[quote]The White House on Friday condemned research in South Korea for producing human embryros through cloning and said President Bush would veto any legislation that loosens federal restrictions in the United States on embryonic stem cell research. White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy said...[/quote]

This quote, taken from MSN news, is extemely disturbing to me.

I cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would allow a primitive way of understanding the universe to hinder the advancement of the entire species.

If anything, they should pass a bill requiring human embrio research. Imagine a day when everyone is free of genetic disorders and imperfections.

No human has a perfect DNA structure. There are defects and mutations that cause disadvantages.

What are your guys views on human embrio cloning, and allowing primative ideas to hinder the advancement of our species? The ultimate fate of our species, although we may not realize it yet, is to genetically enhance ourselves to the point where we no longer have to worry about disease and genetic disorders.

Oh, and I know this is probably going to cause trouble with the republican rednecks on here but it would be nice if we got INTELLIGENT and serious posts and not flaming.

EDIT: Renamed "renecks" to "republican rednecks" - Thanks Newby

[quote author=Deception link=topic=11652.msg113164#msg113164 date=1116629520]
Oh, and I know this is probably going to cause trouble with the rednecks on here but it would be nice if we got INTELLIGENT and serious posts and not flaming.
[/quote]

I know this is going to cause trouble but it would be nice if you called us "rednecks" "republicans" or not even mention us at all.

[quote]I know this is going to cause trouble but it would be nice if you called us "rednecks" "republicans" or not even mention us at all.[/quote]

Fixed.

Starting a thread that is insulting a great number of people isn't a great contribution either.
============

I don't belive in cloning humans.  I think it is alright to clone animals though.  I would not like to walk down the street and see two of the same people.  Twins freak me out too.  Being differences and having diseases are all part of life.  Why alter whats working?  Make it better?  I think it is a good idea to make medicans to help people, but not to make everyone perfect, perfect is bad, perfect isn't life.

[quote author=Blaze link=topic=11652.msg113177#msg113177 date=1116631916]
Starting a thread that is insulting a great number of people isn't a great contribution either.
============

I don't belive in cloning humans.  I think it is alright to clone animals though.  I would not like to walk down the street and see two of the same people.  Twins freak me out too.  Being differences and having diseases are all part of life.  Why alter whats working?
[/quote]

That's the problem. It isn't working. Imagine people living to 200. Someone that old would have such great knowledge. Diseases may be a natural part of life, but that doesn't mean we wouldn't be better off without them. That kind of thinking leads me to believe that you would rather die from a disease than be cured. Am I wrong?

No, I would rather die when I am < 100 then 200.  Living forever seems like the worse thing that could ever happen IMHO.

I think I'd get bored if I lived to 200.

Since we're rednecks, I guess you are a poor, tree-hugging, au natural, pot smoking hippy living off of the government who is probably uneducated and doesn't vote anyway and has no idea how to spend money. Yay for generilizations!

--

I'm against human cloning. I think it'd be great if the USA or some other trusted country was able to fully clone a human like...once - just for educational reasons. However, if this stuff got into the wrong hands it'd be catastrophic.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11652.msg113184#msg113184 date=1116633500]
I think I'd get bored if I lived to 200.

Since we're rednecks, I guess you are a poor, tree-hugging, au natural, pot smoking hippy living off of the government who is probably uneducated and doesn't vote anyway and has no idea how to spend money. Yay for generilizations!

[/quote]

Poor, no. I couldn't care less about trees. We have more than enough of them. They make good building materials. All natural? Nope. It's not natural to clone humans and do genetic engineering. I am for both, to benifit humanity. Who gives a fuck about Earth when we can just taraform Mars? :P

[quote]
I'm against human cloning. I think it'd be great if the USA or some other trusted country was able to fully clone a human like...once - just for educational reasons. However, if this stuff got into the wrong hands it'd be catastrophic.
[/quote]

Why would cloning people be catastrophic? I think you've seen Attack of the Clones too many times. Cloning people and genetically engineering them to be better, faster, stronger and more intelligent than natural humans would benefit our species and ensure our survival.

Then where would there be a difference in us? What about those that were god-born children, they'd be outcasted. Have you seen Gattaca? Yeah.

And no, if some terrorist or other evil doer started cloning his people that would not be good.

[quote author=Deception link=topic=11652.msg113185#msg113185 date=1116634659]
Poor, no. I couldn't care less about trees. We have more than enough of them. They make good building materials. All natural? Nope. It's not natural to clone humans and do genetic engineering. I am for both, to benifit humanity. Who gives a fuck about Earth when we can just taraform Mars? :P
[/quote]

I wasn't attacking you, in case you think I was. You were calling Republicans rednecks, so I figured I'd shout off a few liberal sterotypes. (Love how you didn't disagree with the whole not being able to spend money properly part. ;))

It was the same as you using 'redneck' - I'm a Republican, but in no way a redneck - they're white trash. And, according to Fuali's White Trash Test I'm only 14% white trash.

[quote]I am 14% White Trash.

[img]http://www.fuali.com/pix/117/1.gif[/img]

I, my friend, have class. I am so not white trash. . I am more than likely Democrat, and my place is neat, and there is a good chance I may never drink wine from a box.[/quote]

Don't you just love how politically incorrect sterotypes are? (Though, I assume mine were a bit more accurate overall.)

Since when does stem cell research have anything to do with cloning?

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11652.msg113184#msg113184 date=1116633500]
I think I'd get bored if I lived to 200.

Since we're rednecks, I guess you are a poor, tree-hugging, au natural, pot smoking hippy living off of the government who is probably uneducated and doesn't vote anyway and has no idea how to spend money. Yay for generilizations!

[/quote]

Rednecks are educated?  Actually, hippies are traditionally quite educated: many came from movements in Berkeley.


[quote author=Deception link=topic=11652.msg113185#msg113185 date=1116634659]
Poor, no. I couldn't care less about trees. We have more than enough of them. They make good building materials. All natural? Nope. It's not natural to clone humans and do genetic engineering. I am for both, to benifit humanity. Who gives a fuck about Earth when we can just taraform Mars? :P

Why would cloning people be catastrophic? I think you've seen Attack of the Clones too many times. Cloning people and genetically engineering them to be better, faster, stronger and more intelligent than natural humans would benefit our species and ensure our survival.
[/quote]

This is the kind of attitude that takes all crediblity away from a serious point.



This topic should perhaps be in the politics forum.  There are philosophical considerations of the effect politics has on science (and other things), but this has become more of a shit throwing competition.

Actually, you know what, cloning and genetically engineering is a marvelous idea. We'll breed a race of super-humans that will all have genetically identical ("perfect") DNA that will, as a side effect, create a race of super-humans that all have weaknesses to the same diseases. In addition, it's likely that such super-humans will speed up the natural selection of bacteria and virii, causing a race of super-diseases to compete with the super-humans, which will eventually end up killing everyone else. The human race will no longer be able to survive without genetic engineering to create immunities to these diseases. Natural-born humans will be unable to survive in the world. Eventually, humanity will confront a massive crisis, which will hinder genetic engineering. If genetic engineering fails, the human race will perish.

What a fantastic idea!

By the way, great way to start off asking for "intelligent" and "serious" posts with no flaming, whilst you disregard the views of "republican rednecks". I could call you a tree-hugging hippy, but instead I'll call you a rich northern elitist using the future of humanity as a political football to further your own, personal, goals of spreading the gospel of what Mommy, Daddy, and Greenday have taught you. How old are you anyway, 13?

[quote author=Rule link=topic=11652.msg113224#msg113224 date=1116656009]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11652.msg113184#msg113184 date=1116633500]
I think I'd get bored if I lived to 200.

Since we're rednecks, I guess you are a poor, tree-hugging, au natural, pot smoking hippy living off of the government who is probably uneducated and doesn't vote anyway and has no idea how to spend money. Yay for generilizations!

[/quote]

Rednecks are educated? Actually, hippies are traditionally quite educated: many came from movements in Berkeley.
[/quote]

No, I wasn't saying that. It's common knowledge that Democrats typically aren't college graduates and possibly not even high school graduates. That would make sense, too, as they'd want to be Democrats to push for more government hand outs to help them out since they most likely didn't get a decent job.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11652.msg113188#msg113188 date=1116636614]
Then where would there be a difference in us? What about those that were god-born children, they'd be outcasted. Have you seen Gattaca? Yeah.
[/quote]

If they're inferior, let them be outcast. There are already outcasts in the world today, for stupid reasons. If you can actually produce a superior race, go ahead.


[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11652.msg113188#msg113188 date=1116636614]
And no, if some terrorist or other evil doer started cloning his people that would not be good.
[/quote]

Relevance? Why would him creating clones be any worse than what we have now, fundamentalists breeding all over the world?

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=11652.msg113246#msg113246 date=1116683198]
Actually, you know what, cloning and genetically engineering is a marvelous idea. We'll breed a race of super-humans that will all have genetically identical ("perfect") DNA that will, as a side effect, create a race of super-humans that all have weaknesses to the same diseases. In addition, it's likely that such super-humans will speed up the natural selection of bacteria and virii, causing a race of super-diseases to compete with the super-humans, which will eventually end up killing everyone else.
[/quote]

Such super-humans would probably cause natural selection among bacteria and virii, but if anything they'll create more bacteria and virii that attack that one weakness common to the clones.

Americans are already letting natural selection create super-diseases. They allow antibiotic supplements to be fed to livestock, exposing bacteria to low doses of the things that normally kills them. Antibiotic resistance is going to be a huge problem in the future.


[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=11652.msg113246#msg113246 date=1116683198]
Natural-born humans will be unable to survive in the world.
[/quote]

Only the natural-born will survive the mutant virus that attacks the weakness of the clones ;)

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=11652.msg113246#msg113246 date=1116683198]
Actually, you know what, cloning and genetically engineering is a marvelous idea. We'll breed a race of super-humans that will all have genetically identical ("perfect") DNA that will, as a side effect, create a race of super-humans that all have weaknesses to the same diseases. In addition, it's likely that such super-humans will speed up the natural selection of bacteria and virii, causing a race of super-diseases to compete with the super-humans, which will eventually end up killing everyone else. The human race will no longer be able to survive without genetic engineering to create immunities to these diseases. Natural-born humans will be unable to survive in the world. Eventually, humanity will confront a massive crisis, which will hinder genetic engineering. If genetic engineering fails, the human race will perish.
[/quote]

I agree; without genetic variation in a species, one form of a virus could have the potential of killing us all.

Wow, this sounds so much mroe advanced than my redneck idears...I just wanted to fucking kill all the retards!



Cloning is wrong because then people aren't unique & then people have no value & then life becomes pointless.



You are an idiot & just like to get everyone all excited.

Back on track: Bush is against stem cell research because it involves cloning human embrios to extract the stem cells, which he thinks he killing a baby or something.

[quote author=Deception link=topic=11652.msg113483#msg113483 date=1116818963]
Back on track: Bush is against stem cell research because it involves cloning human embrios to extract the stem cells, which he thinks he killing a baby or something.
[/quote]

Deception, your second thread that I have read on this forum is created in very similar tone to the first one: a troll. This time I'm going to play along, though, because I like political discussions.

George W. Bush is clearly not a stupid man. He has degrees from Harvard and Yale, and he has no problem running the country, even in wartime. The reason you perceive him as stupid is because of his speaking style:

1. He speaks very directly. To me this is not a trait of stupidity, but of logic. Where John Kerry would spout a paragraph of nuanced bullshit, Bush can sum his viewpoint up in a concise sentence or two. The AP test graders would love it.

2. He has made mistakes in his speech in the past. This is hardly a measure of stupidity. Plenty of people who have no public speaking skills whatsoever are incredibly intelligent; for example your stereotypical engineer. To top it all off, his verbal mistakes have been much fewer and further between since 9/11.

Next, I'm hardly a redneck. I was born, raised and currently reside in one of the nation's most liberal cities, Madison, Wisconsin. In fact, the UW here controls some of the last remaining embryonic stem cell lines. Your stereotyping Republicans as rednecks is just as stupid as Hismajesty's stereotyping liberals as smelly tree-hugging hippies. I know some very intelligent liberals and I know some very stupid explosive ones. The stupid ones are more fun to debate, and their attitudes towards Bush often mirror yours. If you can't make your case without making fun of the person you're debating against, then you have no case.

Now, let me try to assuage your tearful, bleeding heart.

[quote]I cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would allow a primitive way of understanding the universe to hinder the advancement of the entire species.[/quote]

I don't understand how embryonic stem-cell research is the key to the advancement of the species. But, more importantly, what exactly IS the "advancement of the species" ? From what I understand (and I am no expert in the subject) human embryonic stem cells are not the only type of stem cells that can be used to perform genetic research. They are, however, the only type that the Bush administration objects to, and they object on their belief that a fetus is a child. To believe that this type of research is the single key to the "advancement of the species" is ludicrous.

The debate raging around that type of research comes down to the basic argument as to whether life begins at birth or at conception. Typical conservatives believe it begins at conception, while typical liberals believe it begins at birth. If it begins at conception, a human embryo is a child and therefore you are taking a life. If it begins at birth, the embryo is no more than a piece of medical waste.

So, Pot, meet Kettle: if you truly want intelligent posts and good responses from the very intelligent constituents of this forum, I would suggest not beginning your threads by calling a good chunk of them stupid rednecks, and spinning the question like a front page story in the New York Times. Intelligent thread openers will receive intelligent responses, especially on this forum.

Deception. The concept of using cloning as a helper to living humans involves killing other human life forms. Cloning uses a living human embyro, and kills it (for a "good cause", which would involve helping another). This is much like abortion in a way. Abortion is the process of killing a living human organism. So is cloning. Many scientists and experts however don't want to believe this and/or have different opinions of if they embyro is really alive or not. Also, you can clone 10 humans and none of them may look alike. There DNA would be %100 identical, but their outside appearance would be different (there is a chance that they can resemble or become identical).

[quote author=Deception link=topic=11652.msg113483#msg113483 date=1116818963]
Back on track: Bush is against stem cell research because it involves cloning human embrios to extract the stem cells, which he thinks he killing a baby or something.
[/quote]

[me="hismajesty[yL]"]would like to note that Bush was the first president to ever use government funds to support stem cell research[/me]

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11652.msg113522#msg113522 date=1116880955]
[quote author=Deception link=topic=11652.msg113483#msg113483 date=1116818963]
Back on track: Bush is against stem cell research because it involves cloning human embrios to extract the stem cells, which he thinks he killing a baby or something.
[/quote]

[me="hismajesty[yL]"]would like to note that Bush was the first president to ever use government funds to support stem cell research[/me]
[/quote]
So?

So?...Why do you ask/say that?

hismajesty is countering Deception's nonsensical posts with truths, WHOO for truths!

I don't know if anyone said this yet, because I only read the first post (Sorry!), but by dismantling an embryo (sp?) you're killing somebody. Think about how glad you should be that you weren't one of them.

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11652.msg113524#msg113524 date=1116882056]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11652.msg113522#msg113522 date=1116880955]
[quote author=Deception link=topic=11652.msg113483#msg113483 date=1116818963]
Back on track: Bush is against stem cell research because it involves cloning human embrios to extract the stem cells, which he thinks he killing a baby or something.
[/quote]

[me="hismajesty[yL]"]would like to note that Bush was the first president to ever use government funds to support stem cell research[/me]
[/quote]
So?
[/quote]

Bush obviously beleives that there is at least some future in stem cell research and is thus allowing at least some government funding to go to it - even though it's against his religion and the viewpoints of his party.

[quote author=Stealth link=topic=11652.msg113515#msg113515 date=1116876219]
1. He speaks very directly. To me this is not a trait of stupidity, but of logic. Where John Kerry would spout a paragraph of nuanced bullshit, Bush can sum his viewpoint up in a concise sentence or two. The AP test graders would love it.

2. He has made mistakes in his speech in the past. This is hardly a measure of stupidity. Plenty of people who have no public speaking skills whatsoever are incredibly intelligent; for example your stereotypical engineer. To top it all off, his verbal mistakes have been much fewer and further between since 9/11.
[/quote]

Err.... no. Sorry. You're talking about his speeches, and not about him. When he's not prepared by his staff, he comes off like an idiot. Don't you remember him standing at a conference with nothing to say for several minutes after being asked by a reporter what his biggest mistake was?

The guy is not analytical or logical, so far as I can see. I've never seen any anything indicative of that.

You've got it backwards Arta. I remember watching a news report talking about his interview with Matt Lauer - they were saying how Bush is much better at speaking when he's just talking normally amongst people, when he's not reciting something pre-written, but when he does it himself. It's well known that Bush suffers from dyslexia, so obviously reading a speech is not something that he's going to be strong at.

His performance in the latter two debates was quite good. These were most certainly not speechwritten.

I don't know what happened in the first debate, though. That was hideous.

True enough, he was ok in the latter debates. You can still be prepared for a debate though - they may not know the actual questions, but they do know what topics are likely to be raised, and they can prepare for that. I think the first debate is more indicative of his intellect, but then again, I would :)

This is why I would like to see actual debate in debates, and not just the candidates stating their opinions. The candidates should argue!

[quote author=Stealth link=topic=11652.msg113515#msg113515 date=1116876219]
[quote author=Deception link=topic=11652.msg113483#msg113483 date=1116818963]
Back on track: Bush is against stem cell research because it involves cloning human embrios to extract the stem cells, which he thinks he killing a baby or something.
[/quote]

Deception, your second thread that I have read on this forum is created in very similar tone to the first one: a troll. This time I'm going to play along, though, because I like political discussions.

George W. Bush is clearly not a stupid man. He has degrees from Harvard and Yale, and he has no problem running the country, even in wartime. The reason you perceive him as stupid is because of his speaking style:

1. He speaks very directly. To me this is not a trait of stupidity, but of logic. Where John Kerry would spout a paragraph of nuanced bullshit, Bush can sum his viewpoint up in a concise sentence or two. The AP test graders would love it.

2. He has made mistakes in his speech in the past. This is hardly a measure of stupidity. Plenty of people who have no public speaking skills whatsoever are incredibly intelligent; for example your stereotypical engineer. To top it all off, his verbal mistakes have been much fewer and further between since 9/11.

Next, I'm hardly a redneck. I was born, raised and currently reside in one of the nation's most liberal cities, Madison, Wisconsin. In fact, the UW here controls some of the last remaining embryonic stem cell lines. Your stereotyping Republicans as rednecks is just as stupid as Hismajesty's stereotyping liberals as smelly tree-hugging hippies. I know some very intelligent liberals and I know some very stupid explosive ones. The stupid ones are more fun to debate, and their attitudes towards Bush often mirror yours. If you can't make your case without making fun of the person you're debating against, then you have no case.

Now, let me try to assuage your tearful, bleeding heart.

[quote]I cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would allow a primitive way of understanding the universe to hinder the advancement of the entire species.[/quote]

I don't understand how embryonic stem-cell research is the key to the advancement of the species. But, more importantly, what exactly IS the "advancement of the species" ? From what I understand (and I am no expert in the subject) human embryonic stem cells are not the only type of stem cells that can be used to perform genetic research. They are, however, the only type that the Bush administration objects to, and they object on their belief that a fetus is a child. To believe that this type of research is the single key to the "advancement of the species" is ludicrous.

The debate raging around that type of research comes down to the basic argument as to whether life begins at birth or at conception. Typical conservatives believe it begins at conception, while typical liberals believe it begins at birth. If it begins at conception, a human embryo is a child and therefore you are taking a life. If it begins at birth, the embryo is no more than a piece of medical waste.

So, Pot, meet Kettle: if you truly want intelligent posts and good responses from the very intelligent constituents of this forum, I would suggest not beginning your threads by calling a good chunk of them stupid rednecks, and spinning the question like a front page story in the New York Times. Intelligent thread openers will receive intelligent responses, especially on this forum.
[/quote]

Without reading most of your post, I must say you got the "redneck republicans" phrase out of context. If you notice, I had it just as redneck (which could mean anyone, republican or otherwise) and then some stupid kid asked me to call rednecks republicans. So I did.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11652.msg113528#msg113528 date=1116883548]
[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11652.msg113524#msg113524 date=1116882056]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11652.msg113522#msg113522 date=1116880955]
[quote author=Deception link=topic=11652.msg113483#msg113483 date=1116818963]
Back on track: Bush is against stem cell research because it involves cloning human embrios to extract the stem cells, which he thinks he killing a baby or something.
[/quote]

Bush doesn't believe anything by his religion. He's too stupid to make choices like that on his own. His advisers run the country. He is only a figurehead.

[me="hismajesty[yL]"]would like to note that Bush was the first president to ever use government funds to support stem cell research[/me]
[/quote]
So?
[/quote]

Bush obviously beleives that there is at least some future in stem cell research and is thus allowing at least some government funding to go to it - even though it's against his religion and the viewpoints of his party.
[/quote]

Newby never said to combine the words, he said to replace the word "redneck" with the world "Republican."

You didn't read his post? What a great way to initiate an intelligent debate. Face it, all you can do it spit off common arguments that have been pounded into your brain by your party, you then continue to pick a fight with the first person with an opposite viewpoint and then use your little knowledge and witty catch phrases to attempt to prove a point. You'll then get angry when you realize you lose and stoop to petty nit picking. You own.

Edit:

Do you even know what religion Bush is (without looking up.)

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11652.msg113656#msg113656 date=1116983329]
Newby never said to combine the words, he said to replace the word "redneck" with the world "Republican."

You didn't read his post? What a great way to initiate an intelligent debate. Face it, all you can do it spit off common arguments that have been pounded into your brain by your party, you then continue to pick a fight with the first person with an opposite viewpoint and then use your little knowledge and witty catch phrases to attempt to prove a point. You'll then get angry when you realize you lose and stoop to petty nit picking. You own.

Edit:

Do you even know what religion Bush is (without looking up.)

[/quote]

No, Newby asked me to call you rednecks republicans. So I identified you as such:

[quote]I know this is going to cause trouble but it would be nice if you called us "rednecks" "republicans" or not even mention us at all.[/quote]

For the record, I am not a democrat or a republican. I am also not liberal, although I share a few common beliefs with the liberals.

I am also not a Christian like Mr. Bush. If you're asking me what denomination he is, it doesn't matter. Any Christian still has a set view on how things in the universe happen, and I find it to be the most ignorant and pathetic outlook on life I could possibly think of.  I don't care if we kill a few thousand human embrios. They aren't babies. They don't have brains yet, or feelings, or anything you could associate with a baby.

Just because it has the potential to become a human does not mean it is one yet.

I have tried to step into this "debate" by splitting off the crap once already.  Further digression from the subject and attacking of each other will get the topic locked.

Thank you for your time.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=11652.msg113663#msg113663 date=1116985412]
I have tried to step into this "debate" by splitting off the crap once already.  Further digression from the subject and attacking of each other will get the topic locked.

Thank you for your time.
[/quote]

I still don't see what you are talking about. Could you please tell me why you locked the other thread of mine?

[quote author=Deception link=topic=11652.msg113654#msg113654 date=1116983024]
Without reading most of your post
[/quote]

Clearly you have no interest in anything other than making inflammatory threads:

[quote author=Deception]it would be nice if we got INTELLIGENT and serious posts[/quote]

How can you have an intelligent discussion without listening to what the other side is saying?

[quote]Any Christian still has a set view on how things in the universe happen, and I find it to be the most ignorant and pathetic outlook on life I could possibly think of.[/quote]

This is hardly an intelligent argument, my friend. There are countless flavors of Christianity. My girlfriend is part of the United Methodist Church, which is very progressive -- for example, their pastor is a woman. Baptist preachers can marry, Catholic priests cannot. The different branches of Christianity at times share very little in common, yet you generalize them and then have the gall to call them "ignorant and pathetic" -- for some reason it strikes me that the 1-odd billion Christians in the world are hardly ignorant and pathetic, much less so when you include the followers of Islam which also includes extreme traditional values (women in burqas, stoning people to death for adultery) that by your standards would be well beyond "ignorant and pathetic".

Your other thread was disposed of because it was not only a troll but it was one without any debatable value whatsoever -- it was just a direct personal attack on George W. Bush and thus a total waste of time.

In conclusion, if you want to have an intelligent conversation, you can probably start by reading the words your opponents are typing.

I move we either ignore Deception or ask for his banishment.

He doesn't try to post logically, he doesn't even read other posts that he is replying to.

[quote]No, Newby asked me to call you rednecks republicans. So I identified you as such:[/quote]

Re:
[quote]I know this is going to cause trouble but it would be nice if you called us "rednecks" "republicans" or not even mention us at all.[/quote]

notice the two sets of quotes? He forgot a comma, but since you're so intelligent and in such favor of intelligent debate, surely you wouldn't be stumped by that.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11652.msg113701#msg113701 date=1117017158]
Re:
[quote]I know this is going to cause trouble but it would be nice if you called us "rednecks" "republicans" or not even mention us at all.[/quote]

notice the two sets of quotes? He forgot a comma, but since you're so intelligent and in such favor of intelligent debate, surely you wouldn't be stumped by that.
[/quote]

Umm, if you put a comma between "rednecks" and "republicans" it means you can call them either rednecks or republicans, whichever you like...

-- call us 'rednecks', 'republicans' or don't even mention us at all

It is fine without the comma, correct?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=11652.msg113920#msg113920 date=1117218235]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11652.msg113701#msg113701 date=1117017158]
Re:
[quote]I know this is going to cause trouble but it would be nice if you called us "rednecks" "republicans" or not even mention us at all.[/quote]

notice the two sets of quotes? He forgot a comma, but since you're so intelligent and in such favor of intelligent debate, surely you wouldn't be stumped by that.
[/quote]

Umm, if you put a comma between "rednecks" and "republicans" it means you can call them either rednecks or republicans, whichever you like...

-- call us 'rednecks', 'republicans' or don't even mention us at all
[/quote]

Ah, yes. I see now, it was obviously just fully Deceptions error and not at all Newby's.

Cloning people would lead scientists to make people that are far stronger, faster, more intelligent, and more resistant than others of the human race. That will lead to jealousy, and perhaps war. Humans are, by nature, flawed, and it is not our right to change that.

I find it funny how most liberals would rather hiss & screech about how Bush is ruining the world than actually look at a particular problem from the inside out and attempt to do something to correct said problem.

People like Howard Dean are the perfect example of this.

The Democratic Party has become so hideously leftist that it has almost completely alienated the American voter.  It will be interesting to see what the Democrats do to repair the damage that has been done to their relationship with the American voter over the past several years.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11652.msg113327#msg113327 date=1116745556]
Cloning is wrong because then people aren't unique & then people have no value & then life becomes pointless.
[/quote]

Life is already pointless, but apart from that, would you say twins have no value?

[quote author=Yegg link=topic=11652.msg113518#msg113518 date=1116878229]
Cloning uses a living human embyro, and kills it (for a "good cause", which would involve helping another). This is much like abortion in a way. Abortion is the process of killing a living human organism. So is cloning. Many scientists and experts however don't want to believe this and/or have different opinions of if they embyro is really alive or not.
[/quote]

Ah, I don't think anyone would say the embryo isn't alive. We can't let it being alive stop us from using it in the best way possible though. We raise cattle, and kill it to eat. Cattle is alive as well. We also grow corn, wheat and even tomatoes. Those are all alive, and we cut them down and eat them. And we cut down trees and burn them.

You will probably want to refine "alive" into something else... Perhaps "intelligent life form"? Perhaps "cute life form"? (considering westerners don't like to kill cats and dogs for food)

Twins are not clones.  Twins are natural phenomenons of life.  Cloning is done by man & not a phenomenon at all.  Also, twins aren't exactly the same

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11652.msg116064#msg116064 date=1118946621]
Twins are not clones.  Twins are natural phenomenons of life.  Cloning is done by man & not a phenomenon at all.  Also, twins aren't exactly the same
[/quote]

There are two sorts of twins. Identical twins are clones. The cloning is done at the earliest possible stage. Twins are created by humans, just like clones. Twins are as much the same as clones are. Of course, clones aren't exactly the same.

Isn't the genetic make up of twin vs twin different than clone vs realperson?


I guess I should be clearerClones are forced by human beings, twins are involuntarily created.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=11652.msg116110#msg116110 date=1118959164]
Isn't the genetic make up of twin vs twin different than clone vs realperson?

I guess I should be clearerClones are forced by human beings, twins are involuntarily created.
[/quote]

No, for identical twins, the genetical make up is the same. Just as between a clone and original (or other clone). People say clones have no parents, that they're the result of combining dna from only one person, but essentially a clone's genetical parents are the parents of the human that you are cloning.

But yes, you're right in clones being forced by humans and twins mostly being involuntarily created. There is bound to be things that help induce creation of twins though. Maybe eating some particular drug could cause every woman to bear twins. Would that be cloning? Would they be worthlesser than regular twins? :)

I think what draws the line for cloning purposes is sentient species. Cloning humans (and other self aware species) is morally wrong, considering that they did not choose to be, or choose not to be something like that. You have to draw the line somewhere.

[quote]Cloning humans (and other self aware species) is morally wrong, considering that they did not choose to be, or choose not to be something like that.[/quote]

Why?  If I chose to have myself cloned, and had somebody do it, how would that be morally wrong?  That was my choice.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=11652.msg117518#msg117518 date=1119745840]
I think what draws the line for cloning purposes is sentient species. Cloning humans (and other self aware species) is morally wrong, considering that they did not choose to be, or choose not to be something like that. You have to draw the line somewhere.
[/quote]

How is this different than having children the way most people do?  Your children didn't choose to have you as a parent?  Your children didn't choose to have your ethnic background.  Your children didn't choose to have a genetic disease you might have. 

Should we not have children because we are making these "choices" for them? 

Cloning isn't natural, that is the point

You may choose to have yourself cloned, but the offspring did not choose to be a copy of you. Every human being should have the ability to choose what it wishes to do, and what it is to be. The fact that it is a copy of you brings up a lot of moral issues and possibly trauma for the clone.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=11652.msg117825#msg117825 date=1119924220]
You may choose to have yourself cloned, but the offspring did not choose to be a copy of you. Every human being should have the ability to choose what it wishes to do, and what it is to be. The fact that it is a copy of you brings up a lot of moral issues and possibly trauma for the clone.
[/quote]

The clone is as much a copy as a twin. If being a copy is really bad, abortion should be recommended whenever twins are discovered.

When it comes to choosing, I agree with Rule: No child gets to choose its parents.

Natural 'cloning' is a phenominon of nature, manual cloning makes it infinitely less special because the out come is predetermined

Clones are not twins, you are not the same age as the creation. There's also the moral issue of creating clones especially for use in replacing body parts.

[quote author=Topaz link=topic=11652.msg117902#msg117902 date=1119979208]
Clones are not twins, you are not the same age as the creation. There's also the moral issue of creating clones especially for use in replacing body parts.
[/quote]

Clones unlike twins don't have to be the same age, yes. I don't see how it makes a significant difference though.

Creating clones for use in replacing body parts... Well, one good way would be to clone only the required body parts. To learn how to do that, we need to do more research on cloning :)

Would a clone have different finger prints from the human being cloned? Identical twins don't have identical fingerprints.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=11652.msg118109#msg118109 date=1120091775]
Would a clone have different finger prints from the human being cloned? Identical twins don't have identical fingerprints.
[/quote]

That's a good question... May have to clone a human and find out.

Lets clone hundreds of Yonis! (Yonii?)

Yonai!

The idea would be that if you're completely replicating the original DNA, the clone should have an exact fingerprint match.