OT: Superman and Stemcells

[Arryn]

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.)

[Gandalf Parker]

Huzurdaddi said:
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.

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.

[Zen]

My guess is Arryn is writing in Ross Perot at election time.

[Arryn]

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.

[Huzurdaddi]

I supported Wesley Clarke.

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 ).

Perot is a demagogue of the worst sort.

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

Well its all propoganda anyway.

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.

[NTJedi]

Arryn said:

Further proof of just how stupid smoking is.

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.



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

[/quote]

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.

[Arryn]

Hi, NT. I was starting to wonder how long you could stay away from a discussion on religion and politics.

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.)

[johan osterman]

Arryn said:
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.

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.

[Gandalf Parker]

Arryn said:
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.

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.

[Evil Dave]

Gandalf Parker said:

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.

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 ), but just trying to understand what you're saying.