Embryonic stem cell research
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Mill articulates it well.
At your recommendation, I've been reading up a little on Mills, and I think I understand a little better now why Europe became so entirely fucked up. Thanks "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 21:45 Thursday 20th July, 2006
Stan Shannon wrote:
At your recommendation, I've been reading up a little on Mills, and I think I understand a little better now why Europe became so entirely fucked up. Thanks
You should read On Liberty in full (it is a short book). One of the classics of Western civilization. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
How do I know where they are coming from if this research takes off? Will they start harvesting clones?
You can't be morally opposed to a possibility. It's possible I could snap tomorrow and end up in a clock tower with a high powered rifle but I doubt anyone would be morally opposed to me living my life simply due to the possibility. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You can't be morally opposed to a possibility. It's possible I could snap tomorrow and end up in a clock tower with a high powered rifle but I doubt anyone would be morally opposed to me living my life simply due to the possibility.
The calm voice of reason. How refreshing. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
espeir wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject
Then learn about it before commenting otherwise you're just repeating heresay and not adding anything valuable. Please say: I've read some papers on the subject and I'm in favour/not in favour because... Then we can have a discussion. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
They removed the inner cell mass from the embryo at four to five days, and culture those cells. At that point, they are growing stem cells, not an embryo.
If you cut the skin off an apple, it's still an apple. Which is being done here. No difference. The whole damn point is you're stopping a kid from developing. The stem cells are still growing, they are just not given the proper environment to grow in. You conveniently call it a "cell mass" to cloak the fact you just fucked up a kid's chance to fully develop. And notice the little point you skipped over (probably on purpose). You article didn't mention anything about the embryos being discarded, just donated. You can't argue the point they would've been positively discarded otherwise. And if assumption is the basis if your logic, you're dumber than I originally took you for.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Abuse? You're an idiot. No nervous system, questionable viability, not a person yet, there is no abuse.
Wow, you can't make the correlation, big surprise there. It's not whether or not YOU think it's wrong. It's whether or not you think it's ok because she doesn't. Do I have to pull out the crayons to explain the rest of it?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
If, as I'm guessing is the case, you're mother smoked crack while she was carrying you, that would be abuse.
That's one thing I can't stand about the Internet. Sissy boys like yourself act tougher on it. Instead of the stupid insults, try reasoning.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
A five-day-old lump of cells? Not to me.
You're just a few thousand days old lump of millions of cells. What's the difference, you can see and talk? You sure as hell can't listen, so we can't count that. I'm willing to give you up for science.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I rest my case. You are as big an idiot as e. Maybe bigger. He's at least an articulate and sometimes entertaining douchebag, in a dancing monkey kind of way. You're just wrong.
Unga bunga, let's play like stupid caveman crap cause my wittle feelwings got hurt. Really grow up. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
If you cut the skin off an apple, it's still an apple. Which is being done here. No difference.The whole damn point is you're stopping a kid from developing. The stem cells are still growing, they are just not given the proper environment to grow in.
No, the whole damn point is that you think it's stopping a "kid" from developing, and I don't.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You conveniently call it a "cell mass" to cloak the fact you just fucked up a kid's chance to fully develop.
You keep calling it a kid. I think you're wrong.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Wow, you can't make the correlation, big surprise there. It's not whether or not YOU think it's wrong. It's whether or not you think it's ok because she doesn't. Do I have to pull out the crayons to explain the rest of it?
The point is that, regardless of whether or not she thinks it is okay, you would be causing her harm. Although the purist in me would say that if she wants to kill herself, that's fine.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
That's one thing I can't stand about the Internet. Sissy boys like yourself act tougher on it. Instead of the stupid insults, try reasoning.
"Sissy boys"? It was an analogy. Just trying to point out that, in my opinion, it's not abuse until somewhat after that five day limit.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You're just a few thousand days old lump of millions of cells. What's the difference, you can see and talk? You sure as hell can't listen, so we can't count that. I'm willing to give you up for science.
Really got your panties puckered over this one, huh? The difference is there's a difference. My cells differentiated, I was carried to term, and so on. I get the feeling that you won't be happy until each and every conception ends in a full-term pregnancy and a happy, healthy child with two loving and heterosexual parents.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Unga bunga, let's play like stupid caveman crap cause my wittle feelwings got hurt. Really grow up.
"Unga bunga". Well said! Unga bunga, indeed. Wow. You really nailed me with that one. One can only hope that all the little future Falcons will display the same rapier wit, deep and abiding love of five-day-old embryos, and dis
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
You can't be morally opposed to a possibility. It's possible I could snap tomorrow and end up in a clock tower with a high powered rifle but I doubt anyone would be morally opposed to me living my life simply due to the possibility.
The calm voice of reason. How refreshing. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
John Carson wrote:
The calm voice of reason. How refreshing.
Just presenting another "possibility" that the "moral majority" needs to address to "save" us from ourselves. :rolleyes: In hindsight, I might have pointed out that the internet itself is used every single day for criminal and immoral behavior (child porn, pedophilia, adultry, identity theft, etc...) yet here we all are... discussing stem cell research on an internet forum. Blasphemy! "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull -- modified at 22:35 Thursday 20th July, 2006
-
I guess I'm thinking of embryos created for invitro (spelling?). A lot of times they make lots of embroyos in a petri dish and only implant a certain number. If it's successful, then the other embroys just stay in dry ice for a certain number of years. If the "owners" (parents) don't claim them after that time, then they can be donated for science. ..at least that's what I saw on Law and Order.:cool: I'm sure every state is different. ..and thanks for not biting my head off!:-D I'm drinking these new drinks called "peels" which are in the regular beer section. the cranberry/peach ones are quite scrumptious!
leckey wrote:
I guess I'm thinking of embryos created for invitro (spelling?).
As I see it, In Vitro Fertilization doesn't count because the process still starts off with a woman's egg and a man's sperm. The eggs just don't appear out of nowhere. IVF basicaly means they put a man's sperm and a woman's egg in a dish and let it do it's thing, thus it still started off inside a human and counts as human.
leckey wrote:
A lot of times they make lots of embroyos in a petri dish and only implant a certain number. If it's successful, then the other embroys just stay in dry ice for a certain number of years. If the "owners" (parents) don't claim them after that time, then they can be donated for science.
Well, I don't know the validity of this, and I have mixed feelings on it but will refrain for drawing too much of a conclusion until I know more about it. I can say that the link that pointed to the NIH did refer to patients donating embryos for stem cell research directly (or so it seems) rather than this means, but then again I'm not sure this isn't the case as the link was vague on it (probably intentionally). As it stands though, I personally do not think that over fertilizing embryos a plenty on a hit and miss situation is a good thing. And I don't think life should be marginalized because petri dish A kicked off before B did. That means we're playing God. It's the start a bigger process that will go way out of scope of this thread, but suffice it to say that progression and change do happen and it's not always a change for the better.
leckey wrote:
..and thanks for not biting my head off!
Having a well rounded conversation - even if we totally disagree with each other is cool. As long as we respect that. Having an argument with an idiot that wants to start insulting my mother because he's a big baby is a different story. ;)
leckey wrote:
the cranberry/peach ones are quite scrumptious!
Sounds like a good combination. Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
If you cut the skin off an apple, it's still an apple. Which is being done here. No difference.The whole damn point is you're stopping a kid from developing. The stem cells are still growing, they are just not given the proper environment to grow in.
No, the whole damn point is that you think it's stopping a "kid" from developing, and I don't.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You conveniently call it a "cell mass" to cloak the fact you just fucked up a kid's chance to fully develop.
You keep calling it a kid. I think you're wrong.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Wow, you can't make the correlation, big surprise there. It's not whether or not YOU think it's wrong. It's whether or not you think it's ok because she doesn't. Do I have to pull out the crayons to explain the rest of it?
The point is that, regardless of whether or not she thinks it is okay, you would be causing her harm. Although the purist in me would say that if she wants to kill herself, that's fine.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
That's one thing I can't stand about the Internet. Sissy boys like yourself act tougher on it. Instead of the stupid insults, try reasoning.
"Sissy boys"? It was an analogy. Just trying to point out that, in my opinion, it's not abuse until somewhat after that five day limit.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You're just a few thousand days old lump of millions of cells. What's the difference, you can see and talk? You sure as hell can't listen, so we can't count that. I'm willing to give you up for science.
Really got your panties puckered over this one, huh? The difference is there's a difference. My cells differentiated, I was carried to term, and so on. I get the feeling that you won't be happy until each and every conception ends in a full-term pregnancy and a happy, healthy child with two loving and heterosexual parents.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Unga bunga, let's play like stupid caveman crap cause my wittle feelwings got hurt. Really grow up.
"Unga bunga". Well said! Unga bunga, indeed. Wow. You really nailed me with that one. One can only hope that all the little future Falcons will display the same rapier wit, deep and abiding love of five-day-old embryos, and dis
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No, the whole damn point is that you think it's stopping a "kid" from developing, and I don't.
It is. Where do you think kids come from, the stork?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The point is that, regardless of whether or not she thinks it is okay, you would be causing her harm.
You're causing the embryo harm by killing it off before it develops.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
"Sissy boys"? It was an analogy.
It was a very insulting one. Don't play it off dumbass; I'm not that stupid. Like you weren't upset when you said it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Really got your panties puckered over this one, huh?
I don't wear panties like you do sissy boy. There's that's on your level, so you should comprehend it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The difference is there's a difference. My cells differentiated, I was carried to term, and so on.
What's the difference, you value your life more than one that's developing? Your basis of life means cells can't be the same to be alive? Do you believe in evolution? Can you see where I'm going, or will have I to use crayons again?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I get the feeling that you won't be happy until each and every conception ends in a full-term pregnancy and a happy
Your right, failed pregnancies are something to be happy about. Let's celebrate your wife's next miscarriage.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
healthy child with two loving and heterosexual parents.
Way to throw in an unrelated point.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
and disdain for the advancement of medical science.
Nice assumption. Oh yeah, that is the basis of your logic after all. Jeremy Falcon
-
Stephen Hewitt wrote:
make a case for outlawing masterbation
Isnt that called Catholosism? Objects in mirror are closer than they appear
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Looks like you're also failing to understand Mill. Government should keep people from harming each other's person or property. Period. Nothing more. Is that stripping the people of their powers to legislate? Legislate indiscriminately and oppressively, maybe.
The problem you're encountering with me is that I understand both the ceoncept behind Mill, and the fact that they are contrary to both human nature and our successful government. Your philosophy is basically this: The people should be stripped of the power to legislate anything unless it passes my personal opinion of what is harmful. In other words, only the laws you approve of can be passed.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No hypocrisy at all, just more misunderstanding on your part. A display of the ten commandments on government property -- especially at a courthouse -- is a statement of intent by the government to violate the harm principle. It would indicate that the government considers it to be wrong for me to covet my neighbor's ass, or take the name of the Lord, their God in vain, when neither action harms anyone.
It is entirely hypocritical and this is the major flaw of this philosophy. A display of the 10 commandments does not cause any physical, psychological or other form of harm to anybody. However, you personally believe that it's harmful and therefore the government must restrict its display, regardless of democratic preference. Your personal view of what is "harmful" therefore trumps the will of the people and effectively creates a despotic regime.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You've grossly oversimplified my position at every turn, most recently regarding my views on both democracy and religion. When I tell you you're wrong, and clarify, you just repeat yourself. I haven't given you a single example, I've given you dozens.
I still believe that I understand your position completely and I can understand a desire for "harmless" laws. However, political philosophy is unique in that it is purely pragmatic. There is no room for abstract theory because it's purpose is real-life application. A political theory has to be considered against human nature, and not an abstract concept. If a political theory conflicts with human nature, then it will fail (communism/socialism being a prime example). I therefore contend that your political theory is flawed for the
espeir wrote:
The problem you're encountering with me is that I understand both the ceoncept behind Mill, and the fact that they are contrary to both human nature and our successful government. Your philosophy is basically this: The people should be stripped of the power to legislate anything unless it passes my personal opinion of what is harmful. In other words, only the laws you approve of can be passed.
You keep saying you understand, but your comments indicate otherwise. My philosophy is basically this: Government should only have the power to prohibit an act if that act causes harm to other people or their property. Levy taxes for the purposes of defense and other infrastructure, and to keep the government in operation. Let the people decide how much they want to be taxed, and for what. But in matters of prohibition, consider as inviolate the idea that over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. That's it. Anything public affects other people, and the harm principle can be decided by community standards. But, in the privacy of my own home, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want. Two or more consenting adults, in a private setting, should be able to do whatever the hell they want. It's important enough, and central enough, to bear repeating that, over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
espeir wrote:
It is entirely hypocritical and this is the major flaw of this philosophy. A display of the 10 commandments does not cause any physical, psychological or other form of harm to anybody. However, you personally believe that it's harmful and therefore the government must restrict its display, regardless of democratic preference. Your personal view of what is "harmful" therefore trumps the will of the people and effectively creates a despotic regime.
Again, it's not hypocritical at all, and again, you misunderstand. I don't consider the display of the commandments itself to be harmful -- there's a difference between an individual, or a non-governmental organization, displaying the commandments, and a governmental authority displaying them. If an individual, or group of individuals, want to display the ten commandments -- any of the many sets of commandments, in fact -- on their property, nothing should stop them (unless they're 400-foot glowing commandments, in which case they might be considered harmful to property values in t
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
No, the whole damn point is that you think it's stopping a "kid" from developing, and I don't.
It is. Where do you think kids come from, the stork?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The point is that, regardless of whether or not she thinks it is okay, you would be causing her harm.
You're causing the embryo harm by killing it off before it develops.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
"Sissy boys"? It was an analogy.
It was a very insulting one. Don't play it off dumbass; I'm not that stupid. Like you weren't upset when you said it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Really got your panties puckered over this one, huh?
I don't wear panties like you do sissy boy. There's that's on your level, so you should comprehend it.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The difference is there's a difference. My cells differentiated, I was carried to term, and so on.
What's the difference, you value your life more than one that's developing? Your basis of life means cells can't be the same to be alive? Do you believe in evolution? Can you see where I'm going, or will have I to use crayons again?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I get the feeling that you won't be happy until each and every conception ends in a full-term pregnancy and a happy
Your right, failed pregnancies are something to be happy about. Let's celebrate your wife's next miscarriage.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
healthy child with two loving and heterosexual parents.
Way to throw in an unrelated point.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
and disdain for the advancement of medical science.
Nice assumption. Oh yeah, that is the basis of your logic after all. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
It is. Where do you think kids come from, the stork?
Where do you think kids come from? A petri dish?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You're causing the embryo harm by killing it off before it develops.
You think it's harm. I don't. We can't reduce the argument much further.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
It was a very insulting one. Don't play it off dumbass; I'm not that stupid. Like you weren't upset when you said it.
You threw out the first insult, Jeremy.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I don't wear panties like you do sissy boy. There's that's on your level, so you should comprehend it.
No comprehension problems here. I even comprehend why you're being such a dick.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
What's the difference, you value your life more than one that's developing? Your basis of life means cells can't be the same to be alive? Do you believe in evolution? Can you see where I'm going, or will have I to use crayons again?
I value life more than potential life. I view the embryo as potential life. You view it as life. This disagreement cannot be resolved on this plane of existence.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Your right, failed pregnancies are something to be happy about. Let's celebrate your wife's next miscarriage.
Has your wife ever had a miscarriage? You certainly would not have said that if she had. You've spoken well and made some good points in past discussions, and even in this one. But that was the statement of an utter bastard. This conversation is over.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
Isnt that called Catholosism?
I'm reminded of the "Every Sperm is Sacred" skit from "The Meaning of Life"... :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
It is. Where do you think kids come from, the stork?
Where do you think kids come from? A petri dish?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You're causing the embryo harm by killing it off before it develops.
You think it's harm. I don't. We can't reduce the argument much further.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
It was a very insulting one. Don't play it off dumbass; I'm not that stupid. Like you weren't upset when you said it.
You threw out the first insult, Jeremy.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I don't wear panties like you do sissy boy. There's that's on your level, so you should comprehend it.
No comprehension problems here. I even comprehend why you're being such a dick.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
What's the difference, you value your life more than one that's developing? Your basis of life means cells can't be the same to be alive? Do you believe in evolution? Can you see where I'm going, or will have I to use crayons again?
I value life more than potential life. I view the embryo as potential life. You view it as life. This disagreement cannot be resolved on this plane of existence.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Your right, failed pregnancies are something to be happy about. Let's celebrate your wife's next miscarriage.
Has your wife ever had a miscarriage? You certainly would not have said that if she had. You've spoken well and made some good points in past discussions, and even in this one. But that was the statement of an utter bastard. This conversation is over.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Where do you think kids come from? A petri dish?
This is not even worth expanding on.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You threw out the first insult, Jeremy.
I said you were full of shit. That's not the same as the tangent you went off on. Funny how now it's an insult, but first it's an analogy.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I even comprehend why you're being such a dick.
Because it's obviously the only level you can understand.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I value life more than potential life.
That's stupid, because potentional life is what kill keep the human race going on. Ya know, after we all die off, there need to be others to replace us.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
But that was the statement of an utter bastard.
You dumbass! You don't even recognise sarcasm? :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Stupid me, I thought I couldn't be any more obvious SINCE THE TWO DAMN STATEMENTS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED ONE ANOTHER.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
This conversation is over.
Figures. Jeremy Falcon
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Your train left the tracks in your second sentence:
espeir wrote:
Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something).
Nobody does that, nobody has proposed doing that, nobody is discussing it, except the wingnuts who want to ban something else.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Mill articulates it well.
At your recommendation, I've been reading up a little on Mills, and I think I understand a little better now why Europe became so entirely fucked up. Thanks "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 21:45 Thursday 20th July, 2006
Yeah, he did strongly favor socialism toward the end of his life :). But "On Liberty" really deserves a read. Sovereignty of the individual is a powerful concept, and he articulates it well. I think embracing the concept would benefit this country (which is what I was struggling to say during most of that last painful thread), and we already have a political system capable of resolving the inevitable ambiguities.
-
Yeah, he did strongly favor socialism toward the end of his life :). But "On Liberty" really deserves a read. Sovereignty of the individual is a powerful concept, and he articulates it well. I think embracing the concept would benefit this country (which is what I was struggling to say during most of that last painful thread), and we already have a political system capable of resolving the inevitable ambiguities.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Sovereignty of the individual is a powerful concept
And completely unworkable.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I think embracing the concept would benefit this country
I think re-embracing our founding principles would benefit the county far more. I think many of Mills' principles were considered and rejected by our founders along with those of Hagle, Marx, etc, for good reason. The problem with the notion of avoiding "tyranny of the majority" is that civilization requires tyranny of some kind. You can either divide it up, as the Jeffersonians intended, or centralize it, as all other political persuasions do (including Mills and other libertarians). But you cannot get rid of it. So the choice is between tyranny expressed in a million little places, or in one big one. I choose the former, you choose the latter. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
At your recommendation, I've been reading up a little on Mills, and I think I understand a little better now why Europe became so entirely fucked up. Thanks
You should read On Liberty in full (it is a short book). One of the classics of Western civilization. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
I intend to. But I must say, I'm not impressed with the descriptions of it I've read on the internet. I find Hayeks, 'Road to Serfdom' the classic work on the subject of liberty. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
How do I know where they are coming from if this research takes off? Will they start harvesting clones?
You can't be morally opposed to a possibility. It's possible I could snap tomorrow and end up in a clock tower with a high powered rifle but I doubt anyone would be morally opposed to me living my life simply due to the possibility. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Isn't that the basis of law? There is a possibility that you might end up in a clock tower with a rifle, so we make a law saying that you shouldn't shoot people. Blindly throwing money towards research, without consideration of potential immoral activity in the research, is like giving free rifles to people who live near clock towers. Science can be corrupted by greed, pride, arrogance, etc. Before we throw tax money at stem cell research, we should outlaw clone (and non-clone) harvesting and look at other ethical problems that might arise.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
espeir wrote:
The problem you're encountering with me is that I understand both the ceoncept behind Mill, and the fact that they are contrary to both human nature and our successful government. Your philosophy is basically this: The people should be stripped of the power to legislate anything unless it passes my personal opinion of what is harmful. In other words, only the laws you approve of can be passed.
You keep saying you understand, but your comments indicate otherwise. My philosophy is basically this: Government should only have the power to prohibit an act if that act causes harm to other people or their property. Levy taxes for the purposes of defense and other infrastructure, and to keep the government in operation. Let the people decide how much they want to be taxed, and for what. But in matters of prohibition, consider as inviolate the idea that over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. That's it. Anything public affects other people, and the harm principle can be decided by community standards. But, in the privacy of my own home, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want. Two or more consenting adults, in a private setting, should be able to do whatever the hell they want. It's important enough, and central enough, to bear repeating that, over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
espeir wrote:
It is entirely hypocritical and this is the major flaw of this philosophy. A display of the 10 commandments does not cause any physical, psychological or other form of harm to anybody. However, you personally believe that it's harmful and therefore the government must restrict its display, regardless of democratic preference. Your personal view of what is "harmful" therefore trumps the will of the people and effectively creates a despotic regime.
Again, it's not hypocritical at all, and again, you misunderstand. I don't consider the display of the commandments itself to be harmful -- there's a difference between an individual, or a non-governmental organization, displaying the commandments, and a governmental authority displaying them. If an individual, or group of individuals, want to display the ten commandments -- any of the many sets of commandments, in fact -- on their property, nothing should stop them (unless they're 400-foot glowing commandments, in which case they might be considered harmful to property values in t
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You keep saying you understand, but your comments indicate otherwise. My philosophy is basically this: Government should only have the power to prohibit an act if that act causes harm to other people or their property. Levy taxes for the purposes of defense and other infrastructure, and to keep the government in operation. Let the people decide how much they want to be taxed, and for what. But in matters of prohibition, consider as inviolate the idea that over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
I still think that I understand, but you fail to understand the implications of your philosophy. In one breath you're stating that you want to ensure self-government and that self-government be disallowed if it fails an obscure test of "harm". Such an obscure and prohibitive test has huge implications in that it's arbitrary. Your intent is to strip the people of self-determination in favor of an arbitrary test (which would have to be determined by a small minority in order to be consistent with your philosophy. The result is demonstrated in our conflicting views of what constitutes "harm". I will continue using our examples:
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Again, it's not hypocritical at all, and again, you misunderstand. I don't consider the display of the commandments itself to be harmful -- there's a difference between an individual, or a non-governmental organization, displaying the commandments, and a governmental authority displaying them.
What this suggests is that you're not interested in a purely Millian (if that's a term) style of government. I asked for a specific example of how such a display causes any physical, psychological or other type of harm (a definition which would surely be expanded in your government). You simply stated that it would violate the "harm principle" without explaining why (an example of how easily your government would subvert the will of the people). Additionally, any example of how this causes harm would not pass my harm test and we would therefore have a conflict of interest that could be solved only either by democracy or tyranny.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It most certainly does not. It guarantees that government cannot take away anyone's right of self-determination. Not lawless, not totalitarian. Just the opposite. Limited laws, laws for the public good that respect individu
-
espeir wrote:
if Bush had not vetoed it, I would not have claimed tyranny, though I be in the minority.
I guess we'll never know now, but I suspect that if Dub hadn't vetoed the bill, you'd be whining about it anyhow. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
Tim Craig wrote:
I guess we'll never know now, but I suspect that if Dub hadn't vetoed the bill, you'd be whining about it anyhow.
Plenty of crap gets passed. But when I "whine" about it, I do so regarding the merits of the legislation (for example, the prescription drug benefit is a short-sighted attempt to grab votes and will bankrupt our country). I don't claim tyranny and demand that Americans be stripped of their right to self-determination as a result.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Isn't that the basis of law? There is a possibility that you might end up in a clock tower with a rifle, so we make a law saying that you shouldn't shoot people. Blindly throwing money towards research, without consideration of potential immoral activity in the research, is like giving free rifles to people who live near clock towers. Science can be corrupted by greed, pride, arrogance, etc. Before we throw tax money at stem cell research, we should outlaw clone (and non-clone) harvesting and look at other ethical problems that might arise.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote:
Blindly throwing money towards research
There nothing blind about it. You just want to percieve it as so to support your agenda.
Jason Henderson wrote:
Science can be corrupted by greed, pride, arrogance, etc. Before we throw tax money at stem cell research, we should outlaw clone (and non-clone) harvesting and look at other ethical problems that might arise.
So it's your opinion that we need to address every single possible corruption of the system before allowing the system to perform and "to hell" with the millions of people suffering from the ravages it may well fix. Not a very christian attitude in my opinion. :^)
"The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull