Members telephant Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by STEEL KAGE I agree but that doesnt change the fact that its still Alive... I know, just a joke is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by Loghead Echoes and his people (yes, a generalization) are into control. They want to control what others do with their own bodies, and they want to control the morality of others. my people? ...I thought they all drank the kool-aid? hmmm, I shall create another group of 'my people' and we shall have a colony of 'body controllers' so we can subjugate the world and abuse women's rights...and control 'other' moral things to be determined later. Good idea! Thanks! I'll get right to work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted December 19, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes didn't you mention not conflating the issue? You seriously have no concept of reason. I didn't conflate the issue -- I used an example to point out that your idea of the problems with market mentality when applied to government is a blanket issue and using it tactically/selectively with ulterior motives is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by rememberduane You seriously have no concept of reason. I didn't conflate the issue -- I used an example to point out that your idea of the problems with market mentality when applied to government is a blanket issue and using it tactically/selectively with ulterior motives is wrong. oh... I get it! when 'you' conflate the issue it is 'conceptual reasoning'...and when I use conceptual reasoning it is 'conflation' GOTCHA! ...my bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members paulintheuk Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 As a man I feel I have no right to tell a woman whether she can have an abortion, it's a personal choice and not one I think any woman takes lightly. I also totally agree with stem cell research, science must move forward and the possibility of repairing spinal damage alone I believe negates any arguments over what is afterall a waste product. If you disagree may I suggest 2 things: - If you or a loved one were crippled in a car crash tomorrow, I bet your perspectives on research would change rapidly. So don't be a hypocrite. - If you think science should stop then may I suggest you go back to living in a dark cave and eating your food raw Just IMHO of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted December 19, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes oh... I get it! when 'you' conflate the issue it is 'conceptual reasoning'...and when I use conceptual reasoning it is 'conflation' GOTCHA! ...my bad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by paulintheuk As a man I feel I have no right to tell a woman whether she can have an abortion, it's a personal choice and not one I think any woman takes lightly. I also totally agree with stem cell research, science must move forward and the possibility of repairing spinal damage alone I believe negates any arguments over what is afterall a waste product. If you disagree may I suggest 2 things: - If you or a loved one were crippled in a car crash tomorrow, I bet your perspectives on research would change rapidly. So don't be a hypocrite. - If you think science should stop then may I suggest you go back to living in a dark cave and eating your food raw Just IMHO of course science should only 'stop' or, better, have a 'reflection toward accountability' when it is dealing with issues that transcend it's legal/moral/ethical boundaries. I mean, Dr. Frankenstein ran into the same troublesome issues back in his day.. ...science should be accountable to the society in which it 'serves' and not some 'exciting and new venture' for the sake of discovery. look to the 'slippery slope' (where science usually slips to, ie: nuclear energy becomes Atom bomb etc..) and the future. As a 'civilized' society we must step slowly and most carefully here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by rememberduane oh, come now, R-Duanne...you know you love me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members silverfacechamp Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes science should only 'stop' or, better, have a 'reflection toward accountability' when it is dealing with issues that transcend it's legal/moral/ethical boundaries. In theory, yes. However, the problem is that in today's globalized society, there really isn't anything with which science is involved that doesn't go against the ethics and beliefs of somebody somewhere. One would hope that accountability to one's self would be enough, although in many cases it is not. Nuclear energy is an interesting analogy. However, nuclear technology was developed with the expressed intent to use it as a weapon, and as a side benefit its a pretty good source of electricity. I don't think the stem cell issue is similar. Stem cell research is being developed with the expressed intent of using it for medicinal research and therapies, with the side issue being it may be perverted into something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members paulintheuk Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes science should only 'stop' or, better, have a 'reflection toward accountability' when it is dealing with issues that transcend it's legal/moral/ethical boundaries. I mean, Dr. Frankenstein ran into the same troublesome issues back in his day.. ...science should be accountable to the society in which it 'serves' and not some 'exciting and new venture' for the sake of discovery. look to the 'slippery slope' (where science usually slips to, ie: nuclear energy becomes Atom bomb etc..) and the future. As a 'civilized' society we must step slowly and most carefully here. +1 I never meant to sound as if science shouldn't have responsibilities or be held responsible for its actions... Ethics must be maintained. However I don't think ethics is really the issue, it is just personal prejudices and ill-informed pre-conceptions. Normally this can be attributable to religion in some bizarre way... Ie they claim that the bible is anti-abortion, however the bible also fails to mention the automobile... Does that make every car owner damned in perpetuity? One sentence answer... People are weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted December 19, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes science should only 'stop' or, better, have a 'reflection toward accountability' when it is dealing with issues that transcend it's legal/moral/ethical boundaries. I mean, Dr. Frankenstein ran into the same troublesome issues back in his day.. ...science should be accountable to the society in which it 'serves' and not some 'exciting and new venture' for the sake of discovery. look to the 'slippery slope' (where science usually slips to, ie: nuclear energy becomes Atom bomb etc..) and the future. As a 'civilized' society we must step slowly and most carefully here. I 100% agree that we must step carefully. Lies, misinformation, and religious rhetoric only worsen the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Echoes Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by rememberduane I 100% agree that we must step carefully. Lies, misinformation, and secular or religious rhetoric only worsen the issue. there.... I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Loghead Posted December 19, 2006 Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes science should only 'stop' or, better, have a 'reflection toward accountability' when it is dealing with issues that transcend it's legal/moral/ethical boundaries. I mean, Dr. Frankenstein ran into the same troublesome issues back in his day.. ...science should be accountable to the society in which it 'serves' and not some 'exciting and new venture' for the sake of discovery. look to the 'slippery slope' (where science usually slips to, ie: nuclear energy becomes Atom bomb etc..) and the future. As a 'civilized' society we must step slowly and most carefully here. Frankenstein is a great novel written by a woman about a man who thinks that he can atone the guilt he feels for the death of mother by giving birth to immortality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted December 19, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 19, 2006 Originally posted by Echoes there.... I agree Wrong. Religious attempts at dictating a morality are the problem. Not secular discussions of societal moral memes and pan-religious acceptance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rememberduane Posted December 20, 2006 Author Members Share Posted December 20, 2006 Worth bumping? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Thri11_H0use Posted December 20, 2006 Members Share Posted December 20, 2006 Originally posted by rememberduane Worth bumping? meh probably not. But it could still have entertaining value left in it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.