Michael J Fox - Human Shield

[jillian]

If you go by the body count, I'd say atheism has proven time and time again NOT to have the answers.




Sure, and society will work like a charm if we live by 300 million different sets of rules.

Actually, if you go by bodycount, more blood has been spilled in the name of religion than for almost any other reason.

Tough about the rules thing, though. I know you think you're morally superior to everyone else, but most of us don't agree. We each think we do a pretty good job of figuring it out.

So, again, it is arrogant of you to think you should impose your morality on others.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Actually, if you go by bodycount, more blood has been spilled in the name of religion than for almost any other reason.

Tough about the rules thing, though. I know you think you're morally superior to everyone else, but most of us don't agree. We each think we do a pretty good job of figuring it out.

So, again, it is arrogant of you to think you should impose your morality on others.

Really? I'd like to see your stats.

here's some of mine:
http://www.newscholars.com/papers/Killing, Christianity, and Atheism.pdf
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM


No, I don't think I am personally superior to anyone else as you imply. However, I DO think that today's Christian religion IS morally superior to today's nihilistic liberalism and today's empty, dangerous, and godless atheism - two negative ideologies that are attempting to sneak in and take over American society.

Trying to combat those negative ideologies is NOT arrogance; it is attempting to keep America the same shining beacon we have known and loved for only two short centuries.

 

[Dr Grump]

If you go by the body count, I'd say atheism has proven time and time again NOT to have the answers.

Communism is not atheism...When it comes to genocide, no one is innocent...

Sure, and society will work like a charm if we live by 300 million different sets of rules.

There aren't 300 million different sets off rules so your argument is a non-starter...there are two different trains of though on MOST things, and then the odd splinter. But, 300 million? u-uh..

 

[Annie]

Whatever definition I have for human life, it is mine and, regardless of what you might see as good intentions, you don't get to define it for me.

My ethics? Again, mine. I wouldn't impose mine on you. So please don't impose yours on me. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

Jillian, I'm not trying to impose my values or beliefs on anyone, much less you. On the other hand, it seems to me that you, onedomino, Grump, etc., are very much trying to impose your 'beliefs', 'hopes', what have you on us, including forcing us to pay through taxes for something that so far has no results, and may cause harm to 'the promise of life.'

 

[onedomino]

Jillian, I'm not trying to impose my values or beliefs on anyone, much less you. On the other hand, it seems to me that you, onedomino, Grump, etc., are very much trying to impose your 'beliefs', 'hopes', what have you on us, including forcing us to pay through taxes for something that so far has no results, and may cause harm to 'the promise of life.'

You keep saying no results. How many times must it be pointed out that ESC lines were first isolated in 1998. The R&D will cost billions of dollars and take decades. Neil Armstrong never set foot on the moon until 54 years after Robert Goddard's 1915 experiments, but maybe America should have quit rocket R&D back in 1923. Federal R&D projects are associated with a US Constitution that permits the collective pursuit of the "common good." You may disagree what is the common good, and no one will force you to accept any benefits derived from such projects; including cancer and heart research. But you are a citizen and must pay taxes. Anti-Federalist or religious attitudes should not block the rest of us from obtaining the benefits from Federal R&D projects that have been authorized and funded by our elected representatives in the US Congress, such as ESC R&D.

 

[Annie]

You keep saying no results. How many times must it be pointed out that ESC lines were first isolated in 1998. The R&D will cost billions of dollars and take decades. Neil Armstrong never set foot on the moon until 54 years after Robert Goddard's 1915 experiments, but maybe America should have quit rocket R&D back in 1923. Federal R&D projects are associated with a US Constitution that permits the collective pursuit of the "common good." You may disagree what is the common good, and no one will force you to accept any benefits derived from such projects; including cancer and heart research. But you are a citizen and must pay taxes. Anti-Federalist or religious attitudes should not block the rest of us from obtaining the benefits from Federal R&D projects that have been authorized and funded by our elected representatives in the US Congress, such as ESC R&D.

I'm not an 'anti-federalist' regarding national defense, communications, central information for disease, foreign affairs; you know, the stuff spelled out or truly implied by the elastic clause. Yes, I'm against the fed in education, R & D with no defense purpose, (such as the space program).

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Communism is not atheism...When it comes to genocide, no one is innocent...

Don't split hairs. Communists are godless. And don't tell me that the millions killed in the USSR by the Communists were complicit in their own deaths.

There aren't 300 million different sets off rules so your argument is a non-starter...there are two different trains of though on MOST things, and then the odd splinter. But, 300 million? u-uh..

You missed the point altogether. If jillian's way was how we did things, we'd have to have 300 million different sets of rules because she insists that her way is personal and none of our business and that is the way that we should all act - per each person's own personal set of ethics. In her mind this is "equality". Of course that would lead only to anarchy. As Eightball has pointed out, she is the part of the shallow selfish generation who can't see anything beyond their own immediate needs and wants.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I'm not an 'anti-federalist' regarding national defense, communications, central information for disease, foreign affairs; you know, the stuff spelled out or truly implied by the elastic clause. Yes, I'm against the fed in education, R & D with no defense purpose, (such as the space program).

Come on now, Kathinane. If the United States government can charter a bank and purchase the Lousiana territory and still be Constitutional, then surely the space program is legal. The precedent is there. Government investment in research covers nearly the entirety of the history of the United States, and dates back to the Roman Republic. Even Newt Gingrech agrees. In fact, he wants to see the annual science budget not doubled but tripled.

Most importantly, without government research, the US loses dominance in the one area it remains wholly unchallenged. In fact, I'd argue that government research is necessary for national security. We can't China, India and Europe to stop charging along if we let up. If we stop funding scientific research, then you can say good bye to any significance the United States of America has ever held in the world.

 

[Annie]

Come on now, Kathinane. If the United States government can charter a bank and purchase the Lousiana territory and still be Constitutional, then surely the space program is legal. That is what I was saying, the implications towards defense were obvious and have yielded over time.The precedent is there. Government investment in research covers nearly the entirety of the history of the United States, and dates back to the Roman Republic. Even Newt Gingrech agrees. In fact, he wants to see the annual science budget not doubled but tripled. No, not all R & D has implications on the federal level. Communications, defense systems, energy resources, yes. All medical possibilities? No. Education? No.

Most importantly, without government research, the US loses dominance in the one area it remains wholly unchallenged. In fact, I'd argue that government research is necessary for national security. We can't China, India and Europe to stop charging along if we let up. If we stop funding scientific research, then you can say good bye to any significance the United States of America has ever held in the world.

We agree that government funding in some aspects is necessary and validated, I guess we part company on embryonic stem cell research. Actually, I don't think the government should be funding research for diseases in general, as I think that the private sector and universities can do that nicely. For instance, Harvard University has enough $$$ to fund most of their students education, they could reduce the stipends to students that can pay their own way, or a larger portion of it and spend the $$$ on R & D.

 

[jillian]

Don't split hairs. Communists are godless. And don't tell me that the millions killed in the USSR by the Communists were complicit in their own deaths.



You missed the point altogether. If jillian's way was how we did things, we'd have to have 300 million different sets of rules because she insists that her way is personal and none of our business and that is the way that we should all act - per each person's own personal set of ethics. In her mind this is "equality". Of course that would lead only to anarchy. As Eightball has pointed out, she is the part of the shallow selfish generation who can't see anything beyond their own immediate needs and wants.

Communists might be, but I'm not. And even if I were, that would still not entitle you to substitute your moral judgment for mine.

And YOU missed the point. It is pure arrogance to think your own morality should govern. As for me being "part f the shallow selfish generation who can't see anything beyond their own immediate needs and wants"... I think you might want to re-evaluate that given I'm the one who supports research that could save lives and cure disease and you want us to remain in the dark ages in order to save a couple of cells.

 

[dilloduck]

Communists might be, but I'm not. And even if I were, that would still not entitle you to substitute your moral judgment for mine.

And YOU missed the point. It is pure arrogance to think your own morality should govern. As for me being "part f the shallow selfish generation who can't see anything beyond their own immediate needs and wants"... I think you might want to re-evaluate that given I'm the one who supports research that could save lives and cure disease and you want us to remain in the dark ages in order to save a couple of cells.

Wanting to save lives and cure disease is YOUR morality. Don't try to force it on others.

 

[Annie]

Communists might be, but I'm not. And even if I were, that would still not entitle you to substitute your moral judgment for mine.

And YOU missed the point. It is pure arrogance to think your own morality should govern. As for me being "part f the shallow selfish generation who can't see anything beyond their own immediate needs and wants"... I think you might want to re-evaluate that given I'm the one who supports research that could save lives and cure disease and you want us to remain in the dark ages in order to save a couple of cells.

Jillian, I do not doubt your sincerity, based on religion, beliefs, or feelings. The problem comes with how you want to fund. I'm all for you giving a donation to any teaching hospital that is conducting the research. I do question why you want to demand that others, that have ethical reasons for not supporting such, be forced through taxation to do so.

Now one can make the argument that HDT did about war. Let's just look at the fact that it was for 'national defense' which he may or may not have been correct in his judgement about. Emerson and co. bailed him out, rendering onto Caesar...

 

[Mr.Conley]

That is what I was saying, the implications towards defense were obvious and have yielded over time.

If you claiming that Hamilton's bank forwarded the national defense, then you have to at least admit that the space program provides needed defense technology as well. Heck even Madison disagreed with establishing a bank yet it still was allowed.
Among the multitude benefits of having a space program, we get important items such as communication and spy satellites, without which our military probably couldn't function. The defense implications are obvious.

No, not all R & D has implications on the federal level. Communications, defense systems, energy resources, yes. All medical possibilities? No. Education? No.

Again I disagree, any of those areas can contribute to the national defense, it's all a matter of perspective. Besides, the precendence has exists at the Federal level for about 200 years.

We agree that government funding in some aspects is necessary and validated, I guess we part company on embryonic stem cell research. Actually, I don't think the government should be funding research for diseases in general, as I think that the private sector and universities can do that nicely.

Well, defense contributions that a sound knowledge of diseases brings to defending against biological warefare, I disagree. Medical research at private corporations is undoubtebly essential, but supplimented with government equipment and grants always these corporations to kickstart their efforts while ensuring longer, happier lives for citizens while providing jobs for hundreds of thousands.

For instance, Harvard University has enough $$$ to fund most of their students education, they could reduce the stipends to students that can pay their own way, or a larger portion of it and spend the $$$ on R & D.

Harvard has a lot of money, no doubt. But their endowment pales in comparison to the amount the government brings to the table. Harvard has a total endowment, most of which is tied to certain funds, projects, scholarships or buildings and is therefore unavailable to doctors at the medical school, of about $30 billion. In contrast, the Federal government annual supplies some $15 billion annually to various institutions. Harvard has a lot, but her pockets aren't that deep.

 

[Annie]

If you claiming that Hamilton's bank forwarded the national defense, then you have to at least admit that the space program provides needed defense technology as well. Heck even Madison disagreed with establishing a bank yet it still was allowed. I was saying I was in favor of space research, even before I was born, for the defense implications. Obviously the national banking system was needed for economic reasons and covered by 'general welfare.
Among the multitude benefits of having a space program, we get important items such as communication and spy satellites, without which our military probably couldn't function. The defense implications are obvious.

Again I disagree, any of those areas can contribute to the national defense, it's all a matter of perspective. Besides, the precendence has exists at the Federal level for about 200 years. Yep, we disagree on medical. I don't think that it's necessary. In actuality, could be argued that prolonging life on the elderly is not in national interest. On the other hand, for a myriad of other reasons, the private might choose otherwise.


Well, defense contributions that a sound knowledge of diseases brings to defending against biological warefare, I disagree. Medical research at private corporations is undoubtebly essential, but supplimented with government equipment and grants always these corporations to kickstart their efforts while ensuring longer, happier lives for citizens while providing jobs for hundreds of thousands. Show me where ESD will aid the war on terror.

Harvard has a lot of money, no doubt. But their endowment pales in comparison to the amount the government brings to the table. Harvard has a total endowment, most of which is tied to certain funds, projects, scholarships or buildings and is therefore unavailable to doctors at the medical school, of about $30 billion. In contrast, the Federal government annual supplies some $15 billion annually to various institutions. Harvard has a lot, but her pockets aren't that deep.

Right the fed has mucho bucks, all of them 'ours.' So I think the rutabaga could be used in the future to prevent AIDS, fund me. Nope. The potential may or may not be there, but it's mine to sell or not.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Communists might be, but I'm not. And even if I were, that would still not entitle you to substitute your moral judgment for mine.

And YOU missed the point. It is pure arrogance to think your own morality should govern. As for me being "part f the shallow selfish generation who can't see anything beyond their own immediate needs and wants"... I think you might want to re-evaluate that given I'm the one who supports research that could save lives and cure disease and you want us to remain in the dark ages in order to save a couple of cells.

In case you didn't know many of our important laws are based in morality/ethics. It is the morality of the majority of voters that governs. I asked you to state yours, but you declined. I don't think you actually have a solid set of ethics...no liberal really does...so why should I or anybody else follow your lead? It is that very LACK of morality/ethics on your part that makes you liberals dangerous to the American way of life which has been based pretty much on religious morals/ethics since the beginning of our great country. Of course attacking religion is the liberal's way of marginalizing those long-established and time-tested morals/ethics and substituting their own ideology -- which is based on Relativism. When you fall under the spell of liberal relativism you only help take our country a step closer to the precipice of destruction.

The pro-embryonic stem cell research argument is pretty much the same argument as for abortion. Both arguments rationalize and excuse the killing of innocent human life. And if you believe in the argument for abortion, it follows you also believe in the argument for infanticide. When you combine infanticide with "research" we get into the Frankenstein horrors.

All three -- ESC, abortion, infanticide -- are all interconnected and are nihilistic forms of liberalism -- the politics of death. It's important to note that in all three scenarios there are life-saving alternatives to be had, yet the liberal Left keeps on pushing very hard for these forms of death....can you explain WHY?

 

[Eightball]

To this date, no Embryonic cell work has given an hope for anything.

Democrats were thumping during the Kerry/GWB campaign that Embryonic Stem Cell break throughs would help spine severed quadra and para plegics one day walk. An election win for GWB was dooming the above mentioned folks to a life without the possiblity of walking. Christopher Reeves was put out on the stage similarly to Michael Fox.

Now that is not the case for stem cells taken from umbilical cords of safely, born children. There is much headway happening with umbilical stem cell work. In fact the work with umbilical stem cells has resulted in the first living human liver tissue being grown. Granted the tissue is very small, and couldn't be transplantable, but it is a positive start, and it isn't happening with Embryonic cells.

Just look where the major private moneys are going and you'll know where the possibility of something fruitfull happening exists. Moneys are not going into Embryonic research because major investors aren't encouraged by it's prospects, but much money is going into umbilical stem cell research and related stem cell research as it's starting to pay-off. Just follow the money......investors don't invest in dead ends as a general rule...........they, for the most part go where they can get a sizeable return for the investment. It's not in Embryonic stem cells, and it isn't ethically reasons stopping investors...........its the resultant information coming out to the potential investors. Zero sum gain!

I really feel for the Michael Foxes and Christopher Reeves of the world that our bantered about by politicos to further selfish aims of regaining a position of power. It's so similar to the continuation of entitlements to minorities. It's most disrespectful and disingenuous as constant entitlements actually discourage self-motivation of cultural, and racial groups by continuing to keep them in a position of sucking from the "teet" of government coffers.

Just as abstinance is probably the cheapest and safest means to thwart the widespread epidemic of STD's, it is totally rejected as a viable answer to stopping these diseases by the liberal mindset. It just makes too much sense, and it also involves ethics, morals, and exercise of will power. It also flys in the face the liberals mantra of freedom to do whatever with one's temple/body, as it is owned by no one, but oneself.

The Christian ethics of accountability for ones actions, one's body, one's health, is ignored and a mindset of victimhood replaces it. The liberal philosophy must have victims to be a viable political movement. Without victims, they are but a shell.

 

[MGB]

No one sees the not so subtle humor of Rush Limbaugh, confessed drug addict, attacking someone for not taking enough drugs? I dunno. Funny old world, if you ask me.....:chillpill

 

[onedomino]

No one sees the not so subtle humor of Rush Limbaugh, confessed drug addict, attacking someone for not taking enough drugs? I dunno. Funny old world, if you ask me.....:chillpill

Mean spirited? Devoid of civility? Yes. But funny? Not in the slightest. Anyway how can you ask that question while joining the thread on post 237? Did you read the other posts?

 

[Dr Grump]

Don't split hairs. Communists are godless. And don't tell me that the millions killed in the USSR by the Communists were complicit in their own deaths.

The vast majority of those that died under the Soviet system did so due to starvation due to crappy collective farming initiatives. Nothing to do with believing or not believing in a god. Actually, those murdered by the state were not done so due to a belief or non-belief in god. As I've said, no religion is innocent, including your precious Christianity.

 

[Eightball]

Mean spirited? Devoid of civility? Yes. But funny? Not in the slightest. Anyway how can you ask that question while joining the thread on post 237? Did you read the other posts?

Limbaugh, does indeed utilize the fine art of subtle humor/jokes........and it does rankle some folks, as they can't see it.

As far as someone needing to read the prior 237 posts on this topic. That's poppy-cock.....Most of the posts are just bantering back forth on off-topic themes.

Anyone can jump in at any time...........You need to exercise some "tolerance" onedomino. Let's be objective and not get emotional, now.