Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
I listened to Air America today
Topic Started: May 25 2005, 01:11 PM (1,201 Views)
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Don't worry. It was a monster of a joke--one of 38957's very best.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
psyfi
May 26 2005, 08:57 AM
38957
May 26 2005, 07:16 AM
psyfi
May 26 2005, 12:54 AM
8247
May 25 2005, 06:00 PM
So, if stem cell research is their god, then SUV's must be their devil....No, President Bush is their devil....No, GWB would be their antichrist if stem cell research is their god. Who would their devil be? Neal Boortz maybe?

Their gods and their antichrists change with every stirring of the political winds. But their devil shall always be Ann Coulter. :P

From reading on Sistertrek, which is the only place that I ever turn for any knowledge, I assumed that Rush had a much higher place in the hierarchy of evil.

Rush is only a major figure in the pantheon of demons. Coulter is the devil.

Coulter isn't the devil, but she is an incredibly vile human being. It took all my effort not to change the channel the other night when she appeared on the Late Late Show with Craig Fergeson. I'm glad I didn't, because she really made an ass of herself by making assumptions about Fergeson (of which he rightly called her on).
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
38957
May 26 2005, 08:23 AM
24thcenstfan
May 25 2005, 05:33 PM
38957
May 25 2005, 05:41 PM
Dr. Noah
May 25 2005, 03:03 PM
People will eventually die from something, but without medical technology, we/they would die a lot sooner.  By increasing our knowledge of medical technology we can further extend the quantity and quality of life.

I wonder if that was Hitler's arguement for the research he had performed.

Why am I not surprised Hitler was brought into this conversation.

Oh well, everyone is entitled to an opinion (whatever that may be).


I personally do not equate stem-cell research to those kinds of experiments conducted by Josef Mengele and his ilk. I'm not saying you do (i.e. I am not putting words in your mouth, just stating my opinion on the subject).

Yes, everyone in entitled to their opinion. This is why I really don't like to talk about this subject, because I have absolutely no respect for the opposing opinion in these matters.

Neither do I (with you that is) beyond what I have said thus far.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
8247
Member Avatar
Apparently we look like this now
Quote:
 
His callers were downright crazy. One woman said "I know the REAL reason why the President doesnt want stem cell research to go through is because if it did, all of his buddies in the pharmaceutical industry would go out of business."   Springer actually entertained that "theory" He said "Although that MAY or MAY NOT be the case, even if stem cell research did come up with cures, there would still be SOME need for perscriptions."

Another caller said "President Bush's objection to stem cell research is a personal attack on MY beliefs. The president is saying that because I want the research, that I am a bad Christian!"


I couldnt believe my ears as I listened to it, but next to Springer saying that we should be more worried about death from disease than we should be about deaths from a terrorist attack, it was these 2 callers who blew my mind the most. It reminded me of "political discussions" that my childhood friends and I had in elementary school..."I hope Reagan beats Mondale because Mondale will make us go to school 6 days a week." Those callers just seemed so juvenile, and they were adults. I know that if someone called into Boortz's show with a comment like that, he would tear them a new one. So would Rush. But Springer actually entertained that nonsense.

Psyfi, I just got up a few minutes ago, and I got the Frankenstein joke. You must really be slow. :nanner: :lol:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
Psyfi, I just got up a few minutes ago, and I got the Frankenstein joke. You must really be slow.

8247,

I looked up 'got up a few minutes ago' in my concordance, dictionary, and lexicon, and no where could I find:

"Begrudgingly picking one's self up from underneath Frimpy's Bar, combing my hair, and downing two shots of whiskey before logging on to SisterTrek."

Help me out here.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
8247
May 26 2005, 08:32 AM
Quote:
 
His callers were downright crazy. One woman said "I know the REAL reason why the President doesnt want stem cell research to go through is because if it did, all of his buddies in the pharmaceutical industry would go out of business."  Springer actually entertained that "theory" He said "Although that MAY or MAY NOT be the case, even if stem cell research did come up with cures, there would still be SOME need for perscriptions."

Another caller said "President Bush's objection to stem cell research is a personal attack on MY beliefs. The president is saying that because I want the research, that I am a bad Christian!"


I couldnt believe my ears as I listened to it, but next to Springer saying that we should be more worried about death from disease than we should be about deaths from a terrorist attack, it was these 2 callers who blew my mind the most. It reminded me of "political discussions" that my childhood friends and I had in elementary school..."I hope Reagan beats Mondale because Mondale will make us go to school 6 days a week." Those callers just seemed so juvenile, and they were adults. I know that if someone called into Boortz's show with a comment like that, he would tear them a new one. So would Rush. But Springer actually entertained that nonsense.

Psyfi, I just got up a few minutes ago, and I got the Frankenstein joke. You must really be slow. :nanner: :lol:

So slow I can actually hear the grass growing.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Psyfi,

In an appropriate thread, I would like to hear you describe that sound. Thanks. :)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
I don't see how stem cell research has anything to do with what Hitler did. But often Hitler is the best invoked knee jerk reaction. It really gets people's attention.

What's wrong with using stem cells slated for destruction from fertility clinics? They were going to be destroyed. This way, they actually live and grow into something. If you're for the "culture of life" you would prefer an alternative that allows the cell to live right? Or should we just keep it frozen forever?

BTW: Science is NOT a religion. Science is the method of arriving at conclusions based on observation and careful experimentation. Science can be proven. Religion is simply the belief in something without evidence.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Dr. Noah
 
But often Hitler is the best invoked knee jerk reaction.
I'll remember you saying that.

Dr. Noah
 
What's wrong with using stem cells slated for destruction from fertility clinics? They were going to be destroyed. This way, they actually live and grow into something. If you're for the "culture of life" you would prefer an alternative that allows the cell to live right? Or should we just keep it frozen forever?
I prefer these embyos not being slated for destruction in the first place and I sure don't want them used for medical experiments. We have a large death-row population in this country and others, they are slated for destruction anyway. Why not anethstitize them and experiment away?

Dr. Noah
 
BTW: Science is NOT a religion. Science is the method of arriving at conclusions based on observation and careful experimentation. Science can be proven. Religion is simply the belief in something without evidence.
Science is also often the belief in something without evidence. And scientists are often religious about their beliefs.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Are you against invitro fertilization? Because that's where they come from. And during the process of invitro fertilization, many others are lost. Should we outlaw fertility clinics too?

Tell me one instance where science accepts something on blind faith. All theories have some basis in fact. A scientists belief is irrelevant. Science is based on fact and theory, not blind faith.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Dr. Noah
May 26 2005, 09:28 AM
BTW: Science is NOT a religion.  Science is the method of arriving at conclusions based on observation and careful experimentation.  Science can be proven.  Religion is simply the belief in something without evidence.

I love science because it has given us science fiction and washing machines. But it is closer to religion than you might think.

From: From:http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/science.html

Scientists are unbiased observers who use the scientific method to conclusively confirm and conclusively falsify various theories. These experts have no preconceptions in gathering the data and logically derive theories from these objective observations. One great strength of science is that it’s self-correcting, because scientists readily abandon theories when they are shown to be irrational. Although such eminent views of science have been accepted by many people, they are almost completely untrue. Data can neither conclusively confirm nor conclusively falsify theories, there really is no such thing as the scientific method, data become somewhat subjective in practice, and scientists have displayed a surprisingly fierce loyalty to their theories.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
You can prove science. You cannot prove religion. I can prove to you that gravity warps space and slows down time. I can prove to you that energy can be converted to other forms, I can prove to you many things that are scientific in nature. But I cannot prove anything regarding religion.

What is stated in your post is simply untrue. The scientific method not only exists, it is responsible for all of our knowledge of the universe.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Dr. Noah
May 26 2005, 10:03 AM
You can prove science. You cannot prove religion. I can prove to you that gravity warps space and slows down time. I can prove to you that energy can be converted to other forms, I can prove to you many things that are scientific in nature. But I cannot prove anything regarding religion.

What is stated in your post is simply untrue. The scientific method not only exists, it is responsible for all of our knowledge of the universe.

I once saw a class of undergraduate freshmen with philosophy majors cheerfully demolish a professor who thought much as you. Your argument is akin to one who kicks a table. The table moves and the person then says that he has provided proof that the world is not an illusion. Logic is not on your side. Read the link or any other link you wish having to do with Philosophy of Science.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
You can talk all you like about how perception doesn't equate reality, but philosophy majors tend to miss the fact that sceince is corroborated by dozens of people who constantly test it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
psyfi
psyfi
Dr. Noah
May 26 2005, 10:31 AM
You can talk all you like about how perception doesn't equate reality, but philosophy majors tend to miss the fact that sceince is corroborated by dozens of people who constantly test it.

Actually, this subject of replication/reliability comes up in almost every philosophical discourse on science and is answered quickly. However, I am not interested in having that debate. If you would like to continue believing these myths about science, go right ahead but stay away from Philosophy of Science classes or websites. You strike me as a very logical person and it won't take long for you to see what they are saying.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus