Hold up; I'm in Indiana right now and I need a few days to grab some things and get up to Canada...

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
Who cares about your stupid conservative religious world view... Bush was a conservative religious person and look where it got us.

Fucking idiots. Fucking nuke America. They need a reboot.

hey, I'm scrounging up votes for a Fleet Foxes post... no pressure!
http://www.videosift.com/video/Fleet-Foxes-He-Doesnt-Know-Why

"This is the problem of infinite regression. You are not answering the question, you are merely creating a new entity to cover your bases. Where does your family, friends, or culture get their morals from?"

No, its definitely finite, just beyond anything comparable to the time human civilization has been around and recording how we act as communities. Why do certain animals groups fight one another but preserve and help those in their groups? Seriously man, you're making this far more complicated and principled than it needs to be.


"I'm not looking for "innate principles" I already provided you a firm, clear, answer for the basis of my philosophy: "the right to life" which I explicitly defined. It is not innate, it was developed with reason and logic. Why is it not possible for you to provide me with the same?"

Woah, okay,... I see now. So you're not even an individualist. You're applying a very significant moral standard that was just made up, in order to limit individual choice. Well. I feel like I wasted a lot of time.


"If collectivism and individualism are polar opposites why is it that my philosophy provides a clear moral guide, whereas yours provides none?"

I described how we are at two different places on a spectrum of individualism vs. collectivism, and I went into a huge amount of detail describing what I mean and why I'm further over towards one side than you. This detail included what the far collectivist side offers for morality, namely that sacrificing individual interests for the benefit of the group is a moral obligation, and in return the group distributes benefits... again I'm going to reiterate that I'm not a strict collectivist, I'm in the middle, so my morality is PERSONALLY from family, friends, experience, etc...

I mean, if you simply want me to make up some bullshit and call it the principle I base my philosophy of human life on, how about this, "sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but lets all try to be civil about it".


*This is the last one sided answering session; you have to go back and answer the ONE question I asked you in the last response.



In reply to this comment by imstellar28:

yes, it was on purpose, as you instigated his comment (which I was replying to with the other side of the coin).

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
You commented this to me instead of Doc_M. I still like you though.

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.

Wow, closest to a Godwin's Law response I've had on the sift... not that your example was inappropriate.

I tried in vain to avoid this response from you by noting that there are "usual methods employed to protect populations or otherwise limit research", and that making the proclamation from on-high that scientists can not produce new cell lines completely ignores the tradition of having groups of researchers, historians, lawmakers, etc. come together to determine where the lines should be drawn. If you're early in your research career I'm sure you had to sit through an ethics course (or at least some seminars) that described in detail who protected populations are, why they are protected and when and how these laws were adopted. The stem cell laws are the equivalent of suddenly declaring giving the middle finger to someone a misdemeanor... an effort to legislate morality independent of human impact.

Creating human life in order to destroy it? What are you even talking about? Because I'm talking about adding chemicals to a dish of donated cells that would otherwise be literally incinerated.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
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.

this snuck by me last year... I don't even know if I like it, just that I think its pretty well done and interesting.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Grizzly-Bear-Knife-weird-doesnt-do-this-justice

Sorry, should have been more clear with the first half of the sentence; I'm on the case to disprove your claim, but a 3 minute search only revealed one oddity, that the males of a species of bat nurse young... in other words you're claim is safe, ... FOR NOW! (lights dim, thunder/lightning in the background) MUAHAHAhahah...!

... but seriously, it does seem that mammals are pretty boring and uniform with their raising of the next generation, versus reptiles/birds/fish.

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
Read the rest of the post my fiend.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
... I feel sometimes like rules are meant to be broken, but all I could find with a quick search was this; http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v367/n6465/abs/367691a0.html

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.

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.

... I feel sometimes like rules are meant to be broken, but all I could find with a quick search was this; http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v367/n6465/abs/367691a0.html

In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
I'll edit it to read "most mammals" to please you. I have yet to find a person who would have rather been aborted than live. On second thought, don't elk still breast-feed? Herd yes, mom yes? Educate me. Kindly point out the mammal(s) that don't breast feed or don't require any motherhood after birth.

The author chooses to describe the Bible's contradictions as clear contradiction; you feel they are 'apparent contradictions'. If the Bible were a regular book written by many authors the contradictions would be impossible to ignore, but you argue a better understanding of... the contex? or the material? will lead to a resolution of these contradictions. I personally don't see how.

I hope you're not arguing that the old testament was a meaner God who become less bloodthirsty by the new testament...

In reply to this comment by Sniper007:
So... the moral authority for all of life is "ethical intuitions"? Would not those fail us as well? Sam Harris presupposes (without discussion) that men are basically, fundamentally good and that men will define and keep the proper moral standards based on their own "ethical intuitions". How does Sam Harris know that it is wrong to "paddle children" (as his diatribe implies)? Is it wrong to paddle children because the majority of people feel it is against their "ethical intuitions"? Do we need a poll to determine the morality of such events? How would such moral standards ever change over time if there is no set standard to which we may return, and the only 'standard' is current popular opinion? He fails to realize that the only reason he can even determine that it is -allegedly- wrong to stone certain individuals because of the Bible's commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." The true problem Harris has is understanding the apparent contradictions in the Bible. Rather than seeking a greater understanding of these ostensibly conflicting Biblical mandates, he chooses to ridicule all religious positions without clarifying or even considering his own position. His position is, in fact, untenable.

... you'd think so, but, no, he's actually an arch conservative and a long time member of the sift. We've had a few conversations, as I'm a former conservative.

In reply to this comment by campionidelmondo:
My god people, can't you see QM is just saying ridiculous things to get your attention? That's what trolls do, don't waste your time trying to debate his cries for attention.

I disagree. I know exactly how he as a person will vote. He was raised a in a poor family by a very strong, very liberal mother, never even knowing his father. He was also raised by Christian grandparents, who instilled in him a love for country and a burning idealism for how Americans can get things accomplished. He is a liberal, and votes his liberal conscious.

However whats great about Obama is that he is brilliant at a few key things which make people who recognize them very excited about his presidency. Lets see, I'll throw out three of them real fast... 1)selecting, managing and inspiring other brilliant people, 2)understanding and engaging both sides of an argument to fairly guide towards compromises that work, and 3)valuing American history, the Constitution and the founding spirit of 'anything is possible'. Towards the last point, I mean, he honestly believe he can get a huge squad of people who disagree together to form a plan to pull us safely from Iraq in 18 months, and another squad of people who disagree to form the beginnings of universal health care over the next 4 years. And, personally I think if anyone is smart enough to direct us out of this ditch, its this guy.

I loved McCain in 2000. The last 3 years have seen him doing everything he can to win votes from the people who brought us GWBushJR, which makes for exceedingly awkward choices like not signing the new GI Bill and dumbing down his opposition to secret military prisons, both for no particularly convincing reason other than thats what he's supposed to do. Its honestly hard for me to watch McCain's speeches and interviews today, because half the time he's not comfortable on the side of the argument he's putting him self, and anyone with a memory stretching back to 2000 or even 2006 will notice he's a changed man; http://www.videosift.com/video/McCain-Debates-Self-on-Bush , http://www.videosift.com/video/Washington-Bureaucrat-Predicts-USA-Politics-For-2009



In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
That's the problem, unless we get republicans back in congress, they are going to run Obama too. He voted with his party 93% of the time. I'll admit that McCain isn't much better since he mistakes stubbornness for principal. But Peloci pushed Obama around when he was a senator and I can see her doing the same if he's elected president.

I feel like I'm trying to choose the lesser of two evils this election season. But my biggest issue with Obama is his double talk, I have no idea what he's going to do because he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He needs to find his issues and stick to them.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Confession; my car has one bumper sticker on it, and its Obama'08.

He's a smart man. There's a small possibility he could become a Nixon, but a much greater chance he'll work to get congress to bullshit around just a little less.

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Thanks for the article, it was a good read. I really hope the American public can see how unstable he is before November.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?em&ex=1214107200&en=98dbf7f8bae1fe38&ei=5087%0A

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:


He advocates energy independence but pretends this can occur without more domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

Of course maybe that's the defining mark of a true politician, being able to speak to one side while the other hears a different message.

Confession; my car has one bumper sticker on it, and its Obama'08.

He's a smart man. There's a small possibility he could become a Nixon, but a much greater chance he'll work to get congress to bullshit around just a little less.

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Thanks for the article, it was a good read. I really hope the American public can see how unstable he is before November.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?em&ex=1214107200&en=98dbf7f8bae1fe38&ei=5087%0A

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:


He advocates energy independence but pretends this can occur without more domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

Of course maybe that's the defining mark of a true politician, being able to speak to one side while the other hears a different message.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?em&ex=1214107200&en=98dbf7f8bae1fe38&ei=5087%0A

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:


He advocates energy independence but pretends this can occur without more domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

Of course maybe that's the defining mark of a true politician, being able to speak to one side while the other hears a different message.