| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2005 10:28:39 PM |
| Object: |
First Human "Clones" Created Without Use of Sperm |
This ghoulish experimentation with human cloning, combined with
abortion-on-demand spinning out of control, is changing America into a
society that will only be composed of "acceptable" people. Liberal
policies, disguised as rights, will be the end of minorities. A total
ban on human cloning should be adopted by every nation on earth.
http://talk.csifiles.com/showflat.php?Number=309623
First Human "Clones" Created Without Use of Sperm
DUBLIN, September 9, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Roslin Institute,
which also created Dolly the sheep, reported creating the first
embryonic Humans without the use of sperm - from the genetic material
of the mother alone.
The group said they stimulated an egg to divide without the use of
human sperm, to a stage of development where they hope they can
"mine" cells for experimental research purposes. "At the moment
we have not managed to get stem cells from these embryos but that
continues to be our ambition," Dr Paul De Sousa said at the British
Association's Festival of Science in Dublin, as reported by the BBC.
UK law allows the creation of cloned embryos for so-called
"therapeutic" use - the tiny humans can be used in scientific
research, but not implanted into a woman's uterus and allowed to
mature into a viable baby.
Parthenotes - the name given the cloned embryos after the Greek word
Parthenogenesis, which means "virgin birth" - when created in
animals like monkeys often result in abnormal development.
The Roslin scientists said their eggs are derived from donor women who
are undergoing sterilization.
"It is another example of Frankenstein science which illustrates how
out of touch with public opinion these recent scientific developments
are," said Life spokesman Matthew O'Gorman. "[The Roslin team]
was granted a licence by an unelected, unaccountable quango."
The decision may appear to be self-contradictory, but advocates of
human cloning for experimental research commonly maintain that cloning
'human beings' and cloning human embryos are qualitatively
different activities. The fact remains however that reproductive
cloning allows cloned human embryos to live until birth and beyond
whereas therapeutic cloning requires that cloned human embryos be
killed for experimentation prior to birth.
While also condemning reproductive cloning, Archbishop Renato Martino,
the former Vatican representative to the United Nations, said in 2002
that therapeutic cloning is "an even more serious offence against
human dignity and the right to life, since it involves human beings
(embryos) who are created in order to be destroyed." He said
therapeutic cloning "must be" prohibited, calling it an
"exploitation of human beings, sought by certain scientific and
industrial circles, and pushed forward by underlying economic
interests."
.
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: First Human "Clones" Created Without Use of Sperm |
19 Sep 2005 11:02:56 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
This ghoulish experimentation with human cloning, combined with
abortion-on-demand spinning out of control, is changing America into a
society that will only be composed of "acceptable" people.
Personally, I've never much bought into the idea that we must
protect the rights of people who do not yet exist. That is exactly what
this thesis comes down to: protecting the rights of the non-existent.
To the extent that I have or will have children, I want them to
grow up in a world fit for them and them fit for it.
Is it just me, or are the anti-biotech folks starting to sound
an awful lot like villains from the X-Men?
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf
"You know how some people treat their body like a temple?
I treat mine like issa amusement park!" - Kei
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Challenge to all |
17 Sep 2005 03:52:39 AM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote
A total ban on human cloning should be adopted
by every nation on earth.
I agree. At least for the short term.
Quite frankly, at present, there is no situation where the
cloning of a human being would not violate strict moral
and ethical guides. There just isn't.
So, yeah, I'd say a five or ten year universal ban on the
cloning of humans would be a pretty good idea, providing
the time was placed to good use. I'd like to see some sort
of deliberative body were created to investigate the
moral/ethical problems, and issue standards.
I'd even go as far as to say that, perhaps, there may even
be a need to secure certain... um... "sensitive" biological
materials.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
17 Sep 2005 04:05:15 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:52:39 -0400 in alt.atheism, JTEM ("JTEM"
<gymraven@hotmail.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote
A total ban on human cloning should be adopted
by every nation on earth.
I agree. At least for the short term.
Quite frankly, at present, there is no situation where the
cloning of a human being would not violate strict moral
and ethical guides. There just isn't.
So, yeah, I'd say a five or ten year universal ban on the
cloning of humans would be a pretty good idea, providing
the time was placed to good use. I'd like to see some sort
of deliberative body were created to investigate the
moral/ethical problems, and issue standards.
Several countries have and are debating the matter.
http://www.hfea.gov.uk/Search/SearchResults?SearchableText=cloning&path=
might be worth a look in this regard.
I'd even go as far as to say that, perhaps, there may even
be a need to secure certain... um... "sensitive" biological
materials.
I have just the thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_belt
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
17 Sep 2005 04:59:23 AM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
I'd even go as far as to say that, perhaps, there may even
be a need to secure certain... um... "sensitive" biological
materials.
I have just the thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_belt
You don't understand. When it comes to cloning, the political
and social consequences can be enormous.
For example, there is what is believed to be blood from the
Prophet Mohammed. You know, the creator of Islam. What
other biological artifacts of his exists -- or may exists -- I
do not know.
Going back more than 60 years, they believe they discovered
the tomb of Peter the Apostle, "Saint Peter," and it did
contain some human remains. Those remains still exists.
Now think about this. What if the Islamic world was presented
with the clone of the Prophet Mohammed? What if, in a sense,
the Prophet Mohammed were presented to the Islamic world?
That might be considered something of a big deal.
Consider for a moment how potentially big a deal that could
be, and ask yourself if this re-born Prophet was raised by
fundamentalist Iranian whack jobs, could there be a potential
for unrest of some sort? Like, you know, on a global scale?
Now think about Christianity and this Peter guy. Peter was
not only favored by Christ himself as an Apostle (no small
honor in the eyes of Christians), but was proclaimed by
Christ to be the man on which his church would be built.
So a cloned Peter, or a Peter re-born, might be something
of a big deal for Christians.
Well, it would sure beat the heck out of a defaced ossuary,
and remember how much they made out of that one?
What if George Washington is cloned? Would you want to
be an American and for office against George Washington...
Thomas Jefferson... John Adams... Abraham Lincoln?
Could not a malicious group, with an eye towards power,
not make use of a cloned Queen Victory in Britain?
What about a cloned Winston Churchill?
How would a re-born Napoleon in France do? Would
he really be satisfied selling flowers in a small shop
in Paris? Would the French power brokers honestly
resist using THE Napoleon as a figure head in their
quest for wealth & power?
And is slavery really so bad if the slaves don't belong
to our species? It wouldn't really be slavery, now would
it? At least no more than owning a dog or a cat ( or a
chimp) is slavery.
And they would be evolutionarily inferior to us.... these
"Slaves" which result from us reconstructing & cloning
Homo Erectus DNA... It wouldn't just be racism.
Historical DNA could eventually become the single
most destabilizing, destructive substance on Earth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
17 Sep 2005 08:55:45 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mMWdnSw5P_oNe7beRVn-iA@comcast.com...
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
I'd even go as far as to say that, perhaps, there may even
be a need to secure certain... um... "sensitive" biological
materials.
I have just the thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_belt
You don't understand. When it comes to cloning, the political
and social consequences can be enormous.
For example, there is what is believed to be blood from the
Prophet Mohammed. You know, the creator of Islam. What
other biological artifacts of his exists -- or may exists -- I
do not know.
Going back more than 60 years, they believe they discovered
the tomb of Peter the Apostle, "Saint Peter," and it did
contain some human remains. Those remains still exists.
Now think about this. What if the Islamic world was presented
with the clone of the Prophet Mohammed? What if, in a sense,
the Prophet Mohammed were presented to the Islamic world?
That might be considered something of a big deal.
wait.....
didn't that happen in Star Trek with the great warrior Kahless?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
17 Sep 2005 10:45:34 PM |
|
|
"kathryn" <nospam@here.com> wrote
didn't that happen in Star Trek with the great warrior Kahless?
What, slavery?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "maf1029 ©2001-2008" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
17 Sep 2005 09:18:26 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 13:55:45 +0000 (UTC), the faaaaabulous supreme
deity Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli opened the heavens and shone his light
upon the wisdom of "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mMWdnSw5P_oNe7beRVn-iA@comcast.com...
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
I'd even go as far as to say that, perhaps, there may even
be a need to secure certain... um... "sensitive" biological
materials.
I have just the thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_belt
You don't understand. When it comes to cloning, the political
and social consequences can be enormous.
For example, there is what is believed to be blood from the
Prophet Mohammed. You know, the creator of Islam. What
other biological artifacts of his exists -- or may exists -- I
do not know.
Going back more than 60 years, they believe they discovered
the tomb of Peter the Apostle, "Saint Peter," and it did
contain some human remains. Those remains still exists.
Now think about this. What if the Islamic world was presented
with the clone of the Prophet Mohammed? What if, in a sense,
the Prophet Mohammed were presented to the Islamic world?
That might be considered something of a big deal.
wait.....
didn't that happen in Star Trek with the great warrior Kahless?
And Cmdr Riker, but that was a transporter accident.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
26 Sep 2005 07:47:29 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
I'd even go as far as to say that, perhaps, there may even
be a need to secure certain... um... "sensitive" biological
materials.
I have just the thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_belt
You don't understand. When it comes to cloning, the political
and social consequences can be enormous.
For example, there is what is believed to be blood from the
Prophet Mohammed. You know, the creator of Islam. What
other biological artifacts of his exists -- or may exists -- I
do not know.
Going back more than 60 years, they believe they discovered
the tomb of Peter the Apostle, "Saint Peter," and it did
contain some human remains. Those remains still exists.
Now think about this. What if the Islamic world was presented
with the clone of the Prophet Mohammed? What if, in a sense,
the Prophet Mohammed were presented to the Islamic world?
Anybody today could claim to be clone of Muhammed.
That might be considered something of a big deal.
Consider for a moment how potentially big a deal that could
be, and ask yourself if this re-born Prophet was raised by
fundamentalist Iranian whack jobs, could there be a potential
for unrest of some sort? Like, you know, on a global scale?
Now think about Christianity and this Peter guy. Peter was
not only favored by Christ himself as an Apostle (no small
honor in the eyes of Christians), but was proclaimed by
Christ to be the man on which his church would be built.
So a cloned Peter, or a Peter re-born, might be something
of a big deal for Christians.
Christians make a big deal of a ***** stain in an underpass in Chicago
-- I think the bal is in the long grass there.
Well, it would sure beat the heck out of a defaced ossuary,
and remember how much they made out of that one?
What if George Washington is cloned? Would you want to
be an American and for office against George Washington...
Thomas Jefferson... John Adams... Abraham Lincoln?
Could not a malicious group, with an eye towards power,
not make use of a cloned Queen Victory in Britain?
How??? My grandmother looks like her; Big deal. What sort of simpletons
do you think the British are that they'd go weak at the knees of a
lookalike?
What about a cloned Winston Churchill?
What about it? Churchill's grandson is alive today, looks like him and
is a benign sort of chap.
How would a re-born Napoleon in France do?
Your boring next-door neighbour could easily have DNA identicle to
napolean's(in theory).
Maybe he'd be head of a corporation.
Would
he really be satisfied selling flowers in a small shop
in Paris? Would the French power brokers honestly
resist using THE Napoleon as a figure head in their
quest for wealth & power?
Companies have mascots or whatever; Who cares? If Hitler hadn't dropped
out of college, WW2 would not have happened. Leadership is gained quite
circumstancially.
And is slavery really so bad if the slaves don't belong
to our species? It wouldn't really be slavery, now would
it? At least no more than owning a dog or a cat ( or a
chimp) is slavery.
And they would be evolutionarily inferior to us....
Meaning? There were no a-cyclic changes in mankind in the last few
thousand years, except for populations at higher altitudes having
larger lungs, etc.
these
"Slaves" which result from us reconstructing & cloning
Homo Erectus DNA... It wouldn't just be racism.
Who said we would enslave them?
Historical DNA could eventually become the single
most destabilizing, destructive substance on Earth.
http://i.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/020815/122029__trex_l.jpg
~Iain
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
26 Sep 2005 10:36:33 PM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote
Anybody today could claim to be clone of Muhammed.
Thanks. That's really elevating the level of discourse to
unheard of new heights.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
17 Sep 2005 04:49:48 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 05:59:23 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'd even go as far as to say that, perhaps, there may even
be a need to secure certain... um... "sensitive" biological
materials.
I have just the thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_belt
You don't understand. When it comes to cloning, the political
and social consequences can be enormous.
For example, there is what is believed to be blood from the
Prophet Mohammed. You know, the creator of Islam. What
other biological artifacts of his exists -- or may exists -- I
do not know.
Going back more than 60 years, they believe they discovered
the tomb of Peter the Apostle, "Saint Peter," and it did
contain some human remains. Those remains still exists.
Now think about this. What if the Islamic world was presented
with the clone of the Prophet Mohammed? What if, in a sense,
the Prophet Mohammed were presented to the Islamic world?
That might be considered something of a big deal.
It also would be FASCINATING.
Consider for a moment how potentially big a deal that could
be, and ask yourself if this re-born Prophet was raised by
fundamentalist Iranian whack jobs, could there be a potential
for unrest of some sort? Like, you know, on a global scale?
Nah. No one would *believe* it.
Now think about Christianity and this Peter guy. Peter was
not only favored by Christ himself as an Apostle (no small
honor in the eyes of Christians), but was proclaimed by
Christ to be the man on which his church would be built.
So a cloned Peter, or a Peter re-born, might be something
of a big deal for Christians.
Or not. But it *would* be FASCINATING.
Well, it would sure beat the heck out of a defaced ossuary,
and remember how much they made out of that one?
What if George Washington is cloned? Would you want to
be an American and for office against George Washington...
Thomas Jefferson... John Adams... Abraham Lincoln?
In ALL of the above cases, you're overlooking the obvious fact
that the people that the world knew originally, and the clones,
would be totally DIFFERENT people. It all boils down to the
way the clones would be raised, and the things they chose to do
with their lives. Suggestion: Rent/buy and watch "The Boys from
Brazil."
Could not a malicious group, with an eye towards power,
not make use of a cloned Queen Victory in Britain?
Not any more than anyone could make use of a cloned Hitler...
who in reality would very likely prove to be as decent a person as
most other people.
What about a cloned Winston Churchill?
Ditto.
How would a re-born Napoleon in France do?
See above.
Would he really be satisfied selling flowers in a small shop
in Paris? Would the French power brokers honestly resist using
THE Napoleon as a figure head in their quest for wealth & power?
See above. And as soon as people gave ANY though to this
aspect, that would make laughingstocks out of any power brokers
who might feel inclined to make any such attempt.
And is slavery really so bad if the slaves don't belong
to our species? It wouldn't really be slavery, now would
it? At least no more than owning a dog or a cat ( or a
chimp) is slavery.
Apples-and-oranges. Clones of human beings obviously would
BE human beings... and not "some other species." Thus, slavery
is not an option for them, any more than it is for anyone else.
And they would be evolutionarily inferior to us....
WHAT?????!!!???
Say -- you really don't know DIDDLY about cloning, do you?
<silliness deleted>
Historical DNA could eventually become the single
most destabilizing, destructive substance on Earth.
NOT likely. Not even REMOTELY likely. For all the reasons
I pointed out above.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
17 Sep 2005 09:30:52 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
It also would be FASCINATING.
You're right, potentially turning civilization upside would
be FASCINATING.
I'm not arguing that there isn't a lot to learn from exploding
nuclear weapons in the middle of crowded cities. I'm just
thinking that there are less unpleasant methods we might
consider choosing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
18 Sep 2005 12:00:47 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 22:30:52 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'd even go as far as to say that, perhaps, there may even
be a need to secure certain... um... "sensitive" biological
materials.
I have just the thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_belt
You don't understand. When it comes to cloning, the political
and social consequences can be enormous.
For example, there is what is believed to be blood from the
Prophet Mohammed. You know, the creator of Islam. What
other biological artifacts of his exists -- or may exists -- I
do not know.
Going back more than 60 years, they believe they discovered
the tomb of Peter the Apostle, "Saint Peter," and it did
contain some human remains. Those remains still exists.
Now think about this. What if the Islamic world was presented
with the clone of the Prophet Mohammed? What if, in a sense,
the Prophet Mohammed were presented to the Islamic world?
That might be considered something of a big deal.
It also would be FASCINATING.
You're right, potentially turning civilization upside would
be FASCINATING.
"Potentially." Odds of that happening being, what... around
a billion to one. You're being a vacuous scaremonger.
I'm not arguing that there isn't a lot to learn from exploding
nuclear weapons in the middle of crowded cities. I'm just
thinking that there are less unpleasant methods we might
consider choosing.
Apples and oranges. To see a PROPER perspective, we
need look no farther than to U.S. Senator Tom Harkin:
"This has enormous potential for good, There should be no
limits on human knowledge, none whatever. To those like President
Clinton who say we can't play God, I say OK, fine, you can take
your side alongside Pope Paul V who in 1616 tried to stop
Galileo, they accused Galileo of trying to play God too. [...]
I don't think cloning is demeaning to human nature, to attempt to
limit human knowledge is demeaning. It's not legitimate to try to
stop cloning. What nonsense, what utter, utter nonsense to think
we can hold up our hand and just say "stop". Cloning will contin-
ue, the human mind will continue to inquire into it.Human cloning
will take place and it will take place in my lifetime, and I don't
fear it at all. I want to be on the side of the Galileos and those
who say the human mind has no limits, rather than trying to stop
something that's going to happen anyway."
-- US Senator Tom Harkin, (D) IA
Consider for a moment how potentially big a deal that could
be, and ask yourself if this re-born Prophet was raised by
fundamentalist Iranian whack jobs, could there be a potential
for unrest of some sort? Like, you know, on a global scale?
Nah. No one would *believe* it.
Now think about Christianity and this Peter guy. Peter was
not only favored by Christ himself as an Apostle (no small
honor in the eyes of Christians), but was proclaimed by
Christ to be the man on which his church would be built.
So a cloned Peter, or a Peter re-born, might be something
of a big deal for Christians.
Or not. But it *would* be FASCINATING.
Well, it would sure beat the heck out of a defaced ossuary,
and remember how much they made out of that one?
What if George Washington is cloned? Would you want to
be an American and for office against George Washington...
Thomas Jefferson... John Adams... Abraham Lincoln?
In ALL of the above cases, you're overlooking the obvious fact
that the people that the world knew originally, and the clones,
would be totally DIFFERENT people. It all boils down to the
way the clones would be raised, and the things they chose to do
with their lives. Suggestion: Rent/buy and watch "The Boys from
Brazil."
Could not a malicious group, with an eye towards power,
not make use of a cloned Queen Victory in Britain?
Not any more than anyone could make use of a cloned Hitler...
who in reality would very likely prove to be as decent a person as
most other people.
What about a cloned Winston Churchill?
Ditto.
How would a re-born Napoleon in France do?
See above.
Would he really be satisfied selling flowers in a small shop
in Paris? Would the French power brokers honestly resist using
THE Napoleon as a figure head in their quest for wealth & power?
See above. And as soon as people gave ANY thought to this
aspect, that would make laughingstocks out of any power brokers
who might feel inclined to make any such attempt.
And is slavery really so bad if the slaves don't belong
to our species? It wouldn't really be slavery, now would
it? At least no more than owning a dog or a cat ( or a
chimp) is slavery.
Apples-and-oranges. Clones of human beings obviously would
BE human beings... and not "some other species." Thus, slavery
is not an option for them, any more than it is for anyone else.
And they would be evolutionarily inferior to us....
WHAT?????!!!???
Say -- you really don't know DIDDLY about cloning, do you?
<silliness deleted>
Historical DNA could eventually become the single
most destabilizing, destructive substance on Earth.
NOT likely. Not even REMOTELY likely. For all the reasons
I pointed out above.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
18 Sep 2005 02:16:11 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
Apples and oranges. To see a PROPER perspective, we
need look no farther than to U.S. Senator Tom Harkin:
[---strawman snipped---]
I was kind of hoping for something that addressed my position,
instead of a out-of-context quote that doesn't touch on any of
the points made, never mind refute them.
I dare you to try and paraphrase my position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
18 Sep 2005 10:18:12 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 03:16:11 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'd even go as far as to say that, perhaps, there may even
be a need to secure certain... um... "sensitive" biological
materials.
I have just the thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_belt
You don't understand. When it comes to cloning, the political
and social consequences can be enormous.
For example, there is what is believed to be blood from the
Prophet Mohammed. You know, the creator of Islam. What
other biological artifacts of his exists -- or may exists -- I
do not know.
Going back more than 60 years, they believe they discovered
the tomb of Peter the Apostle, "Saint Peter," and it did
contain some human remains. Those remains still exists.
Now think about this. What if the Islamic world was presented
with the clone of the Prophet Mohammed? What if, in a sense,
the Prophet Mohammed were presented to the Islamic world?
That might be considered something of a big deal.
It also would be FASCINATING.
You're right, potentially turning civilization upside would
be FASCINATING.
"Potentially." Odds of that happening being, what... around
a billion to one? You're being a vacuous scaremonger.
I'm not arguing that there isn't a lot to learn from exploding
nuclear weapons in the middle of crowded cities. I'm just
thinking that there are less unpleasant methods we might
consider choosing.
Apples and oranges. To see a PROPER perspective, we
need look no farther than to U.S. Senator Tom Harkin:
"This has enormous potential for good, There should be no
limits on human knowledge, none whatever. To those like President
Clinton who say we can't play God, I say OK, fine, you can take
your side alongside Pope Paul V who in 1616 tried to stop
Galileo, they accused Galileo of trying to play God too. [...]
I don't think cloning is demeaning to human nature, to attempt to
limit human knowledge is demeaning. It's not legitimate to try to
stop cloning. What nonsense, what utter, utter nonsense to think
we can hold up our hand and just say "stop". Cloning will contin-
ue, the human mind will continue to inquire into it.Human cloning
will take place and it will take place in my lifetime, and I don't
fear it at all. I want to be on the side of the Galileos and those
who say the human mind has no limits, rather than trying to stop
something that's going to happen anyway."
-- US Senator Tom Harkin, (D) IA
I was kind of hoping for something that addressed my position,
instead of a out-of-context quote that doesn't touch on any of
the points made, never mind refute them.
Your so-called "position" is nothing but air-headed scaremongering.
There's nothing in what you said that would be worth "refuting." However,
Tom Harkin presented... quite unlike you... an INTELLIGENT view
toward the inevitable and welcome future.
Consider for a moment how potentially big a deal that could
be, and ask yourself if this re-born Prophet was raised by
fundamentalist Iranian whack jobs, could there be a potential
for unrest of some sort? Like, you know, on a global scale?
Nah. No one would *believe* it.
Now think about Christianity and this Peter guy. Peter was
not only favored by Christ himself as an Apostle (no small
honor in the eyes of Christians), but was proclaimed by
Christ to be the man on which his church would be built.
So a cloned Peter, or a Peter re-born, might be something
of a big deal for Christians.
Or not. But it *would* be FASCINATING.
Well, it would sure beat the heck out of a defaced ossuary,
and remember how much they made out of that one?
What if George Washington is cloned? Would you want to
be an American and for office against George Washington...
Thomas Jefferson... John Adams... Abraham Lincoln?
In ALL of the above cases, you're overlooking the obvious fact
that the people that the world knew originally, and the clones,
would be totally DIFFERENT people. It all boils down to the
way the clones would be raised, and the things they chose to do
with their lives. Suggestion: Rent/buy and watch "The Boys from
Brazil."
Could not a malicious group, with an eye towards power,
not make use of a cloned Queen Victory in Britain?
Not any more than anyone could make use of a cloned Hitler...
who in reality would very likely prove to be as decent a person as
most other people.
What about a cloned Winston Churchill?
Ditto.
How would a re-born Napoleon in France do?
See above.
Would he really be satisfied selling flowers in a small shop
in Paris? Would the French power brokers honestly resist using
THE Napoleon as a figure head in their quest for wealth & power?
See above. And as soon as people gave ANY thought to this
aspect, that would make laughingstocks out of any power brokers
who might feel inclined to make any such attempt.
And is slavery really so bad if the slaves don't belong
to our species? It wouldn't really be slavery, now would
it? At least no more than owning a dog or a cat ( or a
chimp) is slavery.
Apples-and-oranges. Clones of human beings obviously would
BE human beings... and not "some other species." Thus, slavery
is not an option for them, any more than it is for anyone else.
And they would be evolutionarily inferior to us....
WHAT?????!!!???
Say -- you really don't know DIDDLY about cloning, do you?
<silliness deleted>
It was fun watching you OMIT the above exposure of your ignorance
with respect to cloning. (And it was even MORE fun **restoring** it!)
Historical DNA could eventually become the single
most destabilizing, destructive substance on Earth.
NOT likely. Not even REMOTELY likely. For all the reasons
I pointed out above.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com)
I was kind of hoping for something that addressed my position,
instead of a out-of-context quote that doesn't touch on any of
the points made, never mind refute them.
I dare you to try and paraphrase my position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
18 Sep 2005 01:59:16 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
Your so-called "position" is nothing but air-headed
scaremongering.
This may come as a surprise to you, but that's not what I
had in mind when I challenged you to paraphrase my
position.
Yes, you've proven your ability to copy & paste. And that's
good. But the challenge was to paraphrase.
But thanks for proving my point.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
18 Sep 2005 06:06:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 14:59:16 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
Your so-called "position" is nothing but air-headed
scaremongering.
This may come as a surprise to you, but that's not what I
had in mind when I challenged you to paraphrase my
position.
... the challenge was to paraphrase.
But thanks for proving my point.
There's NO point in paraphrasing the POINTLESS.
Thus, your request is very properly denied.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
18 Sep 2005 10:21:15 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
This may come as a surprise to you, but that's not what I
had in mind when I challenged you to paraphrase my
position.
... the challenge was to paraphrase.
But thanks for proving my point.
There's NO point in paraphrasing the POINTLESS.
If POINT was to demonstrate that you even knew what my
position was, considering that your responses have been
totally off the wall.
If you're trying to say that you're hopelessly clueless, and
there's no point in you even trying, then I understand.
But I once again challenge you to paraphrase my position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
18 Sep 2005 10:34:59 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:21:15 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
This may come as a surprise to you, but that's not what
I had in mind when I challenged you to paraphrase my
position.
... the challenge was to paraphrase.
But thanks for proving my point.
There's NO point in paraphrasing the POINTLESS.
Thus, your request is very properly denied.
If POINT was to demonstrate that you even knew what my
position was, considering that your responses have been
totally off the wall.
"MY" points were off-the-wall?
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!
It doesn't GET any more off-the-wall than *your* ludicrous
notions that human cloning would be disruptive to society, and
unethical.
CLUE: In-vitro fertilization. Hardly any difference, societally
speaking. No ethical problems, and no societal disruptions.
<stupidity-flush>
But I once again challenge you to paraphrase my position.
I just did. Your position is ludicrous.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
18 Sep 2005 11:32:24 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
"MY" points were off-the-wall?
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you ever had a point.
It doesn't GET any more off-the-wall than *your* ludicrous
notions that human cloning would be disruptive to society, and
unethical.
Okay, as sad as that is, it's at least an attempt at paraphrasing
my statements. Now go one better and quote where I say this.
I just did. Your position is ludicrous.
You haven't the faintest clue what my position is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
19 Sep 2005 08:21:12 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:32:24 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
"MY" points were off-the-wall?
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you ever had a point.
Hey! **Clueless** one! This whole discussion stems from
the fact that YOU never had a point. And still don't.
It doesn't GET any more off-the-wall than *your* ludicrous
notions that human cloning would be disruptive to society, and
unethical.
###---> CLUE: In-vitro fertilization. Hardly any difference,
societally speaking. No ethical problems, and no societal
disruptions. <---###
Your OMISSION of the comment between the "###" symbols,
now restored, above, is quite revealing.
Okay, as sad as that is, it's at least an attempt at paraphrasing
my statements. Now go one better and quote where I say this.
Spoken sarcastically, THIS:
"You're right, potentially turning civilization upside
[down] would be FASCINATING.
"I'm not arguing that there isn't a lot to learn from
exploding nuclear weapons in the middle of crowded
cities. I'm just thinking that there are less unpleasant
methods we might consider choosing."
And:
"When it comes to cloning, the political and social
consequences can be enormous."
I just did. Your position is ludicrous.
You haven't the faintest clue what my position is.
Wrong. I proved otherwise in THIS response post to you:
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 05:59:23 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'd even go as far as to say that, perhaps, there may even
be a need to secure certain... um... "sensitive" biological
materials.
I have just the thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_belt
You don't understand. When it comes to cloning, the political
and social consequences can be enormous.
For example, there is what is believed to be blood from the
Prophet Mohammed. You know, the creator of Islam. What
other biological artifacts of his exists -- or may exists -- I
do not know.
Going back more than 60 years, they believe they discovered
the tomb of Peter the Apostle, "Saint Peter," and it did
contain some human remains. Those remains still exists.
Now think about this. What if the Islamic world was presented
with the clone of the Prophet Mohammed? What if, in a sense,
the Prophet Mohammed were presented to the Islamic world?
That might be considered something of a big deal.
It also would be FASCINATING.
Consider for a moment how potentially big a deal that could
be, and ask yourself if this re-born Prophet was raised by
fundamentalist Iranian whack jobs, could there be a potential
for unrest of some sort? Like, you know, on a global scale?
Nah. No one would *believe* it.
Now think about Christianity and this Peter guy. Peter was
not only favored by Christ himself as an Apostle (no small
honor in the eyes of Christians), but was proclaimed by
Christ to be the man on which his church would be built.
So a cloned Peter, or a Peter re-born, might be something
of a big deal for Christians.
Or not. But it *would* be FASCINATING.
Well, it would sure beat the heck out of a defaced ossuary,
and remember how much they made out of that one?
What if George Washington is cloned? Would you want to
be an American and for office against George Washington...
Thomas Jefferson... John Adams... Abraham Lincoln?
In ALL of the above cases, you're overlooking the obvious fact
that the people that the world knew originally, and the clones,
would be totally DIFFERENT people. It all boils down to the
way the clones would be raised, and the things they chose to do
with their lives. Suggestion: Rent/buy and watch "The Boys from
Brazil."
Could not a malicious group, with an eye towards power,
not make use of a cloned Queen Victory in Britain?
Not any more than anyone could make use of a cloned Hitler...
who in reality would very likely prove to be as decent a person as
most other people.
What about a cloned Winston Churchill?
Ditto.
How would a re-born Napoleon in France do?
See above.
Would he really be satisfied selling flowers in a small shop
in Paris? Would the French power brokers honestly resist using
THE Napoleon as a figure head in their quest for wealth & power?
See above. And as soon as people gave ANY though to this
aspect, that would make laughingstocks out of any power brokers
who might feel inclined to make any such attempt.
And is slavery really so bad if the slaves don't belong
to our species? It wouldn't really be slavery, now would
it? At least no more than owning a dog or a cat ( or a
chimp) is slavery.
Apples-and-oranges. Clones of human beings obviously would
BE human beings... and not "some other species." Thus, slavery
is not an option for them, any more than it is for anyone else.
And they would be evolutionarily inferior to us....
WHAT?????!!!???
Say -- you really don't know DIDDLY about cloning, do you?
<silliness deleted>
Historical DNA could eventually become the single
most destabilizing, destructive substance on Earth.
NOT likely. Not even REMOTELY likely. For all the reasons
I pointed out above.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
20 Sep 2005 01:38:44 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
Hey! **Clueless** one! This whole discussion stems from
the fact that YOU never had a point.
That would mean a lot more if you actually knew what my
position was. But, as you don't, it really doesn't mean
anything.
Your OMISSION of the comment between the "###" symbols,
now restored, above, is quite revealing.
Well, it did reveal the fact that you totally ignored everything
I said in favor of a stawman argument.
But, hey, look on the bright side! Even if your reading
comprehension has been proven *****, you've scored high
marks on your ability to copy & paste.
Congratulations.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
20 Sep 2005 10:01:10 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 02:38:44 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
Hey! **Clueless** one! This whole discussion stems from
the fact that YOU never had a point.
That would mean a lot more if you actually knew what my
position was. But, as you don't, it really doesn't mean
anything.
Your OMISSION of the comment between the "###" symbols,
now restored, above, is quite revealing.
(Which, of course, you just omitted AGAIN... coward.)
(But it reappears, to haunt you, farther down.)
Well, it did reveal the fact that you totally ignored everything
I said in favor of a stawman argument.
But, hey, look on the bright side! Even if your reading
comprehension has been proven *****, you've scored high
marks on your ability to copy & paste.
Congratulations.
THANKS for making a **total** fool of yourself in this pathetic
excuse for a "response" to my post.
Just so everyone can see how MUCH you accomplished that
dubious distinction, the complete previous post is shown below.
That way everyone can readily see the arguments of yours that
were totally demolished... AND your dishonesty. ---
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 00:32:24 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
"MY" points were off-the-wall?
Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you ever had a point.
Hey! **Clueless** one! This whole discussion stems from
the fact that YOU never had a point. And still don't.
It doesn't GET any more off-the-wall than *your* ludicrous
notions that human cloning would be disruptive to society, and
unethical.
###---> CLUE: In-vitro fertilization. Hardly any difference,
societally speaking. No ethical problems, and no societal
disruptions. <---###
Your OMISSION of the comment between the "###" symbols,
now restored, above, is quite revealing.
Okay, as sad as that is, it's at least an attempt at paraphrasing
my statements. Now go one better and quote where I say this.
Spoken sarcastically, THIS:
"You're right, potentially turning civilization upside
[down] would be FASCINATING.
"I'm not arguing that there isn't a lot to learn from
exploding nuclear weapons in the middle of crowded
cities. I'm just thinking that there are less unpleasant
methods we might consider choosing."
And:
"When it comes to cloning, the political and social
consequences can be enormous."
I just did. Your position is ludicrous.
You haven't the faintest clue what my position is.
Wrong. I proved otherwise in THIS response post to you:
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 05:59:23 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'd even go as far as to say that, perhaps, there may even
be a need to secure certain... um... "sensitive" biological
materials.
I have just the thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chastity_belt
You don't understand. When it comes to cloning, the political
and social consequences can be enormous.
For example, there is what is believed to be blood from the
Prophet Mohammed. You know, the creator of Islam. What
other biological artifacts of his exists -- or may exists -- I
do not know.
Going back more than 60 years, they believe they discovered
the tomb of Peter the Apostle, "Saint Peter," and it did
contain some human remains. Those remains still exists.
Now think about this. What if the Islamic world was presented
with the clone of the Prophet Mohammed? What if, in a sense,
the Prophet Mohammed were presented to the Islamic world?
That might be considered something of a big deal.
It also would be FASCINATING.
Consider for a moment how potentially big a deal that could
be, and ask yourself if this re-born Prophet was raised by
fundamentalist Iranian whack jobs, could there be a potential
for unrest of some sort? Like, you know, on a global scale?
Nah. No one would *believe* it.
Now think about Christianity and this Peter guy. Peter was
not only favored by Christ himself as an Apostle (no small
honor in the eyes of Christians), but was proclaimed by
Christ to be the man on which his church would be built.
So a cloned Peter, or a Peter re-born, might be something
of a big deal for Christians.
Or not. But it *would* be FASCINATING.
Well, it would sure beat the heck out of a defaced ossuary,
and remember how much they made out of that one?
What if George Washington is cloned? Would you want to
be an American and for office against George Washington...
Thomas Jefferson... John Adams... Abraham Lincoln?
In ALL of the above cases, you're overlooking the obvious fact
that the people that the world knew originally, and the clones,
would be totally DIFFERENT people. It all boils down to the
way the clones would be raised, and the things they chose to do
with their lives. Suggestion: Rent/buy and watch "The Boys from
Brazil."
Could not a malicious group, with an eye towards power,
not make use of a cloned Queen Victory in Britain?
Not any more than anyone could make use of a cloned Hitler...
who in reality would very likely prove to be as decent a person as
most other people.
What about a cloned Winston Churchill?
Ditto.
How would a re-born Napoleon in France do?
See above.
Would he really be satisfied selling flowers in a small shop
in Paris? Would the French power brokers honestly resist using
THE Napoleon as a figure head in their quest for wealth & power?
See above. And as soon as people gave ANY though to this
aspect, that would make laughingstocks out of any power brokers
who might feel inclined to make any such attempt.
And is slavery really so bad if the slaves don't belong
to our species? It wouldn't really be slavery, now would
it? At least no more than owning a dog or a cat ( or a
chimp) is slavery.
Apples-and-oranges. Clones of human beings obviously would
BE human beings... and not "some other species." Thus, slavery
is not an option for them, any more than it is for anyone else.
And they would be evolutionarily inferior to us....
WHAT?????!!!???
Say -- you really don't know DIDDLY about cloning, do you?
<silliness deleted>
Historical DNA could eventually become the single
most destabilizing, destructive substance on Earth.
NOT likely. Not even REMOTELY likely. For all the reasons
I pointed out above.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
21 Sep 2005 01:50:15 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
(Which, of course, you just omitted AGAIN... coward.)
Are you on drugs?
It's pretty clear that you haven't a clue what my position is,
but are you also ignorant of what you have stated?
In-vitro? Please. That's RETARDED! Don't you know
that that is?
But as you are far too stoned to recognize your error, please
entertain us all with & explain exactly you'd accomplish
In-vitro fertilization with, say, George Washington.
Considering the man is believed to have been sterile in the
first place, I'm really eager to see how you imagine someone
going about this with a long-decaded corpse.
Do tell.
Because, if you can't do that then it would appear that your
strawman doesn't even succeed as a strawman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
21 Sep 2005 02:23:06 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:50:15 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
(Which, of course, you just omitted AGAIN... coward.)
And again. So I've restored it again, farther down, where
I include it in the dialogue that proves to everyone that you're
a total nut case.
It's pretty clear that you haven't a clue what my position is,
but are you also ignorant of what you have stated?
In-vitro? Please. That's RETARDED!
Being retarded clearly is something you have a LOT of
experience with.. first-hand, and in the first person. Unfor-
tunately, that mental defect simultaneously makes it pretty
much impossible for you to recognize actual instances of it
in OTHER people.
Don't you know that that is?
I certainly do. And in the CONTEXT of this discussion,
it is a very *relevant* analogue to cloning.
You know. Cloning? That process about which you
don't know DIDDLY? Those humans that you so very
*stupidly* think would NOT be fully human?
Talk about DUMB. People don't GET much dumber than
you have been **proving** yourself to be. In spades!
[[[ READERS: Read the following rambling nonsense by
"JTEM", and you'll see why I called him on his desperately
taking the discussion out of context. ]]] ---
But as you are far too stoned to recognize your error, please
entertain us all with & explain exactly you'd accomplish
In-vitro fertilization with, say, George Washington.
Considering the man is believed to have been sterile in the
first place, I'm really eager to see how you imagine someone
going about this with a long-decaded corpse.
Do tell.
Because, if you can't do that then it would appear that your
strawman doesn't even succeed as a strawman.
[[[ LOL!!!!! Context is everything, and by pretending that I
was saying something other than points I made quite clear;
points that INDICT his stupidity, he's proven himself to
either be *very* dishonest, *very* ignorant, or both. *Here*
is the way that dialogue actually went... ]]] ---
It doesn't GET any more off-the-wall than *your* ludicrous
notions that human cloning would be disruptive to society, and
unethical.
###---> CLUE: In-vitro fertilization. Hardly any difference,
societally speaking. No ethical problems, and no societal
disruptions. <---###
Your OMISSION of the comment between the "###" symbols,
now restored, above, is quite revealing.
And you omitted that sentence not just once, but TWICE, in
your responses to me.
[ ... ]
And is slavery really so bad if the slaves don't belong
to our species? It wouldn't really be slavery, now would
it? At least no more than owning a dog or a cat ( or a
chimp) is slavery.
Apples-and-oranges. Clones of human beings obviously would
BE human beings... and not "some other species." Thus, slavery
is not an option for them, any more than it is for anyone else.
And they would be evolutionarily inferior to us....
WHAT?????!!!???
Say -- you really don't know DIDDLY about cloning, do you?
Historical DNA could eventually become the single
most destabilizing, destructive substance on Earth.
NOT likely. Not even REMOTELY likely. For all the reasons
I pointed out above.
You're a total nitwit. And you prove that regularly and often.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
21 Sep 2005 02:58:50 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
[[[ LOL!!!!! Context is everything,
And that context is someone who raised George Washington
amongst his very first examples.
Now as you think your "In-vitro fertilization" isn't relevant
to the context, just say so.
Or are you claiming it is relevant to some of the other
examples I raised, but not George Washington specifically?
Saint Peter, maybe? The Prophet Mohammed? John Adams?
Which example, specifically, does your insanity...errr...
"in-vitro fertilization argument" refute?
I'm waiting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
20 Sep 2005 12:22:02 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:01:10 GMT, Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
wrote:
NOT likely. Not even REMOTELY likely. For all the reasons
I pointed out above.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
I think I've lost all respect and patience with JTEM any more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
21 Sep 2005 01:51:36 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
I think I've lost all respect and patience with JTEM
any more.
Good. You should. After all, I've exposed a whole heaping
load of baggage in the two of you.
Craig easily has you beat though, with that insane "In-Vitro"
crap.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
21 Sep 2005 02:05:34 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 02:51:36 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
And is slavery really so bad if the slaves don't belong
to our species? It wouldn't really be slavery, now would
it? At least no more than owning a dog or a cat ( or a
chimp) is slavery.
Apples-and-oranges. Clones of human beings obviously would
BE human beings... and not "some other species." Thus, slavery
is not an option for them, any more than it is for anyone else.
And they would be evolutionarily inferior to us....
WHAT?????!!!???
Say -- you really don't know DIDDLY about cloning, do you?
Historical DNA could eventually become the single
most destabilizing, destructive substance on Earth.
NOT likely. Not even REMOTELY likely. For all the reasons
I pointed out above.
I think I've lost all respect and patience with JTEM
any more.
Good. You should. After all, I've exposed a whole heaping
load of baggage in the two of you.
(LOL!!! LYING clearly is one of his long suits, too -- to accom-
pany his abject & obvious ignorance and stupidity.)
Craig easily has you beat though, with that insane "In-Vitro"
crap.
ROTFL!!!!!
That "insane 'in-vitro' crap" knocked a hole in the bottom
of his debating boat the size of Meteor Crater, Arizona.
To wit... I told him:
It doesn't GET any more off-the-wall than *your* ludicrous
notions that human cloning would be disruptive to society, and
unethical.
###---> CLUE: In-vitro fertilization. Hardly any difference,
societally speaking. No ethical problems, and no societal
disruptions. <---###
Your OMISSION of the comment between the "###" symbols,
now restored, above, is quite revealing.
And he omitted that sentence not just once, but TWICE, in his
responses to me.
The guy's a total nitwit. And he proves that regularly and often.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com)
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
21 Sep 2005 02:55:12 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
Good. You should. After all, I've exposed a whole heaping
load of baggage in the two of you.
(LOL!!! LYING clearly is one of his long suits, too -- to accom-
pany his abject & obvious ignorance and stupidity.)
Lying? Your Kate there even identified a moral/ethical problem.
Yet she could never rise to an exchange on those issues (one of
which she could readily identify herself), instead responding to
me as if I was some lunatic "Christian" Reich-tard.
When you can't even acknowledge what you yourself can see,
that's baggage!
When your first, last & only response is to immediately drag
out the anti Reich-tard arguments, that's baggage!
Craig easily has you beat though, with that insane
"In-Vitro" crap.
ROTFL!!!!!
You might want to investigate stereotypes. In particular, the
laughing lunatic...
That "insane 'in-vitro' crap" knocked a hole in the bottom
of his debating boat the size of Meteor Crater, Arizona.
So you really don't know what "in-vitro fertilization" is. It's
not just an act.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Challenge to all |
21 Sep 2005 06:20:45 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 03:55:12 -0400,
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
And is slavery really so bad if the slaves don't belong
to our species? It wouldn't really be slavery, now would
it? At least no more than owning a dog or a cat ( or a
chimp) is slavery.
Apples-and-oranges. Clones of human beings obviously would
BE human beings... and not "some other species." Thus, slavery
is not an option for them, any more than it is for anyone else.
And they would be evolutionarily inferior to us....
WHAT?????!!!???
Say -- you really don't know DIDDLY about cloning, do you?
Historical DNA could eventually become the single
most destabilizing, destructive substance on Earth.
NOT likely. Not even REMOTELY likely. For all the reasons
I pointed out above.
I think I've lost all respect and patience with JTEM
any more.
Good. You should. After all, I've exposed a whole heaping
load of baggage in the two of you.
(LOL!!! LYING clearly is one of his long suits, too -- to accom-
pany his abject & obvious ignorance and stupidity.)
Lying? Your Kate there even identified a moral/ethical problem.
Yet she could never rise to an exchange on those issues (one of
which she could readily identify herself), instead responding to
me as if I was some lunatic "Christian" Reich-tard.
When you ACT like one of those loons, you can expect to be
treated as such.
While you don't seem to be on an exact parallel with them, in the
concepts you've presented, your are still being just as ludicrous as
they are. Cloning is as harmless as in-vitro fertilization. It will become
just as commonplace, and to the very SAME extent, it will be NO big
deal when that happens. NO disruptions to society.
When you can't even acknowledge what you yourself can see,
that's baggage!
Ah. So THAT'S your problem.
When your first, last & only response is to immediately drag
out the anti Reich-tard arguments, that's baggage!
Your argument against cloning is as ridiculous as those employed
by the RRR cult's leaders and lemming/parrots.
Craig easily has you beat though, with that insane
"In-Vitro" crap.
ROTFL!!!!!
That "insane 'in-vitro' crap" knocked a hole in the bottom
of his debating boat the size of Meteor Crater, Arizona.
To wit... I told him:
It doesn't GET any more off-the-wall than *your* ludicrous
notions that human cloning would be disruptive to society, and
unethical.
###---> CLUE: In-vitro fertilization. Hardly any difference,
societally speaking. No ethical problems, and no societal
disruptions. <---###
Your OMISSION of the comment between the "###" symbols,
now restored, above, is quite revealing.
And he omitted that sentence not just once, but TWICE, in his
responses to me.
The guy's a total nitwit. And he proves that regularly and often.
You might want to investigate stereotypes. In particular, the
laughing lunatic...
Fine. We'll start with you, then.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
