"Embryos can split [...] is this a case of one soul splitting into two souls?" This statement is absolutely mind-blowing if you stop to think about it. It utterly destroys not only religion, but also everything our intuition tells us about what a human being actually is.
I am responsible for the environments I put myself in, but not for DNA. Free will in humans is limited in altering DNA in ourselves, but apparently and increasingly not in others (DNA manipulation). This gives rise to a whole host of ethical considerations.
I mean that the formula is DNA + environment + free will. If we say just environment we are determinists. If we say environment and DNA we are naturalists. If we say environment and DNA and free will, we are free will proponents, which is the norm. In the case of naturalists and determinists, there is no responsibility or accountability for moral action. Proponents of free will know they are responsible for their choices, since they could freely do otherwise.
In a certain way, it is true that it comes down to perception ... or epistemology. How can we be sure we know what we know? But it also comes down to the practical use of free will. We choose freely to accept that we know what is real. Whoever does not subscribe to free will at least subtly subscribes to determinism of a kind. Did you have to write your last post if you weren't feeling like writing it?
@patientthomist There is an undeniable human tendency to see ourselves as free and morally responsible beings. But there’s a problem. We also believe—most of us anyhow—that our environment and our heredity entirely shape our characters (what else could?). But we aren’t responsible for our environment, and we aren’t responsible for our heredity. So we aren’t responsible for our characters. But then how can we be responsible for acts that arise from our characters?
I don't think anyone really believes that our environment and our heredity entirely shape our characters without our consent (especially beyond childhood). That consent is our free will. It is true that it's impossible to escape environments completely, since we are designed to be within environment. But we can choose which environments we want to be in, unless our free choices (not free will) are limited ... e.g. prison.
@patientthomist 'I don't think anyone really believes that our environment and our heredity entirely shape our characters without our consent'. When you say 'without OUR consent', what do you mean by 'our'? DNA + environment. And because you can't be responsible for those two factors that entirely shape your character, how can you be responsible for the actions that arise from your character?
@ihr0ppa His work is too important to lower to comedic purposes - he's making immeasurably significant inroads against the theology that binds us to ridiculous notions and chains us to complacency.
"Yes, naturally stupid are all who are unaware of God, and who, from good things seen, have not been able to discover Him-who-is, or, by studying the works, have not recognised the Artificer. And if they have been impressed by their power and energy, let them deduce from these how much mightier is he that has formed them, since through the grandeur and beauty of the creatures we may, by analogy, contemplate their Author."
@mouthyweasel That's not pretty. It's just drivel with lots of superfluous words, multiple synonyms for 'God', and arcane grammatical construction. You're giving too much ground to theists. :P
Sam wants to believe that scratched off nose cells have the same additive qualities to human life as embryonic cells (2:02) ... then go ahead, Sam, and use YOUR scratched off nose cells for embryonic stem cell research. Where do the logical fallacies end with Sam Harris?
@patientthomist It's ok dude. Atheism and agnosticism are steadily growing throughout the world. In a few dozen decades cowards like you will be the minority. Ask your god to answer your prayers - he has a great track record.
@TheCe1ebrity no its not ok dude. Sammy's logic is a mobile carnival. If the concept is just to evaluate cells with comparitive value as other cells is a joke. Human life is NOT just the cells ...its the life!!! Sammy goes on to just apply word-smithing to concepts. "We can't have this dialogue they way we should". Theres no blindness in applying value to an embryo in regards to religious faith. As for "minority" ...don't worry...the Bible explains that too!!!
Sam's Buddhist tendencies REALLY shine through on this one. And this is the problem with Buddhism: our concern in the universe is not primarily about ending suffering. Our primary concern in the universe is about choosing the good, which is the same as love.
Sam likes to use the word "obvious" often. That's what people often say when they are not intelligent enough to formulate the syllogism to defend the position they hold.
4) the embryo is not a human being and you know it and you kill the embryo -- it's morally permissible to kill without torture (as we do when we "consume" animals) -- but SAM, and his like-minded colleagues, can't PROVE that it's not human, and yet this IS the requirement for a good moral choice. So until it can be PROVEN that it's not a human being, then it is always a seriously immoral act.
@patientthomist -- 4) the skin cells are not a human being and you know it and you scratch your head -- it's morally permissible to kill without torture (as we do when we "jerk" off) -- but PATIENTTHOMIST, and his like-minded colleagues, can't PROVE that it's not human, and yet this IS the requirement for a good moral choice. So until it can be PROVEN that it's not a human being, then it is always a seriously immoral act.
@patientthomist No, I'm making fun of you for saying that you can't prove that an embryo isn't a human being. You can't "prove" it in the same way you can't prove anything outside of mathematics. Especially considering different people have different times when they define the embryo as a human being. Sam argues that because the embryo physically has less potential for feeling pain etc. than a fly, it isn't a human being. The other side of the issue is that by not doing stem cell research,
@patientthomist other people with genetic diseases will die instead. It's not a choice between killing embryos and nothing, it's between killing embryos (that are usually dead anyway, for example the result of an abortion) and killing tons of people who are actually alive.
Finally, if you can't prove that embryos aren't human beings, that doesn't mean it's a proof that they are instead. Same thing with the old "You can't prove that god doesn't exist therefore he does" nonsense.
@patientthomist Also, you'll notice that my sentence was copied from your own, so I have no problems admitting that it was a completely incoherent sentence, with unnecessary amounts of capslock as well.
The problem raptor is when you insert new subjects or objects into a paragraph, but then fail to convert the rest of the paragraph to match your changes. It's a grammar thing that makes it incoherent ...that's why I asked the question that followed for clarification.
@patientthomist I love getting lectures on grammar from people who don't understand capital letters.
To clarify, what I meant is that the idea of saying that you can't prove that embryos aren't human is as nonsensical as saying that you can't prove that skin cells aren't human.
I admit your last post was hilarious ... I enjoy sarcasm. Anyway, skin cells have no potential to increasingly manifest essential human qualities ... they are a different kind of cell altogether. Skins cells don't develop arms, brains, etc. --- I don't think your point works.
@patientthomist Oh but you can, all the dna you need to describe yourself is located within every cell of your body (except the gender-related ones I believe). All the information is there. I'm not a biologist, but I can at least say that it's physically possible to create a human being based on that.
I am aware that skin cells can be reprogrammed to become nearly like embryonic stem cells using four regulator genes (i.e. UCLA - 2008). The point is the same though. Skins cells are not embryonic stem cells. For you to say that it's physically possible to create a human being is the most ridiculous statement you have made yet. Making organs is one thing. Making rationality and free will is quite another. Where will you pick those items up -- Walmart?
@patientthomist Rationality comes from the brain - which is entirely physical mind you. Free will is an illusion. The brain is an organ, just like any other.
That is a lie ... an obvious lie. Justice, truth, scientific variables, etc. are not physical realities. A purely physical brain can only image purely physical entities, like animala have -- notice that animals don't consider truth or justice or scientific variables -- because they are immaterial concepts -- they are spiritual. And it you don't have free will, which is also immaterial, then I MUST say what I say, since all reality is determined. However, I choose to.
@patientthomist Notice that you can't read the minds of other human beings, let alone those animals of different species.
Other than that, why would a physical brain be required to only think about physical things?
And no, you don't choose to, you're led here by circumstances that caused your brain to develop in such a way that you would want to say that enough for you to do it. It also caused you to think that you have free will.
Your first question is asking about the creativity of God ... why a physical universe at all? Your second point had to be said apparently, since you have no free will to alter what you were going to say. Neither do I. You're wrong ... I HAD to say it :)
I know what you mean, but consider this. I experience free will as my ability to act against my instincts, especially the major instinct I have in any moment. I'm inclined to do something ... my body wants that thing (e.g. chocolate)... but I act against my body's desires. Animals don't do this ... no species does it in the human way. As well, if we observe neuron motion in my brain, science doesn't account for the origin of the motion ... next post
@patientthomist And I am saying what if that is just an illusion. You can have the illusion that you have the free will to act against your instincts, that you feel like you can decide your own path, and that you can think about things you are are not inclined to think. There are other things that drive us to do things besides instincts alone.
Well, I could say that everything is an illusion, including science. I mean there is no end to that. We can only know, based on our experience. The common human experience is that we have the ability to act against our instincts. That's the entirety of the evidence and the definition of free will. What evidence is there that free will or knowledge or experience is an illusion?
@patientthomist What I was getting at is, if you had the perfect illusion of free will, what would be the difference to us if we actually had free will? It all comes down to perception.
, but rather just THAT there is motion. I can freely choose to think about things I'm not inclined to think about. The reality that I can act against my inclinations opposes the idea that it is merely an illusion, don't you think?
"we should be more concerned with killing flies than killing three day old HUMAN embryos"? Here are the four logical options Sam, so well put by Peter Kreeft:
1) The embryo is a human being and you know it -- and you kill the embryo -- MURDER
2) The embryo is a human being and you don't know it -- and you kill the embryo -- MANSLAUGHTER
3) The embryo is not a human being and you don't know it -- and you kill the embryo -- CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE .... see next post
If human free-will and self-awareness as an individual is mere illusion leaving leading to biochemical determinism and thus no individual culpability in choice of actions how is anything evil or wrong?
If there's no such thing as objective morality, just human preference to well being but a child molester has differing ideas about well being than his victims, how is that a "moral landscape" and not just a mere "preference landscape"? Harris has very low philosophical understandings.
@WILLTHEWGMAN I think if you work from the preface of: a world in which there is the most amount of suffering for the most amount of sentient beings is the worst world imaginable you can draw out quite a good set of morals.However, i would gladly argue and debate until a set of morals could be reasoned into existence.its wrong to say we should forget reason and invent a mystical god so we can turn to an immoral outdated book written over 2000 years ago to guide us to be moral in today's society
@WILLTHEWGMAN I think if you work from the preface of: a world in which there is the most amount of suffering for the most amount of sentient beings is the worst world imaginable you can draw out quite a good set of morals.However, i would gladly argue and debate until a set of morals could be reasoned into existence.its wrong to say we should forget reason and invent a mystical god so we can turn to an immoral outdated book written over 2000 years ago to guide us to be moral in today's society
A 3 day old embryo provides nothing for stem cell research; it is too unstable. It is only adult stem cell research that has provided any cures; embryonic stem cell research has provided zilch......this is medical evidence, nothing to do with theology or religion. Harris peddles lies and false hope here; the very accusation against religion in so many of his cases
@ThieleM You are absolutely correct in that assumption; last time I was in a lab was at High School, but is what I stated not the case? What has embryonic stem cell research cured to date ? My understanding was it is nothing; no cure for anything so far.
Look up what we can treat with stem cells..that is what Embryonic stem cells can treat. Your contention that adult stem cells are more stable is moronic....that stability is the problem that makes them less effective.
Embryonic stem cells can be used in more applications and dont require as much work to get them to work in that area.
Next time you want to talk science learn what you are reading cause you are talking out your arse.
Stem cells are stem cells, the difference here is that an embryonic stem cell can be more easily adapted. You are making a divide where none exists....embryonic stem cells are easier to work. THe cells can be used for treating brain damage, cancers, heart disease, paralysis, Diabetes, skin grafts...the list is too long to post here.
You are also full of it by using 'cure'...in medicine we treat. Not everything can be cured.
@ThieleM The point I made is they haven't cured anything so far .... nowt...nada....this is the actual response from the medical world ... at least the one I am involved in. We all know the "potential they may have" ... and it's very exciting of course .. and could cure all sorts of illnesses or prevent them and all the positive stuff that we all want, but I specifically made the point; which has been made to me on many ocassions tha "embryonic stem cells haven't cured anything to date"
The point you are making is meaningles, it is vacuous...it is obtuse. It shows that you dont know what you are talking about.
Not all medical treatments must lead to cures. Not all medical procedures are about cures. Medicine also treats and by taking a cell that can be cultured to duplicate virtually any tissue in the human body to treat people then that cell is being used for something good.
You are either a moron or are being intentionally obtuse.
@ThieleM It isn't meaningless at all, it is very much part of the funding process involved in medical research as well as the scientific. Whereas adult stem cell research can point to specifics, the embryonic ones can't. This point has been made to me by a number of researchers and Dr's involved in this area. My understadning from these same people is that the adult stem cell research is proving more effective with positive results, whereas the embryonic area isn't ... at the moment .
Your understanding is incorrect. I use adult stem cells everyday for several treatments, it is working but is a slow go. If we had access to embryonic embryos we would be far closer than using adult.
Another point, what Doctors tell you doesnt matter, they arent researchers, they arent scientists. Also, you hearing from 'a number' of researchers doesn't matter. I could go out and find a number of researcher with religious motivation who say the earth is flat.
@ThieleM First of all they are doctors involved in research and using it. the researchers are religious and secular; specifically so. Religion has nothing to do with this other than Harris using it in his clip. I support stem cell research; embryonic doesn't bother me; I'm only reporting facts as presented by researchers and confirmed from areas like UCLA as I'm lead to believe.
and yes it is meaningless. As I already stated medicine isnt all about cures, it is about treatments. You are STILL drawing a line b/w stem cells as adult and embryonic when i have corrected you on your error.
In short...you are either a moron or are being intentionally obtuse
You are also working of a false assumption. The cells dont tell us anything. We tell the cells what to do...that is the whole point of using a mutable cell.
Once again, you dont know what you are talking about. You have chosen sources to support your worldview and can't see that your worldview is a problem in the future of medicine.
I am going to assume you are a white christian, likely from America or the OK...your kind is going to lead humanity to its ruin.
@ThieleM There is also still a debate; ethical, moral, financial and result driven about the effective use of embryonic stem cell research. As the facts are presented to me, there is far more positive results from adult stem cell work than embryonic ... to date. The work with the cells; again as I am advised by researchers and professional people working in this field is that the cells don't always do what you would like them to do ... otherwise all the promise would have been fulfilled by now
@ThieleM Point out my false assumption ... and then explain what you mean by "your kind". So far I've given exactly what a lot of researchers are experiencing, what researchers in UCLA recently issued a paper on, what is factual to date. Becuase; so far, the embryonic research has produced no cures; nothing in comparison to the adult stem cell program; this is fact. Now in reality, investors in research tend to want to see results; financial return, and so far only the adult research has
Your kind, the religious right. If you are talking about the paper I think you are (I am a UCLA alumni) then you have mistaken the actual meaning of the paper. You likely just read the abstract or a piece written about the paper.
And now you are back on cures....that just shows, yet again, that you are too stupid and closed minded to have a meaningful discussion.
@ThieleM And I point to the reality of funding; if you are working in this environment, you will know about funding, this isn't for the good of the people at the treatment end but for the investors...they want a return .. and if you haven't the sense to see that in my posts it shows how clouded your fucking judgement is ... you must really be a half wit ... are they researching you ... looking for a brain most like
@ThieleM You don't get anything; that's your problem, your head is up your arse and have seen fuck all or you would know what I'm talking about ...I've had kids die in my arms for lack of food and clean water, and yet the west .. us .. are spending billions on arms and worst of all denying countries fair trade .. but I know you don't know anything about that ... it is you who are delusional, and by a frighteningly long way
@ThieleM I have no problem with stem cell research ... or any kind of ethical and morally correct research ... tnat is why I am involved in a "3rd world aid agency" ... the clue is in the title and the subject by the way .... hence why I am on the board as a lay member ... not the side of the funders ... or of the University ... but of the people ... get it now ? Are you sure you do research ? Where do you get your funding ?
Now you have no problem with stem cell research? Is that in general? Earlier you drew an imaginary line between kinds of stem cells....and made a bunch of nonsensical assertions tha are flat out incorrect. Now you appear to be shifting your position on SSR
A person that fundamentally misunderstands the data the way you do should not be allowed near this sort of issue.
@ThieleM You tend to make an awful lot of assumptions; wholly incorrect, and yet can't read or see what is written. The expectation of embryonic cell work was so very high; yet it hasn't delivered; this is what I state and this is where the problem is in terms of result; any kind of result. Don't read into someone's profile and think you know them; you've got an awful lot to learn I suggest
I work with the fucking things you little troll5 days a week, 6 days a week sometimes. You dont know what you ate talking about. I dont make assumptions I speak from experience. THe only assumptions I have made are those that assert that your religion is clouding your ability to think and causing you to only read things that fit your tiny worldview.
SSR does deliver, you just dont know where to look or wont look to see what they can do. Your loss.
@ThieleM Well you are fucking wrong then yah bampot; if you looked at anything that was written you would see I don't have a fucking problem with either research yah clown. I am part of a team who deal with bio ethics; a lay member who listens to your kind of people all the time...listen bieng the operative word; something you should try. The bottom line on this for me and my experience to date is that...the fucking researchers themselves admit to being disappointed in the lack of results
How can any stem cell procedures be produced to 'cure' without research first? The research determines the practical application of the result. But you clearly dont understand how this sort of thing works.
You just demonstrated that you are, not only a lay person but one that has no business passing any sort of ethical standard or adaptation due to your inability to understand the matter at hand.
THis is just stunning. No wonder medical research in America is slowing.
@ThieleM I'm in UK, as well as working for international aid agency now part of my re-mit is as lay person on bio ethics board; we deal with the funders who we act for to ensure the correct ethics applied, and to discuss along with the professional bodies involved and their personnel about the results and problems and issues involved; they are very extensive ... but ... on this singular point about embryonic v adult; the info so far is that the results from ESCR has not delivered
What is a correct ethic? One that is in alignment with your worldview?
If we were in a country that circumcised little girls as per their worldview and stem cells were used to treat a (hypothetical) issue then our intruding into taking knives to little girls could be called unethical.
You lose in trying to impose, and you admitted this, corporate ethics onto actual research.
@ThieleM You really need to learn to read ... I'm a lay member ... an advisory position to speak for the "common man" ... because of my experience in the 3rd world and the fact I've travelled a lot... I don't impose any ethics; but question those who do ... they all work to an ethical code anyway .... are you sure you are a researcher ? It doesn't fucking sound like it to me
@ThieleM If you really knew about ethics there is no way on this earth you would have supported Mengele's position ... never in a million years ... Harris would be dumbfounded and the first to go down your throat .... and if the press gets a hold of you and the institute you work in they will absolutely crucify you ...absolutely ... no professional person in their right mind would make such a claim ... are you sure you are a researcher ?
I DONT SUPPORT MENGELE'S POSITION. I NEVER SAID I DID...I SAID IT WAS A TWISTED EVIL THING.
NOW STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID.
I said that just because Mengele twisted something that is true (dont give up) into something evil (dont give up regardless of who you hurt) doesnt make the truth bad in essence. Sam supports me on this. Read his books. You can't be this dumb, you just can't be.
@ThieleM You agreed with Mengele .." It doesnt matter if Mengele used that reason, not one bit. In that assertion Mengele was right " ... What assertion would that be ? The one where any scientific research is allowed if it means a cure ?
And that is a misrepresentation of my position...the assertion I am talking about is that one should keep trying. The extension "regardless of method" is something that I rejected.
I have now clarified it several times.
You are, clearly, a pathological liar. You argue points that people dont make OR try to shift points to fit what you want to hear.
@ThieleM I suggest Mein Freund, that you are misleading yourself; especially if you really are a medical researcher. To even try to justify any part of Mengele's philosophy which entails adopting the stance of people being expendable; this would be the stand you try to defend; one that is completely indefensible. Research comes at a cost; not just financial, and NO research is justified if it means taking the life of another without their permission.... and even this stance is dubious.
Just so that people dont have to look back into the thread to see your deceptive tactics. Here is what I REALLY said:
'It doesnt matter if Mengele used that reason, not one bit. In that assertion Mengele was right...he just perverted the correct idea to something evil. He also used scalpels, are they bad?'
@ThieleM I can assure you that were the press to ever get hold of your views, the facility .... in which you say you work would be closed down, so whatever you do...don't mention your admiration for any position that Mengele adopted ever again.
@ThieleM Another pointer for you to consider is the areas the research is aimed for. Do you know what percentage of medical research is aimed at helping the impoverished and malnourished and starving children of the world ? Have a guess and then tell me what percentage is used for the beauty industry.
@ThieleM Every medical institution has to work within an ethical code of conduct; there are governing bodies to adhere to and quite rightly so. One of the other lay members is a retired nurse, she was involved in taking the wonder drug Thalidomide; remember it? Probably not, but I'm sure you will find out about it and the way the tests were conducted. Now she and her daughter have to live with the consequences of incorrect research
@ThieleM You see it is also because of things like Thalidomide we have insurance companies who underwrite the medical companies who insist on checks and bodies to ensure that there is never any chance of incorrect practise or procedure during development of any cure or medicine; the knock on effect of bad drugs is enormous financially as well as socially don't you know; hence why I know you are not a researcher; these facts are a pre-requisite in any civilised country or ethical organisation
@ThieleM You clearly know nothing about conducting research or research institutes; to be unaware of finance, ethics or insurance and legislative issues all too clearly shows you are the fraud I suggest.
Why are you constantly trying to change the issues here. We are talking about stem cells, not who pays for the lab. STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT. I want my station to stay open....arranging funding is for the University that employs me. I want to be in a lab, I dont want to be in a boardroom. I am a scientist not a businessman. They make sure that we are working in an ethical manner, and we are.
Working in biology has NOTHING to do with arranging funds
@ThieleM Well you don't act in a very educated or scientific manner on here; to make incorrect assumptions as you did clearly indicates you need to learn to ask and enquire first ... the way a scientist would do ... rather than come on here and talk shite. Every single point I have made is accurate and all encompassing and applicable to someone involved at the level I am with care for the safety of the patient as the objective
Actually in pointing out the actually applications of Stem Cells I demonstrated far more education and understanding than you contend. I have chosen NOT to show off, cause I'm not a show off like you.
Your points? You made a point about no cures, that is a point based on misunderstanding...not a valid point. You then went off on things I didnt say to push some point on ethics...not a valid point.
Toss in that you are a demonstrated liar and your points are dismissed.
@ThieleM You demonstrated pre-judgement; making claims about people holding back progress, "my kind" ..the ones against research you claimed ... would bring the world to ruin .... when in actual fact I support research ... but ethical and morally correct research and clarified exactly why. I made this point with another poster on this clip. There was absolutely nothing scientific about how you went about making your point; and the fact is you tried to make a part of Mengele's position justified
@ThieleM The point about cures is valid, the additional points about finance, legality, insurance, ethics and clarity of research are equally so to give you an idea of what is involved. You made the claim you aren't interested in what goes on at another level, but were acting in an ethical manner. Ethics involves carrying out research in a professional way inside a recognised system
There you go again. I said that I just want to do research, that the University handles ethical and financial aspects. I act within the legal and ethical limits of my employer, society and myself....the university is a recognized system.
@ThieleM and IF you were any kind of researcher you would and should have known this and not been sooooo stupid as to even consider the Menegele claim let alone try to justify a part of it; that was immature in the extreme, but you have demonstrated this throughout using terminology like "winning"...childs play ... this is a discussion about living and I clearly show why it is absolutely necessary for ethical research because of "accountability" and issues like Thalidomide
@ThieleM And these points are relative as we have issues like legal aspects of pharmaceutical companies and their research going on all the time; every institute at least here in the UK and in Europe I believe, come under strict guidelines in terms of operation, funding and application because of legal actions taken against these companies and the knock on effect on research; exactly why it is necessary and pre-requisite for ethical and morally correct research
Earlier he said this in a manner that implied that since i wasnt really interested in dealing with money men made me unethical
"Ethics involves carrying out research in a professional way inside a recognised (sp)system"
But then he just said that universities are under an umbrella of strict guidelines in the UK and Europe (which is correct) in the paragraph I am commenting upon. He cant even keep his points together in the same thought...much less understand these concepts.
@ThieleM That's a lie about the finance and you know it, and what is your deal in acting as if our discussion is being read by the rest of the world you really are in cloud cuckoo land. You started by accusing me of not having worked in a lab implying I had no knowledge of how the cells work. I acknowledged that right away and confirmed my capacity for comment as a lay member of a bio ethics board and committee where scientists and doctors meet and discuss and advise
@ThieleM You then went on to question what doctors had to do with it ? Another comment without thought or knowledge. Your position in this whole discussion is ridiculous; deserving of ridicule, and I suggest you are no researcher, certainly not with the Mengele comment and the fact that you think all research is valid ... this isn't the case ethically or morally or legally. and this is the point you shopuld have been aware of if you are involved in a real facility
@ThieleM And this appealing to some imaginary audience as if you were Sam Harris in some debate and waiting on a cheer or applause from the crowd .... You are a fantacist ...what a clown. You should try researching reality
@ThieleM Making some idiotic hypothetical question implying I was in favour of female circumcision .... but not responding to any statement I made about 3rd world issues and the aid agency work I do; not even a comment about those issues which are also relative, wanting to help the malnourished and dying but you claim like a fucking ballooon I'm one of "those kind" a religious fundamentalist holding back development. Well ethical research isn't holding back development; it's doing it correctly
@ThieleM You have pointed out nothing other than that you are no kind of professional researcher and someone with a very limited vision; that's all you've done son
All he has left is tossing out "you're not a researcher" and other t hings that dont speak to the point of the subject or our exchange in a meaningful manner.
In short, he is done and has nothing left but bravado.
@ThieleM But on the embryonic issue; which is what was initially being discussed, the matter at hand is cells at the moment of conception and near to it; the area where development takes place. We now know that within seconds of conception; the natural reaction of the body is to surround the fertilised sperm and egg with a protective membrane or cover; this is even before the woman would know or medical science can test.
@ThieleM It applies "because" there are ethics involved ... for fuck sake ...there you go again in support of anything goes ... test whatever way you want ... the end justifies the means ... now do you understand about Mengele for fuck sake man..I think you are no researcher; to even contemplate a comment such as that only comes from someone without values; scruple, morals or any kind of structure towards research ... professional research that is ... not your kind.. with a chemistry set
@ThieleM The reason nature "naturally" takes such care of the embryo is because of the unstable formative condition of the "bundle of cells" as some like to call it. At this stage, it is pure potential, to be nothing other than a human person and needs protection to develop.
@ThieleM What I am advised and what comes out in the discussion of scientists and doctors and researchers, is that it is this inherent instability which is problemmatic in terms of development.This; I am reliably informed, is where the adult stem cells are superior in that they are more stable; the end result is more known than unstable embryonic ones; which are more easily susceptible to developing cancer and other diseases.
@ThieleM There is a great continual debate within the medical and research world about ethics and morality; we get papers on it all the time, and how to apply these values; but one thing is for certain; NO research should go on at the expense of a living person AND the research should be for the beneficial welfare of the recipient; and this means morally as well as physically BUT also these tests must be verifiable and accountable to the general public.
@ThieleM You made a number of incorrect assertions early on in this exchange; you now have the clear answers to all of them; so just remember to read what is stated as opposed to what you think in your head
There you go trying to change the discussion away from your faults rather than just admit that you are wrong and ignorant.
You however have clearly demonstrated yourself to be entirely misinformed and are a demonstrated liar.
Until you admit that you are willing to lie to make a point nothing you say will mean anything to anyone reading this exchange. Once you do admit to being a liar who doesnt understand the first thing about stem cell research your words are meaningless
@ThieleM And my first post here still stands; disprove it if you can but I notice you never replied to any of the points I raised .... researcher my arse
If your first point was (you have raised so many incorrect points it is hard to keep them straight) either "no cures' or 'adult stem cells are better because they are more stable' then I have dealt with both of those lies. Since I demonstrated your willingness to lie nobody will take your statements seriously anymore.
You can say 'researcher my arse' all you want but that means nothing.
You lost. Maybe you should move onto another stem cell video.
@ThieleM I made it clear from the outset I am not opposed to research, I work in this area as well as aid programs .. you know to help people.. but you chose to try and slander me and make accusations about right wing religious nut etc ... without even knowing where I come from (US you thought) or my political affiliations. You even said I was on the money making side because of mentioning finance ... when it is the exact opposite. What an absolute clown you must really feel
@ThieleM And ... morality and ethics are very very big issues for those funders as well as any decent Doctor or Researcher I suggest; at least those that I have come across or worked with, and having seen the horror first hand of starvation and disease and drought as we have now, and children dying of curable diseases, let me tell you ... the problem isn't in the lack of medicine ... it's about money and control. A child dies every 15 seconds of a curable disease in this world of plenty
I'm not going to allow you to change the subject. We are talking bioethics not starvation or curable disease. We are talking about research into diseases that we can't cure right now but have good reason to pursue.
You are right a child does die every 15 seconds. And thanks to people like you getting in the way of meaningful treatment research that will continue.
Stay on track or fuck off. Just because yo are losing doesnt mean you get to change the subject.
@ThieleM I'm not changing the subject; ethics is about not letting people circumcise little girls or anyone for fuck sake ... any balloon would know that ... are you really sure you're a researcher?
No you are trying to change the subject. You are also pulling out strawmen. I laid out an example of a relativistic ethical dilemma....that wasnt about research.
And you are changing the subject. We are discussing the uses of stem cells, and how they can be used. By implication the status of what a 150 cell clump is is acceptable. Your appeals to emotion are not on subject.
Stop trying to change the subject/muddy the waters.
@ThieleM And the answer to your pathetic attempt at a question is that I would not want to harm anyone .... unless they agreed to donate a kidney or blood or anything of that nature. The individual person has rights and must be protected. The governing rule is to utilise the Declaration of Human Rights and to apply it across the board; and ... if you are any kind of researcher ... you would know that ....
@ThieleM and that is why bodies such as I am involved in and the whole approach to medical research has to be conducted in an open manner with the "safety of the patient" as the overriding issue.
@no1hoopsman "What has embryonic stem cell research cured to date ? My understanding was it is nothing; no cure for anything so far."
Even if that were true, what would it matter? Should we stop looking for a cure to aids because nothing has cured it yet? How much more shallow-minded can you think on this issue?
@permypoo Oh I didn't make an allusion to research being stopped; you made an incorrect assertion from something you want to read into my statements. The proposition you make can be can be used to justify any research ... it was used by Josef Mengele for goodness sake; just how fucking shallow was that concept. That's why they have ethical standards nowadays that we are supposed to keep to; supposed being the operative word
@permypoo The very first line of my post is about not stopping research and you implying that I was shallow minded because of it. I suggest Harris was shallow minded in this clip because he used his anti religion stance to imply that religion is against stem cell research when that isn't the case; it is about the ethical issues involved. And the point I make about "no cure so far" is factually correct; once a cure is made then that will be beneficial for all
@no1hoopsman I think he knows it is about the ethical issues. He is mentioning religion because it is irrationally blocking research on the grounds of a soul.
@permypoo That's not the reasoning behind any objections; the objections come from the same area that all scientists should be concerned with and that is ethical issue. I've never heard one argument on this about soul which would be totally irrelevant anyway as the soul isn't something that can be operated on. From my information at meetings with researchers the adult stem cell issue is productive, the embryonic one isn't, but is a political issue on the tail of "religion stops research"
@permypoo I didn't say anyone was being harmed; you read things into my replies that aren't there, the ethics should be applied across the board irrespective of animal or human research, but in this case the embryonic research is dividing the research community at the moment; funding is a big issue and the most productive area is adult stem cell research; embryonic is not productive but "theoretically" has the greater potential, not in reality, and these are the facts as I am aware in my role
@no1hoopsman So I don't even know what you are trying to argue. You don't think it harms anyone but we should stop because it hasn't been fruitful yet? Fill me in.
@permypoo The arguments against embryonic research is that it is unethical, too costly and nil production. While the ethics may be debated, the other two points are not in contention. The promise of things to come doesn't impress investors when initial promises haven't been met, whereas with adult stem cell research there is a positive verifiable outcome. That's the point of the stem cell research issue.
@no1hoopsman The research is in its infancy, it would be very short-sighted to stop now. Cost should not be an important factor when it is for something as promising as embryonic stem cell research. Maybe nothing will come of it or maybe we will cure paralysis, but I think it is a worthy cost to try. I have worked with spinal cord injury patients and I would love more than anything for them to be cured of their illness.
@permypoo Me too, cure for all diseases is what we all want; I state this earlier on, and the potential is very exciting but not in it's infancy now I suggest. I believe there are two patients that have been injected or treated with embryonic cells at the moment and it will be marvellous if a cure is found. We are facing the problem of modern day finance in one aspect; no results no money, and we can't live or believe on promises of what is to come; this is Harris view of religion after all
@permypoo I have no problem with stem cell research whether embryonic or adult; obviously there is a debate on the embryonic issue. We post here about the "potential" of the research to cure a life, but try not to speak of the "potential" of the life (?) being destroyed; is it the same potential ? I don't know and it is very hard when working with children and people who need a cure for life...but ..in these posts I am 1)responding to Harris incorrect claim and 2)the reality to date of results
@permypoo But my point about Harris is he is trying to smear religious people as anti research; which isn't the case. I work with a lot of people who are both pro and anti religion/ abortion or whatever and they agree that the embryonic research is hard to justity from a result point of view as much as anything else...We now talk funding; the reality is money invested looks for a return
@permypoo But the point is that the research to date on adult stem cells has produced benefits; the embryonic ones haven't and this is the up to date information I am aware of. My understanding is that the Embryonic stem cell research is finding problems surrounding their use and viability and there are now documents and papers from various research institutes to this effect.
@no1hoopsman No one said to stop adult stem cell research. Both would be amazing. Embryonic research is most likely further behind than adult research because its funds have been restricted.
No that argument can't be used to justify any research. You continue to look because you want to improve treatments. Scientific research MUST progress that that means that research must continue.
It doesnt matter if Mengele used that reason, not one bit. In that assertion Mengele was right...he just perverted the correct idea to something evil. He also used scalpels, are they bad?
Oh yeah lose. When you bring in Nazi's up in a conversation not about Nazi's you lose.
@ThieleM But if you agree with Mengele; where the end justifies the means, you would agree with gassing people to have a better society; rid of all the scum of the earth ... is this your proposition ? I have never ever met anyone who even thought of aligning themselves with the philosophy of Mengele and his master race. I've visited Austria and Germany many many times; places like Telfs and Salzburg, but never had anyone venture that low life view
I live in Austria, I know a little more about our cultures than you do.
Now....when did I say I agree with Mengele? I didnt.
I said that just because a twisted bastard like Mengele twisted the principle that one should continue to strive to make things work doesnt mean that the fundamental behind that is bad.
What you asserted is like saying Gravity is bad since the Germans in WWI had to understand laws of attraction and motion to accurately bomb targets in the UK.
World can't rely on USA and Europe on stem cell research, too many religious group pressure there... In next 20 years, China will develop stem cell research, being atheist de facto, China will not care bout this kind of useless religious discourse :p
not only that but to kinda be like a zealous religous person we dont know everything, and yes the soul or 'life' has to come from somewhere.Maybe it is a purely chemical reaction of maybe some xfactor really does come into play, my point is we dont really know, imagine one day we find out that yes stem cells really do hold some kind of soul and we relise that we have slaughtered millions of setient voiceless beings in the name of research.
I don't think religion does obscure morals in this respect; adult stem cells have always been ok, foetus ones have not and this has proved to be correct
@no1hoopsman I agree mate, im not religious but i still think that to say that the only reason ppl should have to dislike stem cell research. If you thinkin stem cell research is ok then cool thats your opinion, if you dont thats your opinion too. Im not such where I stand but I dont think its simple enough to say these are just cells etc, its a type of harvesting in my mind, if the cells have the potential to develop to life. Yes they could heal certain problems but thats the world we live in
@Richdavt also things like parkinsons are a result of us humans living longer than we really should, we cant have it all there will be consequences to the science we use to prolong our lives, and in other ways live against the way nature intended us to.
@Richdavt My understanding about the stem cell research is that there was a big push for embryonic stem cell research as a "cure all", but was pushed by the pharmaceutical companies who wanted a "life extending elixir" and this was what they thought as the best method. Embryonic cells are by their nature more susceptible to disease and modification in effect; hence not reliable enough whereas adult cells are more stable. Good results form adult cell, nil from embryonic ones, no religious input
After 6 months of offering stem cell therapy in combination with the venous angioplasty liberation procedure, patients of CCSVI Clinic have reported excellent health outcomes. Ms. Kasma Gianopoulos of Athens Greece, who was diagnosed with the Relapsing/Remitting form of MS in 1997 called the combination of treatments a “cure”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
“I feel I am completely cured” says Ms. Gianopoulos, “my symptoms have disappeared and I have a recovery of many functions, notably my balance and my muscle strength is all coming (back). Even after six months, I feel like there are good changes happening almost every day. Before, my biggest fear was that the changes wouldn’t (hold). I don’t even worry about having a relapse anymore”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
A group of Canadian patients just back from Noble have reported similar results. “I can actually see what I thought were long-dead muscles forming in my feet” said Larry Vermeersch of Kenora, Ontario. “My balance is back and I’m walking without a cane. I’m a pretty hard guy to convince, but getting these two procedures together has made me a believer. I’m looking forward to the physio ahead because I can feel everything coming back.” Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
A universal benefit reported by every patient has been the recovery of bladder control. Most MS patients have various bladder control symptoms that include urinary urgency, incontinence, nocturia, or urinary hesitancy as a result of the disruption of electrical impulses from the brain to the nerves and muscles that are involved in emptying the bladder (pudenal nerve, urethral sphincter, detrusor muscle). Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Other recent MS patients who have had Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT), or stem cell therapy have posted videos and comments on YouTube v=jFQr2eqm3Cg. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Dr.Avneesh Gupte, the Neurosurgeon at Noble Hospital performing the procedure has been encouraged by results in Cerebral Palsy patients as well. “We are fortunate to be able to offer the treatment because not every hospital is able to perform these types of transplants.You must have the specialized medical equipment and specially trained doctors and nurses”. Log on to ccsviclinic.ca for more information.
With regard to MS patients, “We are cautious, but nevertheless excited by what patients are telling us. Suffice to say that the few patients who have had the therapy through us are noticing recovery of neuro deficits beyond what the venous angioplasty alone should account for”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Dr. Hemangi of Noble continues: “These are early days and certainly all evidence that the combination of liberation and stem cell therapies working together at this point is anecdotal. However I am not aware of other medical facilities in the world that offer the synthesis of both to MS patients on an approved basis and it is indeed a rare opportunity for MS patients to take advantage of a treatment that is quite possibly unique in the world”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Autologous stem cell transplantation is a procedure by which blood-forming stem cells are removed, and later injected back into the patient. All stem cells are taken from the patient themselves and cultured for later injection. In the case of a bone marrow transplant, the HSC are typically removed from the Pelvis through a large needle that can reach into the bone. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
The technique is referred to as a bone marrow harvest and is performed under a general anesthesia. The incidence of patients experiencing rejection is rare due to the donor and recipient being the same individual. This remains the only approved method of the SCT therapy. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
I would like to see Sam Harris scratch his nose, and then take those cells and make a human being. What a ridiculous assertion! He's comparing apples to oranges. The embryo is a human life, regardless of its stage of development. I vote Sam Harris donates his body to be experimented with so we can cure somebody who has Parkinson's. Same line of reasoning, but I'm sure he would disagree.
@DMilbury "I vote Sam Harris donates his body to be experimented with so we can cure somebody who has Parkinson's. Same line of reasoning, but I'm sure he would disagree." Not at all the same line of reasoning. Sam Harris has great capacity to suffer. A three day old human embryo has no such capacity. There's a big difference.
"Embryos can split [...] is this a case of one soul splitting into two souls?" This statement is absolutely mind-blowing if you stop to think about it. It utterly destroys not only religion, but also everything our intuition tells us about what a human being actually is.
Bowser1111 2 weeks ago
I am responsible for the environments I put myself in, but not for DNA. Free will in humans is limited in altering DNA in ourselves, but apparently and increasingly not in others (DNA manipulation). This gives rise to a whole host of ethical considerations.
patientthomist 1 month ago
I mean that the formula is DNA + environment + free will. If we say just environment we are determinists. If we say environment and DNA we are naturalists. If we say environment and DNA and free will, we are free will proponents, which is the norm. In the case of naturalists and determinists, there is no responsibility or accountability for moral action. Proponents of free will know they are responsible for their choices, since they could freely do otherwise.
patientthomist 1 month ago
In a certain way, it is true that it comes down to perception ... or epistemology. How can we be sure we know what we know? But it also comes down to the practical use of free will. We choose freely to accept that we know what is real. Whoever does not subscribe to free will at least subtly subscribes to determinism of a kind. Did you have to write your last post if you weren't feeling like writing it?
patientthomist 1 month ago
@patientthomist There is an undeniable human tendency to see ourselves as free and morally responsible beings. But there’s a problem. We also believe—most of us anyhow—that our environment and our heredity entirely shape our characters (what else could?). But we aren’t responsible for our environment, and we aren’t responsible for our heredity. So we aren’t responsible for our characters. But then how can we be responsible for acts that arise from our characters?
FryderykFChopin 1 month ago
@FryderykFChopin
I don't think anyone really believes that our environment and our heredity entirely shape our characters without our consent (especially beyond childhood). That consent is our free will. It is true that it's impossible to escape environments completely, since we are designed to be within environment. But we can choose which environments we want to be in, unless our free choices (not free will) are limited ... e.g. prison.
patientthomist 1 month ago
@patientthomist 'I don't think anyone really believes that our environment and our heredity entirely shape our characters without our consent'. When you say 'without OUR consent', what do you mean by 'our'? DNA + environment. And because you can't be responsible for those two factors that entirely shape your character, how can you be responsible for the actions that arise from your character?
FryderykFChopin 1 month ago
3:27 thief!!!!!!!!!!!!11111
puolalainen44 1 month ago 11
Sam Harris tells it like it is.
It's really funny how he shows how ridiculous religious believe is.
He should consider making "scientific" comedy or somthing like that :D
ihr0ppa 1 month ago 16
@ihr0ppa His work is too important to lower to comedic purposes - he's making immeasurably significant inroads against the theology that binds us to ridiculous notions and chains us to complacency.
Jessesse7 2 weeks ago 2
"Yes, naturally stupid are all who are unaware of God, and who, from good things seen, have not been able to discover Him-who-is, or, by studying the works, have not recognised the Artificer. And if they have been impressed by their power and energy, let them deduce from these how much mightier is he that has formed them, since through the grandeur and beauty of the creatures we may, by analogy, contemplate their Author."
Words from book Of Wisdom
franciszek8D 2 months ago
@franciszek8D Prettily phrased presuppositional drivel.
mouthyweasel 2 months ago
@mouthyweasel That's not pretty. It's just drivel with lots of superfluous words, multiple synonyms for 'God', and arcane grammatical construction. You're giving too much ground to theists. :P
VerboseMinimalist 1 month ago in playlist Sam Harris
lol
people are arguing about abortion on youtube videos
do you honestly think you're going to convince anyone of anything?
just give up. Or at least channel your efforts more effectively.
MrVKCA 3 months ago
Sam wants to believe that scratched off nose cells have the same additive qualities to human life as embryonic cells (2:02) ... then go ahead, Sam, and use YOUR scratched off nose cells for embryonic stem cell research. Where do the logical fallacies end with Sam Harris?
patientthomist 4 months ago
@patientthomist It's ok dude. Atheism and agnosticism are steadily growing throughout the world. In a few dozen decades cowards like you will be the minority. Ask your god to answer your prayers - he has a great track record.
TheCe1ebrity 3 months ago in playlist TheCe1ebrity's favorites
@TheCe1ebrity
I notice that you don't actually have an argument Celebrity ... just an ad hominem. Now that's a typical atheist -- not really interested in truth.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@TheCe1ebrity no its not ok dude. Sammy's logic is a mobile carnival. If the concept is just to evaluate cells with comparitive value as other cells is a joke. Human life is NOT just the cells ...its the life!!! Sammy goes on to just apply word-smithing to concepts. "We can't have this dialogue they way we should". Theres no blindness in applying value to an embryo in regards to religious faith. As for "minority" ...don't worry...the Bible explains that too!!!
hexusziggurat 3 months ago
Sam's Buddhist tendencies REALLY shine through on this one. And this is the problem with Buddhism: our concern in the universe is not primarily about ending suffering. Our primary concern in the universe is about choosing the good, which is the same as love.
patientthomist 4 months ago
Sam likes to use the word "obvious" often. That's what people often say when they are not intelligent enough to formulate the syllogism to defend the position they hold.
patientthomist 4 months ago
4) the embryo is not a human being and you know it and you kill the embryo -- it's morally permissible to kill without torture (as we do when we "consume" animals) -- but SAM, and his like-minded colleagues, can't PROVE that it's not human, and yet this IS the requirement for a good moral choice. So until it can be PROVEN that it's not a human being, then it is always a seriously immoral act.
patientthomist 4 months ago
@patientthomist -- 4) the skin cells are not a human being and you know it and you scratch your head -- it's morally permissible to kill without torture (as we do when we "jerk" off) -- but PATIENTTHOMIST, and his like-minded colleagues, can't PROVE that it's not human, and yet this IS the requirement for a good moral choice. So until it can be PROVEN that it's not a human being, then it is always a seriously immoral act.
Raptorjesusface 3 months ago
@Raptorjesusface
Sorry raptor ... you'll have to clarify your COMPLETELY incoherent sentence :)
Are you saying that I can't prove that scratched off skins cells are not a human being? Really?
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist No, I'm making fun of you for saying that you can't prove that an embryo isn't a human being. You can't "prove" it in the same way you can't prove anything outside of mathematics. Especially considering different people have different times when they define the embryo as a human being. Sam argues that because the embryo physically has less potential for feeling pain etc. than a fly, it isn't a human being. The other side of the issue is that by not doing stem cell research,
Raptorjesusface 3 months ago
@patientthomist other people with genetic diseases will die instead. It's not a choice between killing embryos and nothing, it's between killing embryos (that are usually dead anyway, for example the result of an abortion) and killing tons of people who are actually alive.
Finally, if you can't prove that embryos aren't human beings, that doesn't mean it's a proof that they are instead. Same thing with the old "You can't prove that god doesn't exist therefore he does" nonsense.
Raptorjesusface 3 months ago
@patientthomist Also, you'll notice that my sentence was copied from your own, so I have no problems admitting that it was a completely incoherent sentence, with unnecessary amounts of capslock as well.
Raptorjesusface 3 months ago
@Raptorjesusface
The problem raptor is when you insert new subjects or objects into a paragraph, but then fail to convert the rest of the paragraph to match your changes. It's a grammar thing that makes it incoherent ...that's why I asked the question that followed for clarification.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist I love getting lectures on grammar from people who don't understand capital letters.
To clarify, what I meant is that the idea of saying that you can't prove that embryos aren't human is as nonsensical as saying that you can't prove that skin cells aren't human.
Raptorjesusface 3 months ago
@Raptorjesusface
I admit your last post was hilarious ... I enjoy sarcasm. Anyway, skin cells have no potential to increasingly manifest essential human qualities ... they are a different kind of cell altogether. Skins cells don't develop arms, brains, etc. --- I don't think your point works.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist Oh but you can, all the dna you need to describe yourself is located within every cell of your body (except the gender-related ones I believe). All the information is there. I'm not a biologist, but I can at least say that it's physically possible to create a human being based on that.
Raptorjesusface 3 months ago
@Raptorjesusface
I am aware that skin cells can be reprogrammed to become nearly like embryonic stem cells using four regulator genes (i.e. UCLA - 2008). The point is the same though. Skins cells are not embryonic stem cells. For you to say that it's physically possible to create a human being is the most ridiculous statement you have made yet. Making organs is one thing. Making rationality and free will is quite another. Where will you pick those items up -- Walmart?
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist Rationality comes from the brain - which is entirely physical mind you. Free will is an illusion. The brain is an organ, just like any other.
Raptorjesusface 3 months ago
@Raptorjesusface
That is a lie ... an obvious lie. Justice, truth, scientific variables, etc. are not physical realities. A purely physical brain can only image purely physical entities, like animala have -- notice that animals don't consider truth or justice or scientific variables -- because they are immaterial concepts -- they are spiritual. And it you don't have free will, which is also immaterial, then I MUST say what I say, since all reality is determined. However, I choose to.
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist Notice that you can't read the minds of other human beings, let alone those animals of different species.
Other than that, why would a physical brain be required to only think about physical things?
And no, you don't choose to, you're led here by circumstances that caused your brain to develop in such a way that you would want to say that enough for you to do it. It also caused you to think that you have free will.
Raptorjesusface 3 months ago
@Raptorjesusface
Your first question is asking about the creativity of God ... why a physical universe at all? Your second point had to be said apparently, since you have no free will to alter what you were going to say. Neither do I. You're wrong ... I HAD to say it :)
patientthomist 3 months ago
@patientthomist If you didn't have free will, but had the illusion that you did, would that not be enough?
P.S. Atheist asking this.
TearsOfWar1 1 month ago
@TearsOfWar1
I know what you mean, but consider this. I experience free will as my ability to act against my instincts, especially the major instinct I have in any moment. I'm inclined to do something ... my body wants that thing (e.g. chocolate)... but I act against my body's desires. Animals don't do this ... no species does it in the human way. As well, if we observe neuron motion in my brain, science doesn't account for the origin of the motion ... next post
patientthomist 1 month ago
@patientthomist And I am saying what if that is just an illusion. You can have the illusion that you have the free will to act against your instincts, that you feel like you can decide your own path, and that you can think about things you are are not inclined to think. There are other things that drive us to do things besides instincts alone.
TearsOfWar1 1 month ago
@TearsOfWar1
Well, I could say that everything is an illusion, including science. I mean there is no end to that. We can only know, based on our experience. The common human experience is that we have the ability to act against our instincts. That's the entirety of the evidence and the definition of free will. What evidence is there that free will or knowledge or experience is an illusion?
patientthomist 1 month ago
@patientthomist What I was getting at is, if you had the perfect illusion of free will, what would be the difference to us if we actually had free will? It all comes down to perception.
P.S. Not a Solipsist, just posing a question.
TearsOfWar1 1 month ago
@TearsOfWar1
, but rather just THAT there is motion. I can freely choose to think about things I'm not inclined to think about. The reality that I can act against my inclinations opposes the idea that it is merely an illusion, don't you think?
patientthomist 1 month ago
"we should be more concerned with killing flies than killing three day old HUMAN embryos"? Here are the four logical options Sam, so well put by Peter Kreeft:
1) The embryo is a human being and you know it -- and you kill the embryo -- MURDER
2) The embryo is a human being and you don't know it -- and you kill the embryo -- MANSLAUGHTER
3) The embryo is not a human being and you don't know it -- and you kill the embryo -- CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE .... see next post
patientthomist 4 months ago
Questions;
If human free-will and self-awareness as an individual is mere illusion leaving leading to biochemical determinism and thus no individual culpability in choice of actions how is anything evil or wrong?
If there's no such thing as objective morality, just human preference to well being but a child molester has differing ideas about well being than his victims, how is that a "moral landscape" and not just a mere "preference landscape"? Harris has very low philosophical understandings.
WILLTHEWGMAN 4 months ago
@WILLTHEWGMAN I think if you work from the preface of: a world in which there is the most amount of suffering for the most amount of sentient beings is the worst world imaginable you can draw out quite a good set of morals.However, i would gladly argue and debate until a set of morals could be reasoned into existence.its wrong to say we should forget reason and invent a mystical god so we can turn to an immoral outdated book written over 2000 years ago to guide us to be moral in today's society
RobertTyrrellSlater 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WILLTHEWGMAN I think if you work from the preface of: a world in which there is the most amount of suffering for the most amount of sentient beings is the worst world imaginable you can draw out quite a good set of morals.However, i would gladly argue and debate until a set of morals could be reasoned into existence.its wrong to say we should forget reason and invent a mystical god so we can turn to an immoral outdated book written over 2000 years ago to guide us to be moral in today's society
RobertTyrrellSlater 4 months ago
Ben Stiller is so smart!
sl31pn1r 5 months ago
I scratched my ass... I've committed genocide
choongd 6 months ago 2
A 3 day old embryo provides nothing for stem cell research; it is too unstable. It is only adult stem cell research that has provided any cures; embryonic stem cell research has provided zilch......this is medical evidence, nothing to do with theology or religion. Harris peddles lies and false hope here; the very accusation against religion in so many of his cases
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman
So says someone who clearly, has never worked in a lab
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM You are absolutely correct in that assumption; last time I was in a lab was at High School, but is what I stated not the case? What has embryonic stem cell research cured to date ? My understanding was it is nothing; no cure for anything so far.
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Look up what we can treat with stem cells..that is what Embryonic stem cells can treat. Your contention that adult stem cells are more stable is moronic....that stability is the problem that makes them less effective.
Embryonic stem cells can be used in more applications and dont require as much work to get them to work in that area.
Next time you want to talk science learn what you are reading cause you are talking out your arse.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM Probably not much difference between my arse and your mouth mate... why don't you list what the embryonic stem cells have cured ?
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Did you not comprehend what I just said?
Stem cells are stem cells, the difference here is that an embryonic stem cell can be more easily adapted. You are making a divide where none exists....embryonic stem cells are easier to work. THe cells can be used for treating brain damage, cancers, heart disease, paralysis, Diabetes, skin grafts...the list is too long to post here.
You are also full of it by using 'cure'...in medicine we treat. Not everything can be cured.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM The point I made is they haven't cured anything so far .... nowt...nada....this is the actual response from the medical world ... at least the one I am involved in. We all know the "potential they may have" ... and it's very exciting of course .. and could cure all sorts of illnesses or prevent them and all the positive stuff that we all want, but I specifically made the point; which has been made to me on many ocassions tha "embryonic stem cells haven't cured anything to date"
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
The point you are making is meaningles, it is vacuous...it is obtuse. It shows that you dont know what you are talking about.
Not all medical treatments must lead to cures. Not all medical procedures are about cures. Medicine also treats and by taking a cell that can be cultured to duplicate virtually any tissue in the human body to treat people then that cell is being used for something good.
You are either a moron or are being intentionally obtuse.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM It isn't meaningless at all, it is very much part of the funding process involved in medical research as well as the scientific. Whereas adult stem cell research can point to specifics, the embryonic ones can't. This point has been made to me by a number of researchers and Dr's involved in this area. My understadning from these same people is that the adult stem cell research is proving more effective with positive results, whereas the embryonic area isn't ... at the moment .
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Your understanding is incorrect. I use adult stem cells everyday for several treatments, it is working but is a slow go. If we had access to embryonic embryos we would be far closer than using adult.
Another point, what Doctors tell you doesnt matter, they arent researchers, they arent scientists. Also, you hearing from 'a number' of researchers doesn't matter. I could go out and find a number of researcher with religious motivation who say the earth is flat.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM First of all they are doctors involved in research and using it. the researchers are religious and secular; specifically so. Religion has nothing to do with this other than Harris using it in his clip. I support stem cell research; embryonic doesn't bother me; I'm only reporting facts as presented by researchers and confirmed from areas like UCLA as I'm lead to believe.
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
and yes it is meaningless. As I already stated medicine isnt all about cures, it is about treatments. You are STILL drawing a line b/w stem cells as adult and embryonic when i have corrected you on your error.
In short...you are either a moron or are being intentionally obtuse
ThieleM 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
You are also working of a false assumption. The cells dont tell us anything. We tell the cells what to do...that is the whole point of using a mutable cell.
Once again, you dont know what you are talking about. You have chosen sources to support your worldview and can't see that your worldview is a problem in the future of medicine.
I am going to assume you are a white christian, likely from America or the OK...your kind is going to lead humanity to its ruin.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM There is also still a debate; ethical, moral, financial and result driven about the effective use of embryonic stem cell research. As the facts are presented to me, there is far more positive results from adult stem cell work than embryonic ... to date. The work with the cells; again as I am advised by researchers and professional people working in this field is that the cells don't always do what you would like them to do ... otherwise all the promise would have been fulfilled by now
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM And you would need to be a real moron to not see that bit by the way ... that is irrespective of where and what and who you are.
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
To see what? Your false assumption, that you dont know what you are talking about or that your kind is leading humanity to its ruin.
You just admitted to a lot.....
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM Point out my false assumption ... and then explain what you mean by "your kind". So far I've given exactly what a lot of researchers are experiencing, what researchers in UCLA recently issued a paper on, what is factual to date. Becuase; so far, the embryonic research has produced no cures; nothing in comparison to the adult stem cell program; this is fact. Now in reality, investors in research tend to want to see results; financial return, and so far only the adult research has
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Your kind, the religious right. If you are talking about the paper I think you are (I am a UCLA alumni) then you have mistaken the actual meaning of the paper. You likely just read the abstract or a piece written about the paper.
And now you are back on cures....that just shows, yet again, that you are too stupid and closed minded to have a meaningful discussion.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM And I point to the reality of funding; if you are working in this environment, you will know about funding, this isn't for the good of the people at the treatment end but for the investors...they want a return .. and if you haven't the sense to see that in my posts it shows how clouded your fucking judgement is ... you must really be a half wit ... are they researching you ... looking for a brain most like
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Now I get it...you are a puppet of those who want to make money off NOT paying for programs that can actually help.
Fuck off.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM You don't get anything; that's your problem, your head is up your arse and have seen fuck all or you would know what I'm talking about ...I've had kids die in my arms for lack of food and clean water, and yet the west .. us .. are spending billions on arms and worst of all denying countries fair trade .. but I know you don't know anything about that ... it is you who are delusional, and by a frighteningly long way
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
That is terrible but has nothing to do with taking a collection of a 150 cells and using them to work on medical procedures.
Stop trying to change the subject
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM I have no problem with stem cell research ... or any kind of ethical and morally correct research ... tnat is why I am involved in a "3rd world aid agency" ... the clue is in the title and the subject by the way .... hence why I am on the board as a lay member ... not the side of the funders ... or of the University ... but of the people ... get it now ? Are you sure you do research ? Where do you get your funding ?
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Now you have no problem with stem cell research? Is that in general? Earlier you drew an imaginary line between kinds of stem cells....and made a bunch of nonsensical assertions tha are flat out incorrect. Now you appear to be shifting your position on SSR
A person that fundamentally misunderstands the data the way you do should not be allowed near this sort of issue.
Are you able to be honest?
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM You tend to make an awful lot of assumptions; wholly incorrect, and yet can't read or see what is written. The expectation of embryonic cell work was so very high; yet it hasn't delivered; this is what I state and this is where the problem is in terms of result; any kind of result. Don't read into someone's profile and think you know them; you've got an awful lot to learn I suggest
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
I work with the fucking things you little troll5 days a week, 6 days a week sometimes. You dont know what you ate talking about. I dont make assumptions I speak from experience. THe only assumptions I have made are those that assert that your religion is clouding your ability to think and causing you to only read things that fit your tiny worldview.
SSR does deliver, you just dont know where to look or wont look to see what they can do. Your loss.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM Well you are fucking wrong then yah bampot; if you looked at anything that was written you would see I don't have a fucking problem with either research yah clown. I am part of a team who deal with bio ethics; a lay member who listens to your kind of people all the time...listen bieng the operative word; something you should try. The bottom line on this for me and my experience to date is that...the fucking researchers themselves admit to being disappointed in the lack of results
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
How can any stem cell procedures be produced to 'cure' without research first? The research determines the practical application of the result. But you clearly dont understand how this sort of thing works.
You just demonstrated that you are, not only a lay person but one that has no business passing any sort of ethical standard or adaptation due to your inability to understand the matter at hand.
THis is just stunning. No wonder medical research in America is slowing.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM I'm in UK, as well as working for international aid agency now part of my re-mit is as lay person on bio ethics board; we deal with the funders who we act for to ensure the correct ethics applied, and to discuss along with the professional bodies involved and their personnel about the results and problems and issues involved; they are very extensive ... but ... on this singular point about embryonic v adult; the info so far is that the results from ESCR has not delivered
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
What is a correct ethic? One that is in alignment with your worldview?
If we were in a country that circumcised little girls as per their worldview and stem cells were used to treat a (hypothetical) issue then our intruding into taking knives to little girls could be called unethical.
You lose in trying to impose, and you admitted this, corporate ethics onto actual research.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM You really need to learn to read ... I'm a lay member ... an advisory position to speak for the "common man" ... because of my experience in the 3rd world and the fact I've travelled a lot... I don't impose any ethics; but question those who do ... they all work to an ethical code anyway .... are you sure you are a researcher ? It doesn't fucking sound like it to me
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
I actually know how to conduct ethical research. You merely do as you are told.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM If you really knew about ethics there is no way on this earth you would have supported Mengele's position ... never in a million years ... Harris would be dumbfounded and the first to go down your throat .... and if the press gets a hold of you and the institute you work in they will absolutely crucify you ...absolutely ... no professional person in their right mind would make such a claim ... are you sure you are a researcher ?
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
I DONT SUPPORT MENGELE'S POSITION. I NEVER SAID I DID...I SAID IT WAS A TWISTED EVIL THING.
NOW STOP LYING ABOUT WHAT I SAID.
I said that just because Mengele twisted something that is true (dont give up) into something evil (dont give up regardless of who you hurt) doesnt make the truth bad in essence. Sam supports me on this. Read his books. You can't be this dumb, you just can't be.
ThieleM 5 months ago
Can someone else comment on this? Maybe no1hoopsman will start listening to a third voice:
Is the statement "Don't give up" the same as "Don't give up regardless of who you may have to hurt in the process"
I contend that they are 2 fundamentally different statements.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM You agreed with Mengele .." It doesnt matter if Mengele used that reason, not one bit. In that assertion Mengele was right " ... What assertion would that be ? The one where any scientific research is allowed if it means a cure ?
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
And that is a misrepresentation of my position...the assertion I am talking about is that one should keep trying. The extension "regardless of method" is something that I rejected.
I have now clarified it several times.
You are, clearly, a pathological liar. You argue points that people dont make OR try to shift points to fit what you want to hear.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM I suggest Mein Freund, that you are misleading yourself; especially if you really are a medical researcher. To even try to justify any part of Mengele's philosophy which entails adopting the stance of people being expendable; this would be the stand you try to defend; one that is completely indefensible. Research comes at a cost; not just financial, and NO research is justified if it means taking the life of another without their permission.... and even this stance is dubious.
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Just so that people dont have to look back into the thread to see your deceptive tactics. Here is what I REALLY said:
'It doesnt matter if Mengele used that reason, not one bit. In that assertion Mengele was right...he just perverted the correct idea to something evil. He also used scalpels, are they bad?'
You sir, are a liar
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM I can assure you that were the press to ever get hold of your views, the facility .... in which you say you work would be closed down, so whatever you do...don't mention your admiration for any position that Mengele adopted ever again.
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM Another pointer for you to consider is the areas the research is aimed for. Do you know what percentage of medical research is aimed at helping the impoverished and malnourished and starving children of the world ? Have a guess and then tell me what percentage is used for the beauty industry.
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM Every medical institution has to work within an ethical code of conduct; there are governing bodies to adhere to and quite rightly so. One of the other lay members is a retired nurse, she was involved in taking the wonder drug Thalidomide; remember it? Probably not, but I'm sure you will find out about it and the way the tests were conducted. Now she and her daughter have to live with the consequences of incorrect research
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Pointing out one area of research that resulted in a negative does not mean that all areas of research are unethical or should not be pursued.
Any other stupid points from you?
Also....why should anyone believe what you say? GIven that you are a demonstrated liar and all?
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM You see it is also because of things like Thalidomide we have insurance companies who underwrite the medical companies who insist on checks and bodies to ensure that there is never any chance of incorrect practise or procedure during development of any cure or medicine; the knock on effect of bad drugs is enormous financially as well as socially don't you know; hence why I know you are not a researcher; these facts are a pre-requisite in any civilised country or ethical organisation
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM You clearly know nothing about conducting research or research institutes; to be unaware of finance, ethics or insurance and legislative issues all too clearly shows you are the fraud I suggest.
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Actually I do.
Why are you constantly trying to change the issues here. We are talking about stem cells, not who pays for the lab. STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT. I want my station to stay open....arranging funding is for the University that employs me. I want to be in a lab, I dont want to be in a boardroom. I am a scientist not a businessman. They make sure that we are working in an ethical manner, and we are.
Working in biology has NOTHING to do with arranging funds
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM Well you don't act in a very educated or scientific manner on here; to make incorrect assumptions as you did clearly indicates you need to learn to ask and enquire first ... the way a scientist would do ... rather than come on here and talk shite. Every single point I have made is accurate and all encompassing and applicable to someone involved at the level I am with care for the safety of the patient as the objective
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Actually in pointing out the actually applications of Stem Cells I demonstrated far more education and understanding than you contend. I have chosen NOT to show off, cause I'm not a show off like you.
Your points? You made a point about no cures, that is a point based on misunderstanding...not a valid point. You then went off on things I didnt say to push some point on ethics...not a valid point.
Toss in that you are a demonstrated liar and your points are dismissed.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM You demonstrated pre-judgement; making claims about people holding back progress, "my kind" ..the ones against research you claimed ... would bring the world to ruin .... when in actual fact I support research ... but ethical and morally correct research and clarified exactly why. I made this point with another poster on this clip. There was absolutely nothing scientific about how you went about making your point; and the fact is you tried to make a part of Mengele's position justified
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM The point about cures is valid, the additional points about finance, legality, insurance, ethics and clarity of research are equally so to give you an idea of what is involved. You made the claim you aren't interested in what goes on at another level, but were acting in an ethical manner. Ethics involves carrying out research in a professional way inside a recognised system
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
There you go again. I said that I just want to do research, that the University handles ethical and financial aspects. I act within the legal and ethical limits of my employer, society and myself....the university is a recognized system.
Readers. Rather than send me PM's please
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM and IF you were any kind of researcher you would and should have known this and not been sooooo stupid as to even consider the Menegele claim let alone try to justify a part of it; that was immature in the extreme, but you have demonstrated this throughout using terminology like "winning"...childs play ... this is a discussion about living and I clearly show why it is absolutely necessary for ethical research because of "accountability" and issues like Thalidomide
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM And these points are relative as we have issues like legal aspects of pharmaceutical companies and their research going on all the time; every institute at least here in the UK and in Europe I believe, come under strict guidelines in terms of operation, funding and application because of legal actions taken against these companies and the knock on effect on research; exactly why it is necessary and pre-requisite for ethical and morally correct research
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
Earlier he said this in a manner that implied that since i wasnt really interested in dealing with money men made me unethical
"Ethics involves carrying out research in a professional way inside a recognised (sp)system"
But then he just said that universities are under an umbrella of strict guidelines in the UK and Europe (which is correct) in the paragraph I am commenting upon. He cant even keep his points together in the same thought...much less understand these concepts.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM That's a lie about the finance and you know it, and what is your deal in acting as if our discussion is being read by the rest of the world you really are in cloud cuckoo land. You started by accusing me of not having worked in a lab implying I had no knowledge of how the cells work. I acknowledged that right away and confirmed my capacity for comment as a lay member of a bio ethics board and committee where scientists and doctors meet and discuss and advise
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM You then went on to question what doctors had to do with it ? Another comment without thought or knowledge. Your position in this whole discussion is ridiculous; deserving of ridicule, and I suggest you are no researcher, certainly not with the Mengele comment and the fact that you think all research is valid ... this isn't the case ethically or morally or legally. and this is the point you shopuld have been aware of if you are involved in a real facility
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM And this appealing to some imaginary audience as if you were Sam Harris in some debate and waiting on a cheer or applause from the crowd .... You are a fantacist ...what a clown. You should try researching reality
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM Making some idiotic hypothetical question implying I was in favour of female circumcision .... but not responding to any statement I made about 3rd world issues and the aid agency work I do; not even a comment about those issues which are also relative, wanting to help the malnourished and dying but you claim like a fucking ballooon I'm one of "those kind" a religious fundamentalist holding back development. Well ethical research isn't holding back development; it's doing it correctly
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM You have pointed out nothing other than that you are no kind of professional researcher and someone with a very limited vision; that's all you've done son
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
There we go folks.
All he has left is tossing out "you're not a researcher" and other t hings that dont speak to the point of the subject or our exchange in a meaningful manner.
In short, he is done and has nothing left but bravado.
I'll leave it to anyone reading this.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM But on the embryonic issue; which is what was initially being discussed, the matter at hand is cells at the moment of conception and near to it; the area where development takes place. We now know that within seconds of conception; the natural reaction of the body is to surround the fertilised sperm and egg with a protective membrane or cover; this is even before the woman would know or medical science can test.
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
WHAT. If this happens before science can test it then how do we know it?
That is the stupidest thing you have said in this thread.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM It applies "because" there are ethics involved ... for fuck sake ...there you go again in support of anything goes ... test whatever way you want ... the end justifies the means ... now do you understand about Mengele for fuck sake man..I think you are no researcher; to even contemplate a comment such as that only comes from someone without values; scruple, morals or any kind of structure towards research ... professional research that is ... not your kind.. with a chemistry set
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM The reason nature "naturally" takes such care of the embryo is because of the unstable formative condition of the "bundle of cells" as some like to call it. At this stage, it is pure potential, to be nothing other than a human person and needs protection to develop.
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM What I am advised and what comes out in the discussion of scientists and doctors and researchers, is that it is this inherent instability which is problemmatic in terms of development.This; I am reliably informed, is where the adult stem cells are superior in that they are more stable; the end result is more known than unstable embryonic ones; which are more easily susceptible to developing cancer and other diseases.
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM There is a great continual debate within the medical and research world about ethics and morality; we get papers on it all the time, and how to apply these values; but one thing is for certain; NO research should go on at the expense of a living person AND the research should be for the beneficial welfare of the recipient; and this means morally as well as physically BUT also these tests must be verifiable and accountable to the general public.
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM You made a number of incorrect assertions early on in this exchange; you now have the clear answers to all of them; so just remember to read what is stated as opposed to what you think in your head
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
There you go trying to change the discussion away from your faults rather than just admit that you are wrong and ignorant.
You however have clearly demonstrated yourself to be entirely misinformed and are a demonstrated liar.
Until you admit that you are willing to lie to make a point nothing you say will mean anything to anyone reading this exchange. Once you do admit to being a liar who doesnt understand the first thing about stem cell research your words are meaningless
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM You are the fraud here; everyone and anyone reading this exchange with any common sense or decency can see that
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM And my first post here still stands; disprove it if you can but I notice you never replied to any of the points I raised .... researcher my arse
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
If your first point was (you have raised so many incorrect points it is hard to keep them straight) either "no cures' or 'adult stem cells are better because they are more stable' then I have dealt with both of those lies. Since I demonstrated your willingness to lie nobody will take your statements seriously anymore.
You can say 'researcher my arse' all you want but that means nothing.
You lost. Maybe you should move onto another stem cell video.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM I made it clear from the outset I am not opposed to research, I work in this area as well as aid programs .. you know to help people.. but you chose to try and slander me and make accusations about right wing religious nut etc ... without even knowing where I come from (US you thought) or my political affiliations. You even said I was on the money making side because of mentioning finance ... when it is the exact opposite. What an absolute clown you must really feel
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM And ... morality and ethics are very very big issues for those funders as well as any decent Doctor or Researcher I suggest; at least those that I have come across or worked with, and having seen the horror first hand of starvation and disease and drought as we have now, and children dying of curable diseases, let me tell you ... the problem isn't in the lack of medicine ... it's about money and control. A child dies every 15 seconds of a curable disease in this world of plenty
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
I'm not going to allow you to change the subject. We are talking bioethics not starvation or curable disease. We are talking about research into diseases that we can't cure right now but have good reason to pursue.
You are right a child does die every 15 seconds. And thanks to people like you getting in the way of meaningful treatment research that will continue.
Stay on track or fuck off. Just because yo are losing doesnt mean you get to change the subject.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM I'm not changing the subject; ethics is about not letting people circumcise little girls or anyone for fuck sake ... any balloon would know that ... are you really sure you're a researcher?
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
No you are trying to change the subject. You are also pulling out strawmen. I laid out an example of a relativistic ethical dilemma....that wasnt about research.
And you are changing the subject. We are discussing the uses of stem cells, and how they can be used. By implication the status of what a 150 cell clump is is acceptable. Your appeals to emotion are not on subject.
Stop trying to change the subject/muddy the waters.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM And the answer to your pathetic attempt at a question is that I would not want to harm anyone .... unless they agreed to donate a kidney or blood or anything of that nature. The individual person has rights and must be protected. The governing rule is to utilise the Declaration of Human Rights and to apply it across the board; and ... if you are any kind of researcher ... you would know that ....
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@ThieleM and that is why bodies such as I am involved in and the whole approach to medical research has to be conducted in an open manner with the "safety of the patient" as the overriding issue.
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman "What has embryonic stem cell research cured to date ? My understanding was it is nothing; no cure for anything so far."
Even if that were true, what would it matter? Should we stop looking for a cure to aids because nothing has cured it yet? How much more shallow-minded can you think on this issue?
permypoo 5 months ago
@permypoo Oh I didn't make an allusion to research being stopped; you made an incorrect assertion from something you want to read into my statements. The proposition you make can be can be used to justify any research ... it was used by Josef Mengele for goodness sake; just how fucking shallow was that concept. That's why they have ethical standards nowadays that we are supposed to keep to; supposed being the operative word
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman "The proposition you make can be can be used to justify any research"
What proposition did I make? All I said was just because a discovery hasn't yet been found doesn't mean something should be stopped.
You made it sound like it a fruitless operation that should stop. If that isn't what you meant, my apologies.
permypoo 5 months ago
@permypoo The very first line of my post is about not stopping research and you implying that I was shallow minded because of it. I suggest Harris was shallow minded in this clip because he used his anti religion stance to imply that religion is against stem cell research when that isn't the case; it is about the ethical issues involved. And the point I make about "no cure so far" is factually correct; once a cure is made then that will be beneficial for all
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman I think he knows it is about the ethical issues. He is mentioning religion because it is irrationally blocking research on the grounds of a soul.
permypoo 5 months ago
@permypoo That's not the reasoning behind any objections; the objections come from the same area that all scientists should be concerned with and that is ethical issue. I've never heard one argument on this about soul which would be totally irrelevant anyway as the soul isn't something that can be operated on. From my information at meetings with researchers the adult stem cell issue is productive, the embryonic one isn't, but is a political issue on the tail of "religion stops research"
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman No one is being harmed. Embryonic stem cell research is far more ethical than animal research.
permypoo 5 months ago
@permypoo I didn't say anyone was being harmed; you read things into my replies that aren't there, the ethics should be applied across the board irrespective of animal or human research, but in this case the embryonic research is dividing the research community at the moment; funding is a big issue and the most productive area is adult stem cell research; embryonic is not productive but "theoretically" has the greater potential, not in reality, and these are the facts as I am aware in my role
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman So I don't even know what you are trying to argue. You don't think it harms anyone but we should stop because it hasn't been fruitful yet? Fill me in.
permypoo 5 months ago
@permypoo The arguments against embryonic research is that it is unethical, too costly and nil production. While the ethics may be debated, the other two points are not in contention. The promise of things to come doesn't impress investors when initial promises haven't been met, whereas with adult stem cell research there is a positive verifiable outcome. That's the point of the stem cell research issue.
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman The research is in its infancy, it would be very short-sighted to stop now. Cost should not be an important factor when it is for something as promising as embryonic stem cell research. Maybe nothing will come of it or maybe we will cure paralysis, but I think it is a worthy cost to try. I have worked with spinal cord injury patients and I would love more than anything for them to be cured of their illness.
permypoo 5 months ago
@permypoo Me too, cure for all diseases is what we all want; I state this earlier on, and the potential is very exciting but not in it's infancy now I suggest. I believe there are two patients that have been injected or treated with embryonic cells at the moment and it will be marvellous if a cure is found. We are facing the problem of modern day finance in one aspect; no results no money, and we can't live or believe on promises of what is to come; this is Harris view of religion after all
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@permypoo I have no problem with stem cell research whether embryonic or adult; obviously there is a debate on the embryonic issue. We post here about the "potential" of the research to cure a life, but try not to speak of the "potential" of the life (?) being destroyed; is it the same potential ? I don't know and it is very hard when working with children and people who need a cure for life...but ..in these posts I am 1)responding to Harris incorrect claim and 2)the reality to date of results
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman Well I can certainly see your side of it, but I just don't agree. But we are allowed to disagree. =)
permypoo 5 months ago
@permypoo That I accept and agree with, have a good day
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@permypoo But my point about Harris is he is trying to smear religious people as anti research; which isn't the case. I work with a lot of people who are both pro and anti religion/ abortion or whatever and they agree that the embryonic research is hard to justity from a result point of view as much as anything else...We now talk funding; the reality is money invested looks for a return
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@permypoo But the point is that the research to date on adult stem cells has produced benefits; the embryonic ones haven't and this is the up to date information I am aware of. My understanding is that the Embryonic stem cell research is finding problems surrounding their use and viability and there are now documents and papers from various research institutes to this effect.
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman No one said to stop adult stem cell research. Both would be amazing. Embryonic research is most likely further behind than adult research because its funds have been restricted.
permypoo 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
No that argument can't be used to justify any research. You continue to look because you want to improve treatments. Scientific research MUST progress that that means that research must continue.
It doesnt matter if Mengele used that reason, not one bit. In that assertion Mengele was right...he just perverted the correct idea to something evil. He also used scalpels, are they bad?
Oh yeah lose. When you bring in Nazi's up in a conversation not about Nazi's you lose.
ThieleM 5 months ago
@ThieleM But if you agree with Mengele; where the end justifies the means, you would agree with gassing people to have a better society; rid of all the scum of the earth ... is this your proposition ? I have never ever met anyone who even thought of aligning themselves with the philosophy of Mengele and his master race. I've visited Austria and Germany many many times; places like Telfs and Salzburg, but never had anyone venture that low life view
no1hoopsman 5 months ago
@no1hoopsman
I live in Austria, I know a little more about our cultures than you do.
Now....when did I say I agree with Mengele? I didnt.
I said that just because a twisted bastard like Mengele twisted the principle that one should continue to strive to make things work doesnt mean that the fundamental behind that is bad.
What you asserted is like saying Gravity is bad since the Germans in WWI had to understand laws of attraction and motion to accurately bomb targets in the UK.
ThieleM 5 months ago
World can't rely on USA and Europe on stem cell research, too many religious group pressure there... In next 20 years, China will develop stem cell research, being atheist de facto, China will not care bout this kind of useless religious discourse :p
dfdtdfdx 6 months ago
not only that but to kinda be like a zealous religous person we dont know everything, and yes the soul or 'life' has to come from somewhere.Maybe it is a purely chemical reaction of maybe some xfactor really does come into play, my point is we dont really know, imagine one day we find out that yes stem cells really do hold some kind of soul and we relise that we have slaughtered millions of setient voiceless beings in the name of research.
Richdavt 6 months ago
I don't think religion does obscure morals in this respect; adult stem cells have always been ok, foetus ones have not and this has proved to be correct
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
@no1hoopsman I agree mate, im not religious but i still think that to say that the only reason ppl should have to dislike stem cell research. If you thinkin stem cell research is ok then cool thats your opinion, if you dont thats your opinion too. Im not such where I stand but I dont think its simple enough to say these are just cells etc, its a type of harvesting in my mind, if the cells have the potential to develop to life. Yes they could heal certain problems but thats the world we live in
Richdavt 6 months ago
@Richdavt also things like parkinsons are a result of us humans living longer than we really should, we cant have it all there will be consequences to the science we use to prolong our lives, and in other ways live against the way nature intended us to.
Richdavt 6 months ago
@Richdavt My understanding about the stem cell research is that there was a big push for embryonic stem cell research as a "cure all", but was pushed by the pharmaceutical companies who wanted a "life extending elixir" and this was what they thought as the best method. Embryonic cells are by their nature more susceptible to disease and modification in effect; hence not reliable enough whereas adult cells are more stable. Good results form adult cell, nil from embryonic ones, no religious input
no1hoopsman 6 months ago
After 6 months of offering stem cell therapy in combination with the venous angioplasty liberation procedure, patients of CCSVI Clinic have reported excellent health outcomes. Ms. Kasma Gianopoulos of Athens Greece, who was diagnosed with the Relapsing/Remitting form of MS in 1997 called the combination of treatments a “cure”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
“I feel I am completely cured” says Ms. Gianopoulos, “my symptoms have disappeared and I have a recovery of many functions, notably my balance and my muscle strength is all coming (back). Even after six months, I feel like there are good changes happening almost every day. Before, my biggest fear was that the changes wouldn’t (hold). I don’t even worry about having a relapse anymore”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A group of Canadian patients just back from Noble have reported similar results. “I can actually see what I thought were long-dead muscles forming in my feet” said Larry Vermeersch of Kenora, Ontario. “My balance is back and I’m walking without a cane. I’m a pretty hard guy to convince, but getting these two procedures together has made me a believer. I’m looking forward to the physio ahead because I can feel everything coming back.” Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A universal benefit reported by every patient has been the recovery of bladder control. Most MS patients have various bladder control symptoms that include urinary urgency, incontinence, nocturia, or urinary hesitancy as a result of the disruption of electrical impulses from the brain to the nerves and muscles that are involved in emptying the bladder (pudenal nerve, urethral sphincter, detrusor muscle). Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
Other recent MS patients who have had Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation (ASCT), or stem cell therapy have posted videos and comments on YouTube v=jFQr2eqm3Cg. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr.Avneesh Gupte, the Neurosurgeon at Noble Hospital performing the procedure has been encouraged by results in Cerebral Palsy patients as well. “We are fortunate to be able to offer the treatment because not every hospital is able to perform these types of transplants.You must have the specialized medical equipment and specially trained doctors and nurses”. Log on to ccsviclinic.ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
With regard to MS patients, “We are cautious, but nevertheless excited by what patients are telling us. Suffice to say that the few patients who have had the therapy through us are noticing recovery of neuro deficits beyond what the venous angioplasty alone should account for”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dr. Hemangi of Noble continues: “These are early days and certainly all evidence that the combination of liberation and stem cell therapies working together at this point is anecdotal. However I am not aware of other medical facilities in the world that offer the synthesis of both to MS patients on an approved basis and it is indeed a rare opportunity for MS patients to take advantage of a treatment that is quite possibly unique in the world”. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Autologous stem cell transplantation is a procedure by which blood-forming stem cells are removed, and later injected back into the patient. All stem cells are taken from the patient themselves and cultured for later injection. In the case of a bone marrow transplant, the HSC are typically removed from the Pelvis through a large needle that can reach into the bone. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The technique is referred to as a bone marrow harvest and is performed under a general anesthesia. The incidence of patients experiencing rejection is rare due to the donor and recipient being the same individual. This remains the only approved method of the SCT therapy. Log on to ccsviclinic. ca for more information.
Jessica1963Forester 6 months ago
I would like to see Sam Harris scratch his nose, and then take those cells and make a human being. What a ridiculous assertion! He's comparing apples to oranges. The embryo is a human life, regardless of its stage of development. I vote Sam Harris donates his body to be experimented with so we can cure somebody who has Parkinson's. Same line of reasoning, but I'm sure he would disagree.
DMilbury 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DMilbury "I vote Sam Harris donates his body to be experimented with so we can cure somebody who has Parkinson's. Same line of reasoning, but I'm sure he would disagree." Not at all the same line of reasoning. Sam Harris has great capacity to suffer. A three day old human embryo has no such capacity. There's a big difference.
nichtmuttersprachler 7 months ago