The Geek Forum
Main Forums => Political Opinions => Topic started by: Joe Sixpack on March 09, 2009, 07:07:56 PM
-
"promoting science isn't just about providing resources - it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient - especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology. "
A beautiful statement, all well and good.
Except that he just got through saying
"And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."
Isn't that statement based on ideology and not facts? I admit that human cloning is somewhat disturbing, but dangerous and profoundly wrong? On what grounds? It took me about 5 seconds to think of legitimate science that human cloning could further (and about 5 more to imagine a society with a place for it), I'm sure people whose job it is could do better. For the sake of America, cut the crap.
-
The Earth is severely underpopulated. We need to clone more humans and fast. Plus think of all the new registered Democrats we can make!
-
uh... I am arguing for clones, or at least not demonizing the whole area of "inquiry".
-
Guess I can't say that the idea of growing humans in a lab is all that appealing to me. A little freaky. Yeah. Besides, why do we need clones when we have people spitting out eight kids like a human Pez dispenser? Nothing wrong with researching the idea further. Maybe some examples of when human cloning could come in handy might help me out here and see what it is you're talking about.
-
Backing up and trying again with a lost child maybe?
I dunno, the whole thing does seem creepy when thought of in the "growing people in the lab" frame
but I don't think that was near to what was/is being proposed.
Blatantly disposing the whole notion however, sounds more like a political balance chip.
... Kudos to B.O. for lifting Bushblocks to stem cell research though.
-
The whole clone issue is a thin line. Cloning a person exactly like the original is a no go area for me. But if they are able to reproduce certain parts of the body it is interesting.
Say you lost a finger or a toe due to an accident. Then they can grow you a new one. Failing kidneys, bad knees.......
It should stop at brains though because they define the personality.
-
The point is not whether human cloning is creepy or not (it is). It's whether Obama is being a fucking hypocrite by saying we're going to make scientific decisions based on facts and not ideology, and then saying that human cloning is profoundly wrong, which is an ideological statement, not a fact-based one.
-
Kind of like Obama saying that we're not going to take rash action regarding the economy, then pushing through a pork-filled spending bill through a Congress controlled by his party?
-
The point is not whether human cloning is creepy or not (it is). It's whether Obama is being a fucking hypocrite by saying we're going to make scientific decisions based on facts and not ideology, and then saying that human cloning is profoundly wrong, which is an ideological statement, not a fact-based one.
Ok,
But cloning being profoundly wrong can be a fact or an opinion and is therefor not an ideology perse.
-
Blatantly disposing the whole notion however, sounds more like a political balance chip.
-
Ok,
But cloning being profoundly wrong can be a fact or an opinion and is therefor not an ideology perse.
I disagree. Cloning being "profoundly wrong (or right)" is purely a matter of opinion, not a fact.
-
I disagree. Cloning being "profoundly wrong (or right)" is purely a matter of opinion, not a fact.
Didn't we learn anything from the Asgard's? They practically cloned themselves out of existence.
-
The loss of genitals was most tragic.
-
Yes it's a hypocritical statement. But clones will not be an exact replica, because the organism will contain the mitochondrial DNA of the donor egg and the nuclear DNA of the clonee. Unless we're talking about using an ova from the clonee and a somatic cell from the clonee. As for growing in the lab, this is a long way off, if even possible. A prospective clone would require an ova, somatic cell DNA of the clonee, and a uterus in which to implant via current IVF procedures. In a lab, they can't get the embryo to progress past the blastocyst stage.
-
The point is not whether human cloning is creepy or not (it is). It's whether Obama is being a fucking hypocrite by saying we're going to make scientific decisions based on facts and not ideology, and then saying that human cloning is profoundly wrong, which is an ideological statement, not a fact-based one.
Yes.
It sounds to me like Obama is being a fucking hypocrite. I'm not surprised though, because the poor fuck is a politician.
.......
It should stop at brains though because they define the personality.
At this point, this sounds like a wonderful idea because I would like to give someone a new brain for a Christmas gift. I want a red bow with the green holly wrapping paper. Although, I would settle for an old fashion lobotomy with a rusted plumbing pipe.
-
The loss of genitals was most tragic.
<shudders>
Most assuredly.
At this point, this sounds like a wonderful idea because I would like to give someone a new brain for a Christmas gift. I want a red bow with the green holly wrapping paper. Although, I would settle for an old fashion lobotomy with a rusted plumbing pipe.
Are you still searching, or would this be an interviewer?
-
Are you still searching, or would this be an interviewer?
I am still searching for a job, but this particular person is actually a personal aquaintence.
-
the problem with human cloning is that clonig has an enormously high failure rate - almost all of the "clonees" die, whether that be immediately or in a few years to to genetic flaws.
still, this isn't exactly the only time Obama has subtly changed his position
-
the problem with human cloning is that clonig has an enormously high failure rate - almost all of the "clonees" die, whether that be immediately or in a few years to to genetic flaws.
still, this isn't exactly the only time Obama has subtly changed his position
Subtly?
There was nothing subtle about that. I wouldn't call it a change in views either. It was jsut a contradiction and a pretty obvious one too.
Also,
Who are you?
-
"subtly" is sarcasm, sorry for not clarifying that. Obama just flip-flops like crazy and nobody even cares.
I'm just, you know, somebody. nobody in particular
-
Just so I know...being a flip-flopper is bad always, or just when you don't agree with the position in question? Also, when is it flip-flopping instead of just changing your mind (or even learning something you didn't know before that causes you to change your stance about something)?
-
Just so I know...being a flip-flopper is bad always, or just when you don't agree with the position in question? Also, when is it flip-flopping instead of just changing your mind (or even learning something you didn't know before that causes you to change your stance about something)?
I don't know... I keep going back and forth on that.
-
Just so I know...being a flip-flopper is bad always, or just when you don't agree with the position in question? Also, when is it flip-flopping instead of just changing your mind (or even learning something you didn't know before that causes you to change your stance about something)?
its bad if you do it for political reasons.
if you've got an opinion, stick to it!
-
its bad if you do it for political reasons.
if you've got an opinion, stick to it!
What if you stick to your opinion for political reasons, because you don't want to be accused of being a flip-flopper?
Sticking to opinions is kinda what got us into Iraq.
-
I amend: Stick to it, unless you genuinely change your mind.
-
I amend: Stick to it, unless you genuinely change your mind.
Ah, I see. You, unique among humans, can read Mr. Obama's thoughts.
-
I have no reason to believe he genuinely changed his mind. he probably just wasn't thinking at the time. and we want the president to never, ever, ever speak without thinking
-
I have no reason to believe he genuinely changed his mind. he probably just wasn't thinking at the time. and we want the president to never, ever, ever speak without thinking
That's a lot of speculation there, Runny. You actually have no idea what the man is thinking, what he thought before, and what he has to deal with. In short, you know nothing.
You can, legitimately, disagree with his policies, but as soon as you claim to have even an inkling of his inner motivations or thought processes, you veer into limbaugh kookville.
Just admit you don't like him and don't trust him, and leave it at that.
-
I don't like him and I don't trust him, and I leave it at that.
-
haha look at all dese nubs puttin value on human life
-
Insurance companies do it, the white slavery industry does it, games do it (I have an inventory of over $46B in the owned application on facebook). So what's wrong with a n00b doing it?
-
"C'mon, Obama" eh? I'd need a few drinks first and I'm pretty sure Michelle would get pissed.
-
Wait... Who's Michelle?
I didn't know you liked French dudes.
-
Wait... Who's Michelle?
His wife.
-
I was joking.
My lame attempt at humor will wander that direction. --->
Don't follow it. It's Polish.
-
I was joking.
My lame attempt at humor will wander that direction. --->
Don't follow it. It's Polish.
It's OK. When it comes to detecting humor, I'm about as sharp as a bag of wet hair. :wink:
-
So as I understand it, the problem with human cloning is not the actual act of cloning a human, but the potential for abuse. For example cloning living humans soley to harvest their organs. Now think about this, you wouldn't be taking the organs out of a newborn, but rather raising the child to an adult and then harvesting the organs. Kind of like a people farm.
So even if it didn't get corporatized, what would keep parents from cloning children soley to save themselves or other children? It seems to me that the right to life people would have a great big hairy cow over this.
Now back to the original quotes from Obama. In the first quote ... "promoting science isn't just about providing resources - it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient - especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda - and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology. "
Obama is clearly referring to the Bush Administrations falsification of Global Warming documentation and the science surrounding it. Then of course the second quote is clearly referring to cloning... however, it is also a statement that he is going to open up stem cell research, but wants to reassure all the nutballs out there that just because he approves of stem cell research he believes there is an ethical line.
Personally I believe there is a difference between ethics and political idealogies. Ethics don't neccessarily stem from religion, politics, finance or any seconday agenda, but from a sense of what is right and wrong.
So technically you are correct, he is applying an ideaology to science, don't you believe there has to be some checks and balances in science? For instance how about dropping a nuke on a major metropolitan city just to see what would happen?
As for putting value on human lives... how about dropping a nuke on a penguin population just to see what would happen? Hope the moderator feels better now LOL
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy8wgS69xjI#noexternalembed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy8wgS69xjI#noexternalembed)
ya ya ya I know; it's Glen Beck - I had to get past that, too; the point is; what he's talking about isn't on Snope's.
Go Joe.
-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/)
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
So we're reporting each other to the Feds for speech now. Nice.
-
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/ (http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-Stubborn-Things/)
So we're reporting each other to the Feds for speech now. Nice.
Hope and change, baby.
-
You're both on my report.
-
You're both on my report.
Oh, you don't have to file it. Did you catch the video above that post? They already have access to your home computer and all your files.
OH WAIT! - I mean; they already have access to the US Government property that you sit at home and surf on.
-
Oh, you don't have to file it. Did you catch the video above that post? They already have access to your home computer and all your files.
If Obama is that really that determined to watch my copy of "Charlie's Asians" then I'll just mail him the damn disc if it'll keep'em out of my computer.
-
I thought it was Asian Charlies.
-
I thought it was Asian Charlies.
In the trees?
OMG THAT'S WAISIS!
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/16/obama-wh-collects-web-users-data/?feat=home_cube_position1 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/16/obama-wh-collects-web-users-data/?feat=home_cube_position1)
He knows what you said.
"The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama's promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet."
-
^ might actually be illegal. those videos are the intellectual property of the posters
not that I care for copyright law, but the white house should be held up to a higher standard than me
call me a hypocrite
-
It's only intellectual property if it has been registered with a copywright or patent.
-
Not true!
You own the copyrights of your works by the act of creating them
-
Can I use that?
-
Not true!
You own the copyrights of your works by the act of creating them
Unless you mail it to yourself, though, (the postmark is dated; after mailing you cant open it if/until you end up in court) you have a hard time proving that in court if it isn't registered.
-
Well that's one way, sure. Protecting your IP and the legitimacy of IP in the first place is sort of a different discussion. But creative works are copyrighted at the moment of their creation in whatever manner the creator chooses. Novel ideas/invention type things are a little different, you do have to file a patent application to have it protected. There are also ways of demonstrating prior art in the case where someone patents something you created. That doesn't necessarily grant you one, but it can keep them from profiting from your work. This is all assuming you have the $$$ to get a patent granted in the first place, or the $$$ to fight it if you didn't file for one. The whole thing is pretty screwed and there is not much room for the little guy. Most patents are obscure minutiae filed by employees of corporations, and most of those times the patent will be owned by the employer, not the employee. Lots of times the company will "buy" the patent from the employee for a token $1 fee or something like that.
-
But creative works are copyrighted at the moment of their creation in whatever manner the creator chooses.
True; but if you write a song, dont register it with the Library of Congress, and give me a copy; I can register it and it now (legally) belongs to ME. Creative works don't require you register (it belonged to you when you wrote it); but a court will take my registration of it over your word; unless you have another means to legally prove time of authorship. That's not as easy as it seems, except for the Postal trick; although registration with the Library of Congress isn't that expensive. Especially if you have more than a few items to register.
Novel ideas/invention type things are a little different, you do have to file a patent application to have it protected. There are also ways of demonstrating prior art in the case where someone patents something you created. That doesn't necessarily grant you one, but it can keep them from profiting from your work. This is all assuming you have the $$$ to get a patent granted in the first place, or the $$$ to fight it if you didn't file for one. The whole thing is pretty screwed and there is not much room for the little guy. Most patents are obscure minutiae filed by employees of corporations, and most of those times the patent will be owned by the employer, not the employee. Lots of times the company will "buy" the patent from the employee for a token $1 fee or something like that.
Well, usually working for the company, the "little guy" is using company resources to fund the research and development FOR the company. It's called work-for-hire; and the company owns the patent; if there is one.
Now if you break bad and invent something on your own, on your own time that doesn't violate your employer's "non-disclosure" agreement, using your own resources; then you can file for a patent, and be the "little guy" owner. Patents are expensive, however, and a waste of money if you can't sell the invention (either outright; or producing/marketing yourself). Ever seen the Brop? A broom on one end, and a mop on the other. There's an example of something you don't really need to waste money for a patent. A better approach for something like that is to do a series of small test marketing campaigns to sell if the product generates any interest at all before spending the cash for a patent.