Originally posted by SoothfastMaking people pay for something that is so against their beliefs (however irrational those beliefs may be) is wrong.
If you think I was trying to be funny then once again you've missed the point. You don't find Bush's withholding of federal funding for stem cell research because "some taxpayers would object" to be nigh the pinnacle of abject absurdity?
Therefore not making poeple pay for stem cell research, abortions, euthanasia, drug addiction re-habilitation programmes etc etc is the right thing to do.
Those that wish to support some of the things mentioned should do so voluntarily.
"some taxpayers would object" This is exactly the problem with unlimited democracy, the rights of minorities go down the toilet.
Originally posted by shavixmirIt's a constant source of tiresomeness tedium boredom that you actually might believe all those equals signs in your 'equation'.
[/i]It's a constant source of amusement that the pro-life lobby = the Christian right = the republican vote = killing civilians.
It's very poetic.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat's too bad, because you're wrong. This is why I do not engage in debate with you.
Yes. Yes I am.
The discovery was made in 98.
An NIH lawyer said in 99 that the Dickey - Wicker ammendment didn't apply because it banned funding research on embryos, not stem cells.
Clinton layed out his guidelines in August of 2000. Essentially that stem cells could be funded as long as they were extracted using private funds. (Dickey - Wicker banned doing that with federal funds)
Grant applications were being processed when Bush took office. They were stopped by the Bush administration due to him laying out new guidelines.
Hence, you are wrong, Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research.
3 edits
Originally posted by Merk...and when he did, he gave ammunition to create this firestorm on himself by limiting the funding to existing lines.
Hence, you are wrong, Bush was the first President to fund stem cell research.
His enemies overlooked his generosity in 'breaking the ice' on funding and cried out on the limitation to existing lines (no new lines) and have been successful in beating his brains out. Goes to show it never pays to be "nice". No good deed goes unpunished!
OOPS! was saying "beating his brains out" an oxymoron?
😉
edit-typo-fingers revolt
Originally posted by shavixmirI take your point is: if one does not fund unlimited stem cell research that = killing civilians.
[/i]It's a constant source of amusement that the pro-life lobby = the Christian right = the republican vote = killing civilians.
It's very poetic.
Question please: How much funding has been allocated to stem cell research by British Parliament, French National Assembly or Bundesrepublik Deutschland?
Originally posted by MacSwainOoooh!!! A 3-pointer scored vs. the shav-man!
I take your point is: if one does not fund unlimited stem cell research that = killing civilians.
Question please: How much funding has been allocated to stem cell research by British Parliament, French National Assembly or Bundesrepublik Deutschland?
Originally posted by MacSwainI thought his point was more along the lines of: support for republicans = support for hawkish foreign policy and various wars, particularly Iraq = killing civilians. The idea is that social conservatives appear to be most interested in preserving human life when it provides them a means of punishing women for having sex; when it comes to civilian deaths in Iraq, their compassion and outrage mysteriously disappears.
I take your point is: if one does not fund unlimited stem cell research that = killing civilians.
Question please: How much funding has been allocated to stem cell research by British Parliament, French National Assembly or Bundesrepublik Deutschland?
Which, admittedly, is a simplistic way of dealing with two disparate and morally complex issues, but there it is.
Originally posted by darthmixAnd...There you go - thinking again. His post was a direct answer to, and quoted, Soothfast's original post which started this thread. "Stem Cell Research". Try opening at least one eye when you read.
I thought his point was more along the lines of: support for republicans = support for hawkish foreign policy and various wars, particularly Iraq = killing civilians. The idea is that social conservatives appear to be most interested in preserving human life when it provides them a means of punishing women for having sex; when it comes to civilian death ...[text shortened]... edly, is a simplistic way of dealing with two disparate and morally complex issues, but there it is.
Originally posted by MacSwainNone of which would preclude him from invoking the Iraq war to question the motivation of the social conservatives. The fact that this thread is nominally about stem cell research doesn't mean it's the only thing we're allowed to talk about, or that the issue isn't intertwined with other current concerns.
And...There you go - thinking again. His post was a direct answer to, and quoted, Soothfast's original post which started this thread. "Stem Cell Research".
Not, of course, that any of that should stop you from being dickish to me without provocation.
Originally posted by darthmixDickish! Dickish is it? Well thank you very much. However, Shav did not invoke a war into this debate..you did. Typical ploy to change subjects when asked a question one doesn't desire to answer. Would you give it a try?
None of which would preclude him from invoking the Iraq war to question the motivation of the social conservatives. The fact that this thread is nominally about stem cell research doesn't mean it's the only thing we're allowed to talk about, or that the issue isn't intertwined with other current concerns.
Not, of course, that any of that should stop you from being dickish to me without provocation.
Question please: How much funding has been allocated to stem cell research by British Parliament, French National Assembly or Bundesrepublik Deutschland?
2 edits
I presented an honest interpretation of his comment, which happened to differ from yours. If I was wrong, I was wrong. I'm not sure why you think that gives you license to behave in an insulting manner, but whatever.
And when was I asked I didn't desire to answer? What are you talking about?
EDIT: Oh, this:
Question please: How much funding has been allocated to stem cell research by British Parliament, French National Assembly or Bundesrepublik Deutschland?
Anyway, I don't know. If you have a point to make with those figures, maybe you should just go ahead and make it, instead of expecting someone else to run around doing your research for you. And if my purpose had been to avoid answering that question, as is your accusation, don't you think I could've avoided it most effectively by just not posting in this thread in the first place? Or didn't that occur to you?
Originally posted by darthmixDear Darth (sweet thing):
I presented an honest interpretation of his comment, which happened to differ from yours. If I was wrong, I was wrong. I'm not sure why you think that gives you license to behave in an insulting manner, but whatever.
And when was I asked I didn't desire to answer? What are you talking about?
EDIT: Oh, this:
[b]Question please: How much funding has ...[text shortened]... tively by just not posting in this thread in the first place? Or didn't that occur to you?
I am extremely sorrie if me hurt your widdle feelings. But please consider this. Here I was on thread debating Stem Cell Research, happily away from all the anal fixation in threads re: IRAQ.
I made a post quoting Shav. You did not reply to Shav's post. You replied to MY post about Stem Cell Research and brought in what? THE IRAQI WAR.
So, says I, this fellow wishes to enter the debate, so be it! and I makes a suitable counter to your statement...then you call me a Dick?
Oh...a tip for you. When debating, if you have information your oponent doesn't...you are foolish to give them ammunition to turn your points..tis a much better policy to leave them dangle in the wind.😀 Hope this helps you calm down a bit...perhaps we will meet again on a Iraqi War thread. Cheers!
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainThat's a good idea if your only concern is winning the debate. If you're interested instead in using rhetorical debate as a tool to get closer to the truth, and actually making yourself smarter instead of just trying to make yourself LOOK smarter, then it makes a LOT more sense to actually lay your data out on the table, make your point, and allow all parties present to discuss its merits in good faith. On a debate forum all positions deserve respect except those that arise from bad rhetoric. These argumentative games and snark-attacks just stall meaingful discussion.
Oh...a tip for you. When debating, if you have information your oponent doesn't...you are foolish to give them ammunition to turn your points..tis a much better policy to leave them dangle in the wind.😀 Hope this helps you calm down a bit...perhaps we will meet again on a Iraqi War thread. Cheers!
As for the rest of your post: All I can say is that I didn't think the comment - which was vague - meant exactly what you assumed it meant. I still think my interpretation makes a lot more sense than yours given the context. If you're so weary of discussing Iraq you could've saved yourself a lot of trouble by ignoring me instead of choosing to get all pissy.
It takes a lot to hurt my feelings on an internet forum, though, so don't worry about me.