OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

For those who don't know or don't care. Christopher Reeves is dead. I have trouble thinking of him as anything but Superman when I first hear his name, then it degenerates into the disabled shadow of a man that he turned into.

Since Stem Cell Research is a potentially hot topic, I was wondering if anyone felt one way or the other (Vehemenantly opposed or Fantatically for) about the research, the amount of publicity that it was given when Christopher Reeves was active for it and now that he's gone, a Martyr for the cause.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

I'll be happy to play "fanatically for" if nobody else will. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Evil Dave,

I happily join you. Only the most sadistic in our socety would fight against research which gives hope to those who have so little.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Another "fanatically for" vote here.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

I wouldn't be surprised to find a pretty high correlation between Dominions players and stem-cell research supporters... Really the only objection that anyone has, I think, is "you're killing babies to do research". Since (as Kerry stated in the Last debate) we could get a ton of useful cells from embryos that are frozen and would otherwise remain frozen until being discarded, that objection doesn't really hold water. And the consensus on this board seems to be that things that hold water are good, at least for casting quickness and breath of winter and forging the odd clam or pair of boots.
There are of course a lot of good arguments that it's possible to obtain embryonic stem cells in other ways without killing babies, but as far as I know those more contentious arguments aren't even necessary.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

It might also be an interested thing to note how many forumites believe in Creationism and how many believe in Evolution. I would imagine that this genre might have a broad swath, while certainly, some aspects of this game might seem sacriligeous to most Creationists to a degree.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

LOL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

re: Creationism and how many believe in Evolution

I think that you are going to find that of the demographics of the denizens of the internet skew decidedly in one direction ( ooh I feel like Don King ).

Add to this the nature of the game and the I think the results will be even more skewed.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Well, there are more sophisticated strategies for playing that side, but that is the usual one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

You do like playing with fire, don't you? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Ditto. And to answer Zen's poll, vehemently anti-BS (and thus anti-Creationism).

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

I'm wearing my flame-retardart underwear so I should be good. Nothing like dropping a cigarette on your lap to make you "Be Prepared".

I'm sure since it's clear this thread is OT, and that the issue is babykill'n for their precious, juicy stemcells and whether or not you believe in a divine force mean that someone, somewhere that reads this will be offended. Though I do hope that people can keep their own personal attacks to a minimum and only debate the issue(s).

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Further proof of just how stupid smoking is.

Wrong. It isn't a baby until after it's born. And until it has measurable brainwaves it's just a parasitic organism. (If a human is dead when its brain stops working, then a fetus isn't a live human until its brain starts working.) A bLastocyst has no more rights than the bacteria living in a person's gut, or a flatworm, or a tumor. Unless the lunatics at PETA have their way.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Your Anti-Tumor and Anti-Flatworm too?!

How do you live with yourself?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Happily. By avoiding carcinogens and impure water, of course. [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon24.gif[/img] [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Peace.gif[/img]

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Why do you have such hatred in your heart for flatworms? Open your heart to the love.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Glad to see somebody agrees with me. ISTR it's about the forth or fifth month of gestation when the fetus shows brain activity that can't be distinguished from folks what has been born.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

There are people who live 20-30 years that can probably say the same? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Open yours. Be my guest. As for me, I'll pass on being (soft in the head) conservatively compassionate with regards to life-sucking parasites, be they worms or wormlike elected (or nonelected) officials. The former must all die, and the latter must all be kicked out of office for the good of the nation and the world.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Sadly the latter will probably not be kicked out of office due to the segment of the population that passionately requires that the former must live. Actually passionately is far too weak of a word. Fervently is a far better word.

While the side who wants to kick out the current officials think that they are passionate about the subject they simply do not understand what "passion" is ... it's ... uhm ... different. If you want what you want due to logical reasons then you simply do not have anywhere near the same level of pasion.

Not like I really understand it, I happen to like logic thank you very much. However I have observed this way of "thinking" and it is very powerful to those that practice it.

OTOH I have to believe ( eek ) that the number of people who Subscribe to logic outnumber that people that don't. And perhaps they will show up at the polls this time around. But if history is any guide they will not.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Sadly, "the number of people who Subscribe to logic" is a miniscule percentage of the population of any country, especially ours. As proof I present you with "reality TV", our national debt courtesy those whom the populace in their boundless logic continue to reelect, and that same populace's belief in myth & superstition, drug use (including tobacco), drunk driving, and child/spousal abuse. (BTW, by myth and superstition I'm not referring to voodoo, astrology, numerology, John Edwards, et cetera, though they certainly are obvious examples of bunk. I'm referring to most religions such as Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.)

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Arryn I am not sure what you mean by Subscribe to logic. But I imagine that one would not have any great difficulty digging up any number counter examples amongst logicians or mathematicians guilty of one or more of the 'sins' you list. I think you attribute a broader normative use to logic than what is warranted. And to be blunt, I think you confuse your own attitudes with logic.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Johan, the tobacco industry (and the pharmaceutical industry, and the auto industry, and the oil industry, etc.) has had doctors and scientists "proving" whatever they felt like proving, and truth be damned. Just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn't mean they are less susceptible to being fooled (or capable of fooling others). Belief (and willful ignorance) has always trumped logic. Humans have a boundless, and perhaps instinctive, capacity for self-delusion.

I'll make things simple for you, Johan. Give me an affirmative proof of the veracity of the Biblical account of Genesis. Or an account of the Resurrection that couldn't be torn to shreds by any competent attorney using the standards of evidence of any western court of law.

The burden of proof falls upon those making the claims. And the more fantastical the claims, the more rigid the proof must be. Religion fails miserably when subjected to such tests. Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them, which isn't a legitimate defense, but works most of the time because people are too lazy to avoid falling for it. (The same can be said for supporters of supply-side [Reagan/Bush] economics.)

Yes, Johan, you can believe whatever makes you sleep better. And I'm sure you can find comfort in whatever "proofs" you can dig up. Just as there are people who believe that the Apollo moon landings were faked and have "proof" of it. Religion has, and always will be, nothing more than an opiate for the masses, and it's just as addictive and dangerous.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

As a Solipsist, I believe in neither evolution nor creationism. The world is a fever dream, and when I die, it'll go away. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

But we currently have proof that you don't need living brain cells or brain activity to become the president of the USA, if your family is rich and connected enough. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Actually, he does have living brain cells. Just enough so that he can half-assed parrot what his handlers (namely Dick Cheney) tell him to say.

BTW, did you see the recent remake of the Manchurian Candidate? We have the Halliburton Candidate in the oval office now. (Well, until this campaign he spent most of his time in Crawford playing on his ranch and hiding from the public, but he does, alas, hold the office.)

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Or those who believe in both. One is cause, the other is method. They arent necessairly exclusive of each other unless you belong to certain faiths which say they are.

Interesting note: What came first, the chicken or the egg?
(The answer is known. Your question answers this one)

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Gandalf, Creationists posit that the Biblical account of Genesis is accurate and thus the Earth was created, pretty much as you see it today, a bit over 6000 years ago. And thus God also created the fossil record for some unknown reason (or as someone once told me, to make scientists look foolish), and thus radiocarbon dating cannot be true (which throws most of particle physics right out the window). Creationism and Evolution *are* necessarily mutually exclusive. BTW, the principal backer of Creationism is the same Catholic church that took 500 years to acknowledge that it was wrong and Galileo and Copernicus were right. IOW, its backers have a long track record of being wrong and being too obstinate to admit it.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

The term creationists is a much larger term than people who would quote genesis as their source. And that is also a larger group than saying christians. Its probably a good idea to not lump terms like creationists, religion, religious people, moral people, and many others I cant think of right now.. automatically into a group called christians. Its abit of a red flag for me.

In fact, in my humble opinion, jumping to christians usually gives far more points to the argument than it would otherwise have. Rather like starting a discussion against dieting by considering them all to be anorexics.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

I use the definition from the Merriam-Webster Online page for Creationist . Playing semantics is a smokescreen for dodging the argument.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

I think that what Gandalf is saying is that one can be spiritual, religious,
or even Christian, and still believe in evolution. While I agree with him,
I must say that Arryn is very much right when she insists on the importance
of using the right terminology. Today, being a Creationist means that you
believe in the Creation account in the Bible. The word should not be used
to mean other things, or you can't have a good argument.

And everyone knows that having good arguments is why the Powers that Be created
the universe. Or at least I believe so. And you can't argue with belief, by
definition. So the Powers that Be do not want you to Believe. So all religious
people are sacriligeous.

And that was an example of how useful logic is in this topic.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Thanks, Tuidjy. Your summation, and the points you make, are excellent.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Getting back to the original question about stem cells I just don't see why it is not a bigger issue in the current election.

It polls *very* well for one side. That side was going to lose 100% of the votes of people it does not poll well. It polls well with the undecided people.

One of the two sides should be bringing it up at every opportunity and then make their own opportunities to bring it up. It's a great issue.

As is breaking the relationship between an "evil tyrant" and 9/11. This connection is still belived by 50% of the population. Now it is impossible to get that number below 40% since that is bedrock base, but you could drive it down further perhaps to the low 40s. The canidate should see this as a key word. Whenever the subject is brought up he *must* break the relation. He started doing it, but still let it slide multiple times. A horrible display.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Daddi, because that particular candidate (much as it pains me to say it) is incapable of remaining focused on one side of an issue (which his opponents enjoy pointing out), or in driving an issue home by repetition (a tactic, along with gross distortions of the truth, that his opponents are masters at).

Yes, the GOP is vulnerable on this issue. But in the eyes of voters, it's not even in the top 5 of important issues. And it's not as juicy for the media (that is, they can't provide "exciting" daily film clips) as are Iraq, pissed-off unemployed workers, or pissed-off people waiting in line at airports. The American public consumes whatever the media feed it. Blame the media for not keeping it in the forefront of American's ultra-short attention spans.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Re: not important/media

IF we haev learnt anything from the Last 5 years it's the the media will repeat whatever is said by whomever it is watching. Hence it can be manufactured as an issue, just like so many, honestly pointless issues have before. I mean, really, abortion is a small issue compared to Iraq and tax cuts ( one will cost over 200 billion, the other 2 trillion over 10 years ... if you count the number of lives this could help/save you will see that it dwarves the smaller issue so completely it's crazy to talk about anything else ... full disclosure before I am attacked about the tax cut: I really benifit in the short run from the tax cut, but I think it is a horrible idea. ).

re: the canidate

He's horrible. It's painful. It is amazing to me that he is so bad. He did not win the 1st debate the other person simply showed his true colors. Again with the 2nd debate to a lesser degree.

Even his slick running mate, whom I liked, was *horrible* in his debate ( slate.com be damned! ). I mean did he simply not study or what? But OTOH his charm and boyish good looks saved the day and polling found that he won the debate. Facinating.

As a lay person I think that this election should be quite simple for one side to win. I mean there have been some pretty large errors made in the Last 4 years you would think that going on the attack and never letting up would really work. But for some reason they have not done this. Perhaps there is a reason this campaign was run in such an incompetent ( in my eyes ) fashion. Sadly we will probably never know. Perhaps a kiss and tell book will be written in the future.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

The President has spent the past year+ very effectively hammering on Kerry's record in the Senate; Kerry's taking more than one side on several issues in the past 20+ years. It's only in the Last month that Kerry woke up to the realization that he should have been hammering the President on the President's own lousy record of the past 4 years in which this President has consistently made horrible decisions on EVERY matter placed before him, lied to the public (what else is new for a President, any of them in the past 40 years?), and even reneged on most of his promises to the morons who voted for him Last time. Had 9/11 not happened, this election wouldn't even be close. Bush is riding the only pony he has, a pony any idiot could have ridden (wars are almost always good for incumbent Presidents) at least as well (it's hard to imagine anyone doing worse than Bush).

Paraphrasing a quote from Star Wars is appropriate: "Fear will keep them in line." Just remember, the Dark side of the Farce will be with us, always.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Wow Arryn, did you look at those? I thought you would have. All of the ones I checked on that Bush pointed to, dont make Bush look very good. Like Kerry voting for Iraq then against Iraq. The first one had apparently sound allegations, and promises, which made it reasonable to vote for. The second one he says he didnt vote for because those things from the first never happened. Didnt sound like a flip-flop to me.

As far as I can tell every example was like that. Things included in the bill that decided it, not the subject or title it was given. If those are examples of things that Bush would have voted a certain way just because the title said it was about something then it doesnt do much for Bush's image IMHO

I see alot of that stuff but it might be my military background in propoganda. Like "Senator Kerry said it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Now, he says it's the wrong war" as if the two are still the same thing.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Also, the dems have been making the same mistake they made in 2002, post-9/11 : thinking that they'll be construed as unpatriotic if they attack the republicans and the president. In 2002, Dems were basically forbidden to attack on any of the major grounds they could/should have; unsurprisingly, the republicans gained.

And once again, they've worried that it'll look bad to attack a "War Time President!!!" during a war (albeit the Republicans are trying to ignore that we still have several wars going on, all of which they've screwedup).

All while the media and the public ignores that the Bush Reich has been slandering and attacking genuine war heroes: McCain, Max Cleland (who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam) and, lesser war hero but at least in Vietnam and wounded there, Kerry.

Also all while they ignore that the Bushies have been screwing the current active duty military over left and right, on the large scale and the small scale. ( For instance, when Bush got his photo op by going to Iraq for Thanksgiving with the troops, a bunch of troops wound up eating cold MREs, because they were turned away from the mess facility. The only troops there when Bush was were carefully screened, hand-selected Bush fans. Or when he kept sailors away from their families an extra day, keeping the aircraft carrier paused at sea so he could get his photo op there. )

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Thats probably true, but not what I meant.
I have to disagree with that also. Please dont paint the world as being christian/non-christian. There are many Groups, and religions, which believe that the world was created by design without being christian bible Groups. I could generate a fantasically long list but the easiest might be to say that just about every religion other than christian, jewish, and muslim would be using a source other than genesis for their basis of creation. And I guess the ancestral worships can be let off the hook. As far as I know most of the rest do have some sort of creationism belief.

But my initial point of "both" is that some are perfectly willing to accept that the world was created, and evolution was the tool. Thats only a major point of contention with the christian crowd as far as I know.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Gandalf this is why the right is simply better at the game of politics.

To understand the Kerry's votes you have to go into the minutia of the vote which, in general, people will not do.

Further, let's be honest. Kerry voted for the authority since he was up for re-election. He was gutless. Or perhaps discretion is the better part of valor, I don't know. I hate to say it, since I want someone to beat Bush, but Kerry was gutless on this issue. No Senator should have voted for that resolution, hell I don't even know if it was constitutionally valid.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Gandalf, didn't I mention that the GOP grossly distorts the truth? You've now seen it for yourself. My mentioning that the President was hammering Kerry for his supposed "flip-flops" in no way means that I agree that Kerry has actually done so, as you point out. It's obvious once you ignore the rhetoric and actually study what really happened, but the GOP doesn't want folks to think for themselves (and by extension, do their own homework). They want people to believe whatever they tell them. Which is one lie (a truth distorted is a lie) after another after another.

Few people will argue that getting rid of Hussein was a bad idea. But doing it when we did it and how we did it was the sort of mistake that historians will be discussing for decades, much as they discuss why Hitler failed to take Moscow and Stalingrad (which I cite as similar examples of gross failures in leadership from the top of a military command).

As for what I alluded to with regards to Bush lying to his own supporters, take a look a "no child left behind" (where he's *cut* funding, rather than expand it as he promised), and his imposition of tariffs on steel (quite a no-no for a person that purports to support free trade), just to name two obvious and egregious examples.

Finally, Bush & Co. have this absurd notion that they can spend whatever they want (so long as it's for the military and not for "social" programs) and that the cost (including interest) will magically take care of itself without the need for more taxes. These same hypocrites bashing Kerry for voting *against* tax increases (as unpatriotic since the money was for the military) in the next breath call Kerry a "tax and spend liberal". So far as I can see, since 1994 the GOP has controlled the Congress and the national debt has skyrocketed. Makes you wonder about the so-called "tax and spend liberals" when the conservatives spend way more than the liberals do. The GOP is the party of "smaller government", yet since they took over, we have *more* government agencies and regulations. The GOP's attacks against our Constitutional rights and freeedoms are appalling. (The only amendment they support is the 2nd. They abhor the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th, just to name a few.)

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Well its all propoganda anyway. People dont realize that propoganda rarely means "lies". It means telling your Version of the truth with your choice of words. Another word for "flip flop" might be "flexible", and the other end of that scale would be "inflexible" or "pig-headed in the face of later facts". The president is at the top with supreme court, congress, senate, a ton of advisors. Having one that does what he wants and end-runs around all of those doesnt strike me as preferable.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

My guess is Arryn is writing in Ross Perot at election time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Wrong, Zen. Perot is a demagogue of the worst sort. Plus I don't believe in throwing away my vote.

I favored McCain in the Last election before Bush's lies buried him in the primaries. That left me with no choice but to support Gore. I supported Wesley Clarke. Kerry was 3rd or 4th down on my list of viable Democratic opponents to Bush.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

I found that his positions were too complicated to connect. Dean and Edwards both had very simple, powerful, campaigns that I think would have translated well in a national forum. Further he was not really quick in the debates and I happen to like quickness ( no idea if it polls well ).

Who cares? he probably gave two elections to Clinton! The ends justify the means!

Well that seems a little like a cop-out. There were real concequences to that decision, expensive and deadly concequences. There has been OTOH no accountability. None, zero, zip. That's wrong, IMO.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

<font color="purple">I agree smoking is stupid...
People start smoking because of peer pressure and/or trying to rebel which is sad... then they keep smoking because they can't break their addiction despite the obvious bad health results and expenses for keeping the habit. </font>



[/quote] ...a fetus isn't a live human until its brain starts working.

[/quote]

<font color="purple"> The real question is when does the soul arrive... yet mankind doesn't know. Destroying the temple(body/organism) for where a soul may reside is definitely wrong. </font>

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Hi, NT. I was starting to wonder how long you could stay away from a discussion on religion and politics. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

People start smoking, and fail to stop, because they are weak-willed (as well as being stupid).

With regards to souls, and playing Devil's Advocate {nods to Murph}, it hasn't been proved that they exist. Isn't it sort of hard to demonstrate when something that may not even exist arrives? Oh, and if destroying the container for a soul is wrong, then what is your position on capital punishment? Self-defense? Or if we really want to have fun, how about the rulings of Sharia courts in Nigeria that two women are to be stoned to death for having unmarried sex? (BTW, the men these women admitted to having sex with, one of the women being *pregnant* by her companion, were acquitted due to "lack of evidence". Barbaric, simply barbaric.)

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

First of all I am an atheist. So I feel no particular need to try so supply you with a creationist argument. The point I attempted to make was that rational and highly logical people do any of a number of the things you seemed to consider contrary to logic. Take one of your examples, spousal abuse, while morally unsound, I fail to see how it can be either logically sound or unsound, valid or invalid without a great deal of very contrived reasoning. I think you misapply the term logic, and use it in a Star Trekkish Mr Spock fashion that gives it a wider application than what is warranted.

I also notice that while you demand proofs of those that you believe holds views different than yours, you yourself offer very little to back up your assertions. This I find somewhat amusing in light of your claim that "Believers have always resorted to shifting the burden of proof to those that disagree with them". Considering that it is a simple task to produce examples of seemingly highly logical people that have engaged in those activites you find logically unsound, it seems to me that the burden of proofs that these apparently logical people are in fact not so rests squarely on your shoulders.

I'm normally not a religous person. But if you are out there, save me superman.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Interesting. Just because Im wondering, are you a book-thumping fanatic for the other side? You talk about religion and beliefs and use the word "proof". Do you also use the word in quotes when you speak of the other side, or are the words technology and science as automatically comforting and unquestionable to you as their beliefs are to them?

People use to use the word "magic" to satisfactorily explain things they didnt understand but give them the peace of mind that things would continue working because others understood it. Now the word is "technology" and is used by the same level of public for the same reasons.

Re: OT: Superman and Stemcells
 

Gandalf, are you arguing for Newton's blind watchmaker? God wound up the world and set it going according to physical laws?
I'm not trying to argue (yet http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif ), but just trying to understand what you're saying.