uh Yeah...that's what seperates us from primitive humans according to anthropologists and archaeologists; the point at which we stopped being hunter/gatherers and started farming. We can use non-animal sources for nutrition, we don't need to eat animals. The fact that heart disease is the leading killer of people in America should suggest to you that we aren't built to eat meat, because cholesterol is ONLY found in animal products. Eating meat is also linked to colon cancer. Plants high in fiber help reduce cholesterol AND promote colon health. Also, if you read anything about the meat industry you will find that meat is ANYTHING but savory. Try "the Mad Cowboy," "Chew on This," or "Fast Food Nation." Also I would suggest watching "The Corporation" or visiting Peta's website. Meat is not healthy.

[who897]

Uh Yeah...that's what seperates us from primitive humans according to anthropologists and archaeologists; the point at which we stopped being hunter/gatherers and started farming. We can use non-animal sources for nutrition, we don't need to eat animals. The fact that heart disease is the leading killer of people in America should suggest to you that we aren't built to eat meat, because cholesterol is ONLY found in animal products. Eating meat is also linked to colon cancer. Plants high in fiber help reduce cholesterol AND promote colon health. Also, if you read anything about the meat industry you will find that meat is ANYTHING but savory. Try "the Mad Cowboy," "Chew on This," or "Fast Food Nation." Also I would suggest watching "The Corporation" or visiting Peta's website. Meat is not healthy.

LOL, I am sure PETA would give an unbiased report of the unhealthiness of meats.

[theicidal maniac]

LOL, I am sure PETA would give an unbiased report of the unhealthiness of meats.

Biased, YES. DEFINITELY. True, yup. All verifiable.

[something]

LOL, I am sure PETA would give an unbiased report of the unhealthiness of meats.

The only thing PETA does is making people to take good care of animals. No wait, the only thing they WANT is making people taking good care of animals.
What they do is, bombing laboratories, block food courts, kills butchers etc. etc.

So PETA isn't really something you should trust in the debate about what you should eat or not eat.

[who897]

The only thing PETA does is making people to take good care of animals. No wait, the only thing they WANT is making people taking good care of animals.
What they do is, bombing laboratories, block food courts, kills butchers etc. etc.

So PETA isn't really something you should trust in the debate about what you should eat or not eat.

It's like taking advice from someone in Greenpeace for environmental protection.

BTW I was being super sarcastic about PETA being an unbiased resource.

[something]

It's like taking advice from someone in Greenpeace for environmental protection.

BTW I was being super sarcastic about PETA being an unbiased resource.

PETA is an unbaised resource, and so are Greenpeace, since most members not are educated.

[theicidal maniac]

The only thing PETA does is making people to take good care of animals. No wait, the only thing they WANT is making people taking good care of animals.
What they do is, bombing laboratories, block food courts, kills butchers etc. etc..

Oh they're tactics are pretty rediculous, for sure. I mean personally, I place human life above other forms of life (and that's my point here, is that a sperm that just wandered into an egg a few days ago is LESS than human), so the fact that their members will try to take a human life as revenge for an animals life is just plain stupidity. But as far as the things that they talk about, animal testing, the disgusting state of meat production, inhumane treatment of animals...it's all true stuff, and there's plenty of documentation for it.



So PETA isn't really something you should trust in the debate about what you should eat or not eat.

Well they are compelling, but if you disagree that they are a good source of info then maybe you'll agree that nutritionists, doctors, and the surgeon general would be. You'll find almost unanimous accord among them all that americans need to eat less meat. We are the fattest country in the world, officially. The leading cause of death in America is heart disease. The leading cause of heart disease is high-cholesterol, high-fat diets. The ONLY SOURCE OF CHOLESTEROL IS ANIMAL PRODUCTS. There is NO cholesterol in plants. Meat kills more people per year than tobacco. Not to mention choking deaths...;)

Besides that, there are hundreds of other sources for this information that you may find more credible, all you have to do is look into it. The way meat is produced is SICK. There are things that make it INTO your meat that are in no way fit for human consumption. It's hard to farm animals and impractical to rely on hunting for all your food needs...in fact if you ate NOTHING BUT MEAT you'd die pretty young and you'd be incredibly unhealthy.

Conversely, it's easy to grow plants and vegetables, and it's easy to find the stuff...my city has a community garden for people that don't have a place at home to plant things. If you ate nothing but non-animal foods you can live a long, healthy life.

[something]

Oh they're tactics are pretty rediculous, for sure. I mean personally, I place human life above other forms of life (and that's my point here, is that a sperm that just wandered into an egg a few days ago is LESS than human), so the fact that their members will try to take a human life as revenge for an animals life is just plain stupidity. But as far as the things that they talk about, animal testing, the disgusting state of meat production, inhumane treatment of animals...it's all true stuff, and there's plenty of documentation for it.

Not really. It may be documation for it, but it may not always happend in sauch as extension as they say.



Well they are compelling, but if you disagree that they are a good source of info then maybe you'll agree that nutritionists, doctors, and the surgeon general would be. You'll find almost unanimous accord among them all that americans need to eat less meat. We are the fattest country in the world, officially. The leading cause of death in America is heart disease. The leading cause of heart disease is high-cholesterol, high-fat diets. The ONLY SOURCE OF CHOLESTEROL IS ANIMAL PRODUCTS. There is NO cholesterol in plants. Meat kills more people per year than tobacco. Not to mention choking deaths...;)

Well yes,meat isn't the healthiest food to find, but turkey and fish, is actually pretty healthy, compared to most meat products.

Besides that, there are hundreds of other sources for this information that you may find more credible, all you have to do is look into it. The way meat is produced is SICK. There are things that make it INTO your meat that are in no way fit for human consumption. It's hard to farm animals and impractical to rely on hunting for all your food needs...in fact if you ate NOTHING BUT MEAT you'd die pretty young and you'd be incredibly unhealthy.

Conversely, it's easy to grow plants and vegetables, and it's easy to find the stuff...my city has a community garden for people that don't have a place at home to plant things. If you ate nothing but non-animal foods you can live a long, healthy life.

Yeah, well, what can I say? You are right on most points here, and meat is just not unhealthy, it's also very un economic. It's much cheaper to get the same energy from a plant as you get from a cow, and the cow takes much longer time to grow then a plant. (And personally I don't think meat taste so good;) )

[who897]

I have eyes on the front of my head not the sides. They are also very well adapt at tracking prey. I have canines which are great for tearing meat. The meat isn't bad, it's the fat lazy ass bastards who complain about their weight and health and don't do shit to remedy it.

[theicidal maniac]

Yeah, well, what can I say? You are right on most points here, and meat is just not unhealthy, it's also very un economic. It's much cheaper to get the same energy from a plant as you get from a cow, and the cow takes much longer time to grow then a plant. (And personally I don't think meat taste so good;) )


Seriously. You're right. We use something like 20 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef...and cows don't even naturally eat grain, so they just get fat, which makes US fat. Also much of the "grain" STILL contains parts of cattle and pig, which is believed to have caused Mad Cow Disease in the U.K....but we do it here! The cows that do GRAZE are eating from pastures that are heavily laden with pesticides and weed killers, not to mention their own shit.

Also, the U.S. subsidizes beef farmers...WE PAY them with tax dollars to keep raising beef, even though we produce more beef than we consume. And we STILL import beef from South America even though we don't eat the stuff we produce.

Your body has to work way harder to digest meat, and it ends up giving you cancer of the pooper, wheras plants will help you expell cholesterol and PREVENT cancer of the pooper.

Although I am a total fucking hypocrite on this one, cuz I eat meat, and I think it tastes great, but after all the reading I've done I am VERY picky. And I'm probably still eating mouthfulls of animal shit per year. Plants don't shit.

[who897]

Seriously. You're right. We can feed something like 30 people with the grain it takes to feed one farm cow...and cows don't even naturally eat grain, so they just get fat, which makes US fat. Also much of the grain STILL contains parts of cattle and pig, which is believed to have caused Mad Cow Disease in the U.K....but we do it here! The cows that do GRAZE are eating from pastures that are heavily laden with pesticides and weed killers, not to mention their own shit.

Also, the U.S. subsidizes beef farmers...WE PAY them with tax dollars to keep raising beef, even though we produce more beef than we consume. And we STILL import beef from South America even though we don't eat the stuff we produce.

Your body has to work way harder to digest meat, and it ends up giving you cancer of the pooper, wheras plants will help you expell cholesterol and PREVENT cancer of the pooper.

Although I am a total fucking hypocrite on this one, cuz I eat meat, and I think it tastes great, but after all the reading I've done I am VERY picky. And I'm probably still eating mouthfulls of animal shit per year. Plants don't shit.

I for one will say then animal shit tastes might fine. Plants don't shit that is true, but what do you think the fertilizer is made of?

[theicidal maniac]

I for one will say then animal shit tastes might fine. Plants don't shit that is true, but what do you think the fertilizer is made of?

heh heh ;) ... yeah but that's FILTERED shit. Which brings me to a new question; Ya know how astronauts pee into a machine that recycles it into potable water for them to drink...well, do you think EACH astronaut has his own machine, or do you think they SHARE filtered piss?

[General Septem]

That's my point, there is nothing about a human being, no HUMAN CHARACTERISTIC that can be assigned to a fetus. Nothing that makes us human is there...except the dna, but our dna is over 99% the same as a chimpanzee or an orangutan. In fact many taxonomists once thought that Orangutans were a human subspecies. The same logic you use to call us human and animals animals can be used to say that fetuses are not humans.

No human characteristic except for the fact that it is a human being.

Apparently that 1% change in DNA is enough to make one species orangutans and one species humans... so apparently 1% variance in DNA is not insignificant.

Ask any scientist or biologist what makes us human beings, and I guarantee you anyone worth their salt isn't going to say it's our opposable fucking thumb.

[theicidal maniac]

No human characteristic except for the fact that it is a human being.

Oh I'm sorry, Dante, I didn't realize that you were a Biologist. I had erroneously been labouring under the false impression that you were a dumb-fuck, convenience store clerk. If I brought you some fetuses at the phylotypic stage (where the animals PHYLUM traits start to display themselves) or even the ZOOTYPIC stage from a tortoise, a pig, a chicken, a cow, a rabbit, a bat, and a human, not only would you not be able to tell which one is the HUMAN...you wouldn't see a single difference in ANY OF THEM. At that stage of development EVEN SNAKES AND DOLPHINS HAVE REAR LEGS Hmmmmmmm....why would an INTELLIGENT CREATOR cause an evolutionary fuck-up like that? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.......


Apparently that 1% change in DNA is enough to make one species orangutans and one species humans... so apparently 1% variance in DNA is not insignificant.

It's less than 1%...it's closer to 0%.


Ask any scientist or biologist what makes us human beings, and I guarantee you anyone worth their salt isn't going to say it's our opposable fucking thumb.

No shit sherlock. With skills like that, why are you writing barely intelligible posts to strangers when you could be doing detective work instead? Keep up the great work, dumbass. I never said anything about thumbs. Not once. It's Language that seperates humans. Language is our specialty.

[something]

Oh I'm sorry, Dante, I didn't realize that you were a Biologist. I had erroneously been labouring under the false impression that you were a dumb-fuck, convenience store clerk. If I brought you some fetuses at the phylotypic stage (where the animals PHYLUM traits start to display themselves) or even the ZOOTYPIC stage from a tortoise, a pig, a chicken, a cow, a rabbit, a bat, and a human, not only would you not be able to tell which one is the HUMAN...you wouldn't see a single difference in ANY OF THEM. At that stage of development EVEN SNAKES AND DOLPHINS HAVE REAR LEGS Hmmmmmmm....why would an INTELLIGENT CREATOR cause an evolutionary fuck-up like that? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.......



It's less than 1%...it's closer to 0%.



No shit sherlock. With skills like that, why are you writing barely intelligible posts to strangers when you could be doing detective work instead? Keep up the great work, dumbass. I never said anything about thumbs. Not once. It's Language that seperates humans. Language is our specialty.

Language and art. There's no animal that can draw or sculpture.

[General Septem]

Oh I'm sorry, Dante, I didn't realize that you were a Biologist. I had erroneously been labouring under the false impression that you were a dumb-fuck, convenience store clerk. If I brought you some fetuses at the phylotypic stage (where the animals PHYLUM traits start to display themselves) or even the ZOOTYPIC stage from a tortoise, a pig, a chicken, a cow, a rabbit, a bat, and a human, not only would you not be able to tell which one is the HUMAN...you wouldn't see a single difference in ANY OF THEM. At that stage of development EVEN SNAKES AND DOLPHINS HAVE REAR LEGS Hmmmmmmm....why would an INTELLIGENT CREATOR cause an evolutionary fuck-up like that? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.......

Cashiering is what I do, not who I am, and for the record, I work in a warehouse store, not a convenience store.

Last I checked, what a being looks like does not determine its species. ...Unless claiming the opposite is convenient for someone who wishes to push an agenda. Especially a popular one, and particularly one that only reached its level of popularity through vast amounts of lying.


It's less than 1%...it's closer to 0%.

And apparently, that's significant. As much of a dumbass as you are, I wouldn't say you resemble anything close to an orangutan. Besides, that would be insulting to the orangutan.


No shit sherlock. With skills like that, why are you writing barely intelligible posts to strangers when you could be doing detective work instead?

For that matter, why are you writing unoriginal rhetoric to strangers when you could be reading Maddox instead?


Keep up the great work, dumbass. I never said anything about thumbs. Not once.

That statement was so incredibly unintelligent of you that I can't even begin to think how to respond, so allow me to just say... the opposable thumb comment was sarcasm.


It's Language that seperates humans. Language is our specialty.

So should we kill everyone under the age of three? Or anyone who can't speak their native language properly? Anyone who can't read?

[theicidal maniac]

Last I checked, what a being looks like does not determine its species.

Geez, then I guess you better check again, cuz in many...MANY cases that is PRECISELY the only difference known. Furthermore, what a being looks like is very important. A dog is more LIKE a human than an octopus, and so we afford dogs more respect; we're more offended if someone kills a cat than a fish, generally speaking, because the one is MORE like us than the other. No one with scruples would make a monkey sleep in a doghouse outside in cold weather. When we teach a dog to beg for snacks, we assume it's a neat TRICK, but when we get an APE to do it it's evidence of his intelligence...why? Because they are MORE LIKE us, and mostly, since vision is our most relied upon sense, because they LOOK like us.


And apparently, that's significant. As much of a dumbass as you are, I wouldn't say you resemble anything close to an orangutan. Besides, that would be insulting to the orangutan.

Well, there's a bigger difference between YOU AND A FETUS than there is between YOU AND AN ORANGUTAN. And that's just the plain truth, more so for you than for me, knuckle-dragger, you're the one following stone-age traditions.


For that matter, why are you writing unoriginal rhetoric to strangers when you could be reading Maddox instead?

Yeah...I thought you'd catch that, cuz you cited him before. That posting was about plaigerism, thought it'd be appropriate if I plaigerized it to someone who would know.


That statement was so incredibly unintelligent of you that I can't even begin to think how to respond, so allow me to just say... the opposable thumb comment was sarcasm.

So why include it?


So should we kill everyone under the age of three? Or anyone who can't speak their native language properly? Anyone who can't read?

No...people under the age of 3 have language, dumbfuck. THEY DON'T SPEAK PERFECT ENGLISH, but that isn't the only form of language...I know that's hard for you to understand since you most likely think that God wrote the bible in English so that it could be taught in public school. Language isn't just spoken language, it's communication (ATTENTION SOMETHING: THAT INCLUDES ARTISTIC EXPRESSION), something that a fetus can't do. And for the record, we're not talking about the fetus at the stage where it LOOKS human, we're talking about a creature whose head is still divided in two, nubs for limbs, and no ability to survive on it's own. Is that human? would you compare that with yourself?

[who897]

This is a forum, not a book. Why can't folks figure this out?

[General Septem]

Geez, then I guess you better check again, cuz in many...MANY cases that is PRECISELY the only difference known. Furthermore, what a being looks like is very important. A dog is more LIKE a human than an octopus, and so we afford dogs more respect; we're more offended if someone kills a cat than a fish, generally speaking, because the one is MORE like us than the other. No one with scruples would make a monkey sleep in a doghouse outside in cold weather. When we teach a dog to beg for snacks, we assume it's a neat TRICK, but when we get an APE to do it it's evidence of his intelligence...why? Because they are MORE LIKE us, and mostly, since vision is our most relied upon sense, because they LOOK like us.

Just because that's how we respond doesn't mean what they look like matters. There are people who would kill any cat who went near their pet bird, for instance.

Besides, suppose white and Asian people looked more human to me than black people. If I gave them preferential treatment, I'd get arrested for hatecrime. Although if I gave blacks preferential treatment that would be fine. Now blacks do look as human to me as whites, but my point is that some of the real racist fucks don't even think blacks look human.


Well, there's a bigger difference between YOU AND A FETUS than there is between YOU AND AN ORANGUTAN.

There's more of a difference between an infant and a grandma, too, but they're still both human beings.


Yeah...I thought you'd catch that, cuz you cited him before. That posting was about plaigerism, thought it'd be appropriate if I plaigerized it to someone who would know.

When was that?


So why include it?

You don't even know what the fuck we're talking about, do you?


And for the record, we're not talking about the fetus at the stage where it LOOKS human, we're talking about a creature whose head is still divided in two, nubs for limbs, and no ability to survive on it's own. Is that human? would you compare that with yourself?

It does look human because it is human. Besides, I know several people with nuts for limbs.

[something]

A fetus doesn't look like a human during all of the pregnancy. In the beggining it's just a very, very, very small slimeball, and it's not untill two weeks or something that it start look like a human. And who can possible say that a small ball of slime is a human?

[Ape-Shit]

Besides, I know several people with nuts .

Yeah GS, I know a couple of Nuts too!

Congrats on the Job.....at least you are working.:D

[General Septem]

A fetus doesn't look like a human during all of the pregnancy. In the beggining it's just a very, very, very small slimeball, and it's not untill two weeks or something that it start look like a human. And who can possible say that a small ball of slime is a human?

Well you're human...


Congrats on the Job.....at least you are working.

Thank you. I should buy a beer for whoever was in charge of hiring all the cute blue/green-eyed blondes. :D

[theicidal maniac]

Just because that's how we respond doesn't mean what they look like matters. There are people who would kill any cat who went near their pet bird, for instance.

Yes it does. How we respond is the only thing that matters, Our view of the world is what shapes our responses to it, and humans form allegiances to things that they can identify with. Because our most heavily relied upon sense is sight, we look mostly aesthetic similarities


Besides, suppose white and Asian people looked more human to me than black people. If I gave them preferential treatment, I'd get arrested for hatecrime. Although if I gave blacks preferential treatment that would be fine. Now blacks do look as human to me as whites, but my point is that some of the real racist fucks don't even think blacks look human.

That's wrong on so many levels, beginning with the assumption that all recists think alike. Stupid, stupid, stupid assumption to make. We treat things according to their relationship to us.


There's more of a difference between an infant and a grandma, too, but they're still both human beings.

Yes, they are both humans. An embryo is NOT a human, by ANY definition of HUMAN.


When was that?

Fuck I don't know. I don't keep a file of the crap that rolls out of your mouth, i just recall an allusion.


You don't even know what the fuck we're talking about, do you?

We're talking about you introducing an element to the argument that didn't relate in any way whatsoever.


It does look human because it is human. Besides, I know several people with nuts for limbs.

If you dare to back that up, then you should check out the images on this site, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html , from Ernst Haeckels study of embryonic development. If you don't trust the site then just crack open ANY book about biology and you can usually find Haeckels images there as well. Somethings post about them looking human at 2 weeks is wrong by about 2 months. You are a fool to try and argue that these have anyhting in common with a human being.

[who897]

Yall need a hobby!

[something]

Well you're human...

Yea, nice, so you consider a ball of slime to be a human.

[something]

Allright, thecidal maniac. You have pointed out two things from my side that you say is wrong, and when I sayed that a fetus not look like a human for two weeks, instead of two months, do I stand for that.

But when you say that language and art are the same thing, is that wrong from your side. Humans had a language long before we come up with art, so it is two complete separate things.

[Ausinus]

Allright, thecidal maniac. You have pointed out two things from my side that you say is wrong, and when I sayed that a fetus not look like a human for two weeks, instead of two months, do I stand for that.

But when you say that language and art are the same thing, is that wrong from your side. Humans had a language long before we come up with art, so it is two complete separate things.

Both language and art are means of expressing ideas and concepts.

[General Septem]

Yea, nice, so you consider a ball of slime to be a human.

No, but I consider a fetus to be human.

People who know as much as most about pregnancy have no right to be pro-choice; they don't know what the hell they're talking about.

[theicidal maniac]

Allright, thecidal maniac. You have pointed out two things from my side that you say is wrong, and when I sayed that a fetus not look like a human for two weeks, instead of two months, do I stand for that.

But when you say that language and art are the same thing, is that wrong from your side. Humans had a language long before we come up with art, so it is two complete separate things.

I never said language and art were the same. Never said it, and don't believe it. They are both ways to transkit the inner workings of a human mind to OTHER human minds. They are certainly NOT the same, however, there is an artistic element to language, and likewise art is a form of communiscation, and thus could be called a form of language. It delivers my thoughts in a crafted package to be unwrapped and hopefully appreciated by OTHER minds. That is COMMUNICATION.

Also, if you are going to say that we had language before art, you need to present evidence for that claim. Furthermore you must define language in that case...for instance we had art BEFORE we had WRITTEN language.

[something]

I never said language and art were the same. Never said it, and don't believe it. They are both ways to transkit the inner workings of a human mind to OTHER human minds. They are certainly NOT the same, however, there is an artistic element to language, and likewise art is a form of communiscation, and thus could be called a form of language. It delivers my thoughts in a crafted package to be unwrapped and hopefully appreciated by OTHER minds. That is COMMUNICATION.

Also, if you are going to say that we had language before art, you need to present evidence for that claim. Furthermore you must define language in that case...for instance we had art BEFORE we had WRITTEN language.

There is proof for that. Scientists has figured out that the brain of Homo Erectus was good enough to handle a language, and many things they were capable of must have been really hard if they did'nt have a language. And this was about 100 000 years B.C. and the first artistic sculpture that were found was from about 40 000 years B.C.

[General Septem]

I wonder who came up with a name like Homo Erectus.

[something]

I wonder who came up with a name like Homo Erectus.

I don't know. Some latin speaking scientist.

[Ausinus]

I don't know. Some latin speaking scientist.

All the nomeclature is either greek or latin. Mostly latin. And homo erectus means "upright man". But we still like to laugh at it :D

[General Septem]

All the nomeclature is either greek or latin. Mostly latin. And homo erectus means "upright man". But we still like to laugh at it :D

Does that mean all men are homos? :D

[theicidal maniac]

There is proof for that. Scientists has figured out that the brain of Homo Erectus was good enough to handle a language, and many things they were capable of must have been really hard if they did'nt have a language. And this was about 100 000 years B.C. and the first artistic sculpture that were found was from about 40 000 years B.C.

Again, it depends on what you are calling language. A bird study was done showing that a specific species is capable of making thirteen different sounds. Unlike humans, they are unable to link them together in different combinations, but they DO have a language that other birds understand. Bees dance. It's their language. So yeah, a conscious being "deep" language existed before art, but what we call LANGUAGE, what you and I refer to as language is an art form, and it is reinvented every generation.

[who897]

Wow, how much crap that doesn't really matter at all.

[theicidal maniac]

Wow, how much crap that doesn't really matter at all.

I guess that's why we're on BULLSHIT.com...not writing for Free Inquiry.

[something]

Again, it depends on what you are calling language. A bird study was done showing that a specific species is capable of making thirteen different sounds. Unlike humans, they are unable to link them together in different combinations, but they DO have a language that other birds understand. Bees dance. It's their language. So yeah, a conscious being "deep" language existed before art, but what we call LANGUAGE, what you and I refer to as language is an art form, and it is reinvented every generation.

With language I mean WORDS like TREE, EARTH, WATER, coming out from their mouth. Even if they were extremely limited in what they had imagination enough to say.

[theicidal maniac]

There is proof for that. Scientists has figured out that the brain of Homo Erectus was good enough to handle a language, and many things they were capable of must have been really hard if they did'nt have a language. And this was about 100 000 years B.C. and the first artistic sculpture that were found was from about 40 000 years B.C.

Homo Erectus lived from between 1.6 MILLION years ago and 500,000 years ago, so I'm really not sure where you got "this is about 100,000 years ago" from.

At about 500,000 BCE we start seeing h. sapiens neanderthalensis. You say by this time that they had the brain capacity for language, but what you may not realize is that babies ALSO have that capacity. Why can't babies speak? 2 reasons; they lack the motor skills and their speech anatomy is not quite what it needs to be at that point. Neanderthalensis did not have the type of speech anatomy that humans of today have, and would not have been able to rely on pharyngeal control. End result, he would have the VOCAL CAPACITY of a chimpanzee. It is also doubtful that neanderthalensis could speak as humans do, due to limited cerebral capacity, so I don't know why h. erectus would have MORE capacity then his descendant, and I wonder where you heard that?

As for art, I believe the cave paintings in Lascaux, France are still the oldest known examples of art at 40,000 years, as you said...but WRITTEN LANGUAGE didn't appear until 17 THOUSAND YEARS LATER. Without written language there is no way to know what the homonids spoke as a language or if it was any different from what apes have. Apes are able to predict outcomes and communicate future events.


With language I mean WORDS like TREE, EARTH, WATER, coming out from their mouth. Even if they were extremely limited in what they had imagination enough to say.

well,
A) those are Modern English words, so h. erectus never uttered them...but I'm just being an ass. I know you really mean words that MEANT tree, earth, water...

B) They would not likely express the term "Earth," having no concept of anything OTHER than earth. "Tree" is an idea that they would assign a word to only if they actually had trees around, so it is environment dependent. And water, of course is something that every language has a word for...even my cat seems to have a special meow for "thirst."

MY FRIEND, LANGUAGE IS NOT AN AREA IN WHICH YOU SHOULD ATTEMPT TO GO TOE TO TOE WITH ME, but I do appreciate the opportunity to educate.

[something]

Homo Erectus lived from between 1.6 MILLION years ago and 500,000 years ago, so I'm really not sure where you got "this is about 100,000 years ago" from.

At about 500,000 BCE we start seeing h. sapiens neanderthalensis. You say by this time that they had the brain capacity for language, but what you may not realize is that babies ALSO have that capacity. Why can't babies speak? 2 reasons; they lack the motor skills and their speech anatomy is not quite what it needs to be at that point. Neanderthalensis did not have the type of speech anatomy that humans of today have, and would not have been able to rely on pharyngeal control. End result, he would have the VOCAL CAPACITY of a chimpanzee. It is also doubtful that neanderthalensis could speak as humans do, due to limited cerebral capacity, so I don't know why h. erectus would have MORE capacity then his descendant, and I wonder where you heard that?

As for art, I believe the cave paintings in Lascaux, France are still the oldest known examples of art at 40,000 years, as you said...but WRITTEN LANGUAGE didn't appear until 17 THOUSAND YEARS LATER. Without written language there is no way to know what the homonids spoke as a language or if it was any different from what apes have. Apes are able to predict outcomes and communicate future events.



well,
A) those are Modern English words, so h. erectus never uttered them...but I'm just being an ass. I know you really mean words that MEANT tree, earth, water...

B) They would not likely express the term "Earth," having no concept of anything OTHER than earth. "Tree" is an idea that they would assign a word to only if they actually had trees around, so it is environment dependent. And water, of course is something that every language has a word for...even my cat seems to have a special meow for "thirst."

MY FRIEND, LANGUAGE IS NOT AN AREA IN WHICH YOU SHOULD ATTEMPT TO GO TOE TO TOE WITH ME, but I do appreciate the opportunity to educate.

Hmm, you have given me a lot to think about. I didn't know much of this stuff, but haven't really checked my sources of information. I suppose there's a lot for me to learn about human history.:rolleyes:

[something]

How do you know all this stuff anyway?

[hitekredneck]

from what i've seen on these bs forums, almost each and every thread turns into a huge fight about abortion....and the terrible thing is, that it's always the same old arguments, nothing new....we all know how each other feels about the subject, can't we find something new to piss each other off with?:mad:

[something]

from what i've seen on these bs forums, almost each and every thread turns into a huge fight about abortion....and the terrible thing is, that it's always the same old arguments, nothing new....we all know how each other feels about the subject, can't we find something new to piss each other off with?:mad:

I think that just becouse you said that, will ajk or Genny take the abortion discussion to this thread again, since my and thec mans discussion about language just ended.

[who897]

from what i've seen on these bs forums, almost each and every thread turns into a huge fight about abortion....and the terrible thing is, that it's always the same old arguments, nothing new....we all know how each other feels about the subject, can't we find something new to piss each other off with?:mad:


The French, they absolutly piss me off! :D

[something]

The French, they absolutly piss me off! :D

And what have that WHATSOEVER to do with ANYTHING????

[hitekredneck]

The French, they absolutly piss me off! :D
yeah, i know what ya mean...they ride the fence so much they gotta have the worst saddle sores...lmao...i've been to paris, and couldn't believe how rude they are...they could give rude lessons to new yorkers:cool:

[something]

The French, they absolutly piss me off! :D

Allright, I also hate the french, but why do you say that on this thread?

[hitekredneck]

Allright, I also hate the french, but why do you say that on this thread?
why not?...better than arguing abortion all over again....

[Ausinus]

Bloody rednecks, stop picking on the french.

[hitekredneck]

Bloody rednecks, stop picking on the french.
why?...i would be willing to bet i ain't the only one that feels that way:D

[something]

why?...i would be willing to bet i ain't the only one that feels that way:D

Well the french are kind of stupid, but not all of them, all kinds of people has it's bad sides, the french is just extra bad:D

[General Septem]

French is the new F-word. :D

[who897]

Ma ma always said I could bring a bunch of arguing people together, I just gotta direct them into a vector of disliking that they can all agree upon :D I am not a redneck, I am white trash...I am from a state above the Mason Dixon line :D