Uno mas.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Andrew-W-K-Party-Hard
-edit- oops. got disabled.

In reply to this comment by peggedbea:
awww can we pretend he wrote that song about me?


In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
http://www.videosift.com/video/Andrew-W-K-She-is-Beautiful

http://www.videosift.com/video/Andrew-W-K-She-is-Beautiful

I respect you deeply, Farhad. I hope one day we will find common ground, but in the mean time, our debates are... informative. If anything, I'm not afraid to change my mind and you can pat yourself on the back knowing you are the reason that I have on at least a few subjects.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Doc_M

I constantly disagree with you on most social and geopolitical issues but am glad you are around to have these conversations with.

Cheers.

In reply to this comment by direpickle:
Are you fucking serious? They play all of those racist, sexist and pedophilia jokes, and they wouldn't show the cartoons of Muhammad? And this was within minutes of the Brits being self-congratulatory about how quick they were to make jokes about the Tube bombings?


Don't be angry, look at it as they intended you to:
By NOT doing it, they amplified their own point excellently. This was extraordinary use of literary irony. They were not actually being cowards so much as they were showing that even such an offensive documentary as this particular one is "so scared" that they would not go so far as to show these cartoons. It says "we have no holds barred... none... OK, except this one that scares us to death..." More often than not, NOT showing the scary scene is more scary than showing it full on screen. It makes you say "Dang! Not even these lot would venture that far, WOW!"

(just found these comments, late though it is, thought I'd respond.)

Thanks. I don't think you can qualitize blog posts, but I appreciate the effort.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
What? did I spell *quality incorrectly?

http://www.videosift.com/video/An-Overview-of-America-by-the-John-Birsch-Society

I was only referring to an extreme example to make a point. Naturally, they are not comparable in extremity. As much as people say you can't legislate morality. They do it all the time. I personally have beliefs that prevent me from supporting ESC line development by the methods that are now unsupported by the gov't. When I said generating life for it to be destroyed, I was referring to the generation of viable embryos in vitro in order to use them purely for research. That rubs me the wrong way. I don't know if the research should be outlawed, but I don't want my taxes paying for it. I think the promise of adult-derived lines is where we should be concentrating on our efforts. That eliminates all controversy entirely. The papers I've read on the topic show great promise. Forgive my exaggeration. I couldn't think of many other gross abuses of humanity in scientific research.

Personally, I'd rather the embryos were never made (to be ultimately incinerated) in the first place. Once they are however, I have few qualms with their use.
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Wow, closest to a Godwin's Law response I've had on the sift... not that your example was inappropriate.

I don't really understand the belief that science should have no constrictions. If it should not, then the research done on the Jews in WWII would be acceptable which of course it is not. This is of course an extreme example, but symbolically applicable to our discussion nonetheless. There is a line to be drawn, I just draw it shorter than many scientists. Tools available to humanity are not always right to use. I don't like the idea of creating human life in order to destroy it. That disturbs me and I can't see the worth when we are inches from reversing the epigenetic changes that occur when cells differentiate. Just as high gas prices drive a demand for alternate energy sources, saying no to ESCs can drive the research of adult derived stem cell technology.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
MY understanding is that two things ruffle feathers:

1)no cell lines derived from extra sperm-plus-egg after in vitro fertilization ("no you may not use this for experiments, its precious... now off to the incinerator with it"),

and

2)arbitrary limits on what scientists can do based on a moral feeling, determined independent of the usual methods employed to protect populations or otherwise limit research, and which lead to a somewhat illogical end; telling scientists its not moral to add chemicals to human stem cells moments after they've added them to a dish of any other animal's stem cells can seem odd... they're both a couple of dishes with cells in them... neither is going to ever bark or say hi.

And slippery-sloping it, as some do, to saying things like "if we let them do this they'll have cyborgs modeled with Arnold's stem cells" is bogus, precisely because according to them scientists can do the same thing by reversing adult cells into pluripotency. Anyhow, placing restrictions on a tool like the use of a human cell line for moral reasons is strange to me,... and I'm more curious how far the pendulum will swing when it swings back the other direction.



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
You can probably guess by now that I am not an abortions supporter for most reasons, so naturally, I don't support production of new embryonic stem cell lines by that method. I think that the advances of adult-derived stem cells are FAR more valuable than any other research of its type. I have friends who study embryonic lines and those who study adult derived lines. I have to confess that that the adult derived lines seem to produce more results and more promising futures than the embryonic lines ironically.

I support a ban on embryonic stem cell line generation simply because there is a significant chance that it is wrong. We don't need them. We have shown that we don't need them. Let's work on something we know to be worth what is spent. I feel similarly about animals; use them only when absolutely needed, and though that is often, use them minimally.
And BTW, Net, 3.2 million is nothing. Talk to me in billions. My lab alone (of thousands) is budgeted a million a year, though lately we haven't been spending that much.

Actually, I was arguing that there WILL be a rapture Gorgon. hehe. If you get a chance, read the articles I linked to. There are a GREAT many reputable biblical scholars that argue that there will be a pre-wrath rapture. For ages, the catholic churched suppressed that interpretation, so it looks as though it arose recently while it most certainly did not. There are also quite a few scholarly articles out there explaining why Revelation DIDN'T occur thousands of years ago as some claim. Left Behind didn't invent the rapture, it merely popularized it.

Anyway, in general, Gracethrufaith.com is an excellent site for any believer... it'sworth a look when you get a chance.

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
The rapture as many Christians know it has no real biblical basis. In fact I honestly believe that nowadays it has a more widespread base because of a fictional series of books called 'Left Behind'. (Kinda the same way a lot of die hard Catholics took the 'DaVinci Code' literally.)

The book of Revelations in the Bible is largely (As Doc_M has stated) allegorical. Not literal as may critics and ignorant readers seem to take it. I believe there will be a judgment day for everyone who has lived on this earth. But the general interpretation of the 'rapture' has no real merit with anyone who knows about the history and background of biblical text.

Welcome! I look forward to your future posts.