Actually, Empyre, I do believe you started this whole round with your "cuz he was there" comment, which related to another thread where your counter to Smash's position was that he couldn't possibly know the facts of a situation unless he was there to experience it.
You certainly don't seem able to make a resonable and sensible argument. You muddle up your stance, you never provide "facts", just opinion, and when all else fails, you throw out a not-so-veiled threat. I mean, damn, you even threatened Smoggy.
Sorry bro, just sayin'.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Godsend
GodsendFollow
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
Now, can we get back to cloning, you hijackers?
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
I think we should clone us some more Tares...
The Glorious Cherrabwyn wrote:
I think we should clone us some more Tares...
I'm likin' Katie more and more everyday.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
CultureSociety
1. n. pl.
a. The totality of social relationships among humans.
b. A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
c. The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.
2. An organization or association of persons engaged in a common profession, activity, or interest: a folklore society; a society of bird watchers.
My use of the word culture was correct, so quit trying to pick my nits (or at least buy me dinner first.)
Quote:
1. n.
a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
b. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
c. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
d. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.
5. Intellectual and artistic activity and the works produced by it.
a. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
b. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
c. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
d. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.
5. Intellectual and artistic activity and the works produced by it.
Quote:
1. n. pl.
a. The totality of social relationships among humans.
b. A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture.
c. The institutions and culture of a distinct self-perpetuating group.
2. An organization or association of persons engaged in a common profession, activity, or interest: a folklore society; a society of bird watchers.
My use of the word culture was correct, so quit trying to pick my nits (or at least buy me dinner first.)
Quote:
you've got it backwards chump change. take a look back...the antagonizing pokes at me whenever you can, making fun of every aspect of my beliefs..only difference is I fought back this time.
No. We hold diffrent spiritual beliefs. I believe that people are born, live thier lives as best they can and that's it.
You belive that people are born, are inhernatly bad when they are born, and continue to be bad throughout life. You belive that some jewish who got nailed to a tree two thousand years ago, of whom there is zero proof that he every actually existed at all, got nailed to a tree specifically for you. You also believe that he got nailed to the tree to absolve you of the bad things you've done, but only if you accept him as your saviour and try not to continue to bad things.
You belive that a collection of books, some written only a few hundred years after the jewish guy was allegedly nailed to a tree and some written many hundreds of years after the jewish guy was nailed to the tree should be used in conjunction with books written by jewish scholars long before the jewish guy was nialed to a tree that have stories of men being eaten by whales, people being turned to salt, god torturing Job because he wants to see if he'll be faithfull and so on and so on.
For some reason, because I choose not to believe all of that ludicrous ********* you think I'm somehow attacking you because you do.
I'm not.
All I've done was point out that there's no factual evidence that Christer Bunny ever existed at all.
You've stated that because I'm not 2000 years old there's no way I can point that out, apparently.
That just makes you a moron, it doesn't make you a victim.
You ambushd yourself on this one, you blathering weak willed limp wristed pathateic excuse for a man. I realize that because you're on a message board that you don't feel compelled to lube your *** up and offer the ussual "Free Rides For All" to try and get your point of view across, but, honestly I think that's probably the more effective way.
I'd stick to that.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Tare wrote:
The Glorious Cherrabwyn wrote:
I think we should clone us some more Tares...
I'm likin' Katie more and more everyday.
I'll take two or three.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Quote:
Tare wrote:
I'll take two or three.
The Glorious Cherrabwyn wrote:
I think we should clone us some more Tares...
I'm likin' Katie more and more everyday.
I'm likin' Katie more and more everyday.
I'll take two or three.
Hmmm. I think Debalic has the wrong motivations for wanting clones.
But then again, it IS Tare we are talking about. So I'll take a couple myself.
Come now, there's plenty of Tare for aaallll of us.
Hehe.
Hehe.
What's bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.
The cloning of just body parts is not even on the drawing board yet, the current debate is about cloning people, and I'm sure it will happen, but not for harvesting organs, it will come into mainstream as a means of helping infertile couples.
And really, what's the big difference ethically from some of the other options. There's already artificial insemination and *in vitro* using various ova and sperm. Cloning will become just another option, with the embryo implanted in the woman who just gives birth normally. The kid will look just like her mum but grow up to be totally her own person. You could know a *clone* in the future, and not even be aware of it unless someone chooses to tell you.
So cloning is no more *playing god* than all the other stuff we already do.
Still some way off though, the cloned animals are the result of 100's of attempts.
And btw, plants have been cloned for many, many years. Common practice in all sorts of plant nurseries.
And really, what's the big difference ethically from some of the other options. There's already artificial insemination and *in vitro* using various ova and sperm. Cloning will become just another option, with the embryo implanted in the woman who just gives birth normally. The kid will look just like her mum but grow up to be totally her own person. You could know a *clone* in the future, and not even be aware of it unless someone chooses to tell you.
So cloning is no more *playing god* than all the other stuff we already do.
Still some way off though, the cloned animals are the result of 100's of attempts.
And btw, plants have been cloned for many, many years. Common practice in all sorts of plant nurseries.
I think we are all missing the most important questions...
If you performed felatio on a clone of yourself would that make you gay? Or would it simply be considered a form of *************
I see nothing wrong with cloning so what two kids have the same DNA, whoopty ******* da. So do twins, you don't see the government rounding up all identicle twins and putting them into camps.
Sure I woulden't mind keeping another Mrens in my basment so I can go down and chop out his liver whenever I need it.
If you performed felatio on a clone of yourself would that make you gay? Or would it simply be considered a form of *************
I see nothing wrong with cloning so what two kids have the same DNA, whoopty ******* da. So do twins, you don't see the government rounding up all identicle twins and putting them into camps.
Sure I woulden't mind keeping another Mrens in my basment so I can go down and chop out his liver whenever I need it.
[quote]If you performed felatio on a clone of yourself would that make you gay? Or would it simply be considered a form of *********************
I'd be inclined to say it made you gay. Or incredibly egotistical. Or both.
I'd be inclined to say it made you gay. Or incredibly egotistical. Or both.
Hmm, do I need to dig up those studies that talk about the occurrance of incest in identical twins? I could only assume it would be a shade higher with clones.
Are they sexy female twins? Because I think I have that same study. On videotape.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
/agree Bluie. If we could grow organs sans body, I'm not sure this would be "cloning" it it's current "dollie" form.
Cloning animals has been done for some time:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3076926/
but you are only getting identical genetic information: many obvious qualities like spots are dictated by what genes are expressed and as in the story, in which a cat "CC" has been cloned, the colors are different between cats.
Really valuable, but complex, qualities such as personality or intelligence are far more complex then just genes - involving lots of environmental input.
Humans have been manipulating genes through crossbreeding for a long time. This has been done with probably most of the food you eat.
However, recently people have been putting genes from other species into food crops - and from totally other families of species (like say insect genes combine with plants). Obviously, things like allergies become critical given that there are, in America, no controls to totally isolate crops on a large scale. Common allergies like peanuts are known and avoided - other more obscure allergies and religous restrictions are basically totally ignored. Yes, the wheat that your bread came from may have insect genes in it.
This is proposed as a means of producing more food. It's well know there is plenty of food available and hunger is only a question of distribution - and has been for some decades now. Certainly drout resistant crops can prevent some some problems but these are large American companies developing these new plants not charitable organizations - so they are here to sell the crops and nations which periodically have mass starvations aren't generally in positions to buy huge quantities of expensive new seed.
Further, there is talk genetically engineered crops will have suicide genes inserted to prevent some crops - which naturally grow year after year - from persisting; forcing farmers to buy the seed every year.
Yet so called "miracle" rice has gotten into the hands of poor people who need it:
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol17no4/174rice.htm
Yet this is a crossing of rice with rice via embryo resuce:
http://www.ag.arizona.edu/research/larkinslab/protocols/Maize%20Embryo%20Rescue.pdf
which, as near as I can tell, does not select individual genes for combining. It is a far cry from what can be done right now.
All I would say about the foods is label them. Informed consumers are a cornerstone of capitalism. Smack a label on everything that has been manipulated at a gene-by-gene level, and a different label on those achieved via a techniques such as embryo resuce. Oh, and we should probably test how much of the engineered crops escape into neighboring lands and label those crops as such, too.
My instincts are that Americans will totally move away from engineered foods if given the choice - but if they don't that's fine with me.
As for humans cloning themselves, it's not a big issue for me. I'd never do it. As far as I know, cloning is very messy - involving many, many attempts before a viable clone is achieved and many of these before one properly develops, but perhaps these issues will be overcome. I really don't care if that particular procedure is banned or not or if someone goes to east elbowia to get it done to be the first - but I'm sure it will make lots of news. Stem cell research is, obviously, a different matter altogether.
By the way, genetically there is only one naval orange tree. All these oranges grow from limbs grafted from limbs off the original.
Genetic manipulation has gone on for centuries - but don't confuse that with the cross-genus (up to cross-kingdom) gene by gene engineering done now - and if you listen to virtually any argument on this issue the two will be blurred.
Cloning animals has been done for some time:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3076926/
but you are only getting identical genetic information: many obvious qualities like spots are dictated by what genes are expressed and as in the story, in which a cat "CC" has been cloned, the colors are different between cats.
Really valuable, but complex, qualities such as personality or intelligence are far more complex then just genes - involving lots of environmental input.
Humans have been manipulating genes through crossbreeding for a long time. This has been done with probably most of the food you eat.
However, recently people have been putting genes from other species into food crops - and from totally other families of species (like say insect genes combine with plants). Obviously, things like allergies become critical given that there are, in America, no controls to totally isolate crops on a large scale. Common allergies like peanuts are known and avoided - other more obscure allergies and religous restrictions are basically totally ignored. Yes, the wheat that your bread came from may have insect genes in it.
This is proposed as a means of producing more food. It's well know there is plenty of food available and hunger is only a question of distribution - and has been for some decades now. Certainly drout resistant crops can prevent some some problems but these are large American companies developing these new plants not charitable organizations - so they are here to sell the crops and nations which periodically have mass starvations aren't generally in positions to buy huge quantities of expensive new seed.
Further, there is talk genetically engineered crops will have suicide genes inserted to prevent some crops - which naturally grow year after year - from persisting; forcing farmers to buy the seed every year.
Yet so called "miracle" rice has gotten into the hands of poor people who need it:
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/vol17no4/174rice.htm
Yet this is a crossing of rice with rice via embryo resuce:
http://www.ag.arizona.edu/research/larkinslab/protocols/Maize%20Embryo%20Rescue.pdf
which, as near as I can tell, does not select individual genes for combining. It is a far cry from what can be done right now.
All I would say about the foods is label them. Informed consumers are a cornerstone of capitalism. Smack a label on everything that has been manipulated at a gene-by-gene level, and a different label on those achieved via a techniques such as embryo resuce. Oh, and we should probably test how much of the engineered crops escape into neighboring lands and label those crops as such, too.
My instincts are that Americans will totally move away from engineered foods if given the choice - but if they don't that's fine with me.
As for humans cloning themselves, it's not a big issue for me. I'd never do it. As far as I know, cloning is very messy - involving many, many attempts before a viable clone is achieved and many of these before one properly develops, but perhaps these issues will be overcome. I really don't care if that particular procedure is banned or not or if someone goes to east elbowia to get it done to be the first - but I'm sure it will make lots of news. Stem cell research is, obviously, a different matter altogether.
By the way, genetically there is only one naval orange tree. All these oranges grow from limbs grafted from limbs off the original.
Genetic manipulation has gone on for centuries - but don't confuse that with the cross-genus (up to cross-kingdom) gene by gene engineering done now - and if you listen to virtually any argument on this issue the two will be blurred.
Quote:
All I would say about the foods is label them
If I'm not mistaken, food manufacturers in europe and other areas are required to disclose which foods contain GMOs. The U.S. refuses to make such a requirement for products sold in their own country.
Recent Visitors: 343
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (343)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Godsend
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC