Like any "suppressed" invention, it's way easier for the established companies to simply buy the patent (while getting their 'friends' in government to thwart progess) and also way easier for the inventors to take a large buyout instead of spending possible decades getting a product to market, especially drugs.


>> ^Psychologic:



>> ^quantumushroom:
There was also a pill that mimicked exercise (stuck at the mouse phase).
Both of these items are from 2007-2008.

I read somewhere that they had begun human trials on that stuff, but it was in an article so who knows.
From what I read that drug caused the mitochondria to multiply (like during intense exercise), but it doesn't help other things like oxygen usage and cardio conditioning. There was something about it increasing lactic acid production in athletes, but I didn't dig too deep on the subject.
On performance drugs, I wonder how much resistance comes from the "clean sports" mentality. Lots of stuff (ex- steroids) have a lot of downsides, so it would be interesting to see if a relatively safe performance enhancer would be generally welcome if not designed specifically to address a medical problem.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There was also a pill that mimicked exercise (stuck at the mouse phase).
Both of these items are from 2007-2008.


I read somewhere that they had begun human trials on that stuff, but it was in an article so who knows.

From what I read that drug caused the mitochondria to multiply (like during intense exercise), but it doesn't help other things like oxygen usage and cardio conditioning. There was something about it increasing lactic acid production in athletes, but I didn't dig too deep on the subject.

On performance drugs, I wonder how much resistance comes from the "clean sports" mentality. Lots of stuff (ex- steroids) have a lot of downsides, so it would be interesting to see if a relatively safe performance enhancer would be generally welcome if not designed specifically to address a medical problem.

I agree with a lot of what blankfist is saying. It's time to starve the Federal government of its funds. Enough of its actions are immoral and evil, and I don't like having even a cent of my money furthering these actions.

I like Kucinich and Ron Paul too. Kucinich because if we are going to be taxed heavily by the government, the money should be spent well and in morally correct ways. But he's not running for President anymore and even if he was, most of what he supports would not get passed by Congress. So it's pointless to keep funding the Feds and hope that a Kucinich will some day become President and that hundreds of Kucinichs will some day take over Congress too.

So Ron Paul is all that's left, even though there's quite a bit of crazy stuff connected to him. At least with Paul's ideology, I can choose to support different causes with my money, and I can stop giving money to causes that start acting evil or immoral.

I don't think it's right to force people to help each other. If we are saying that we need to put a gun to the heads of the rich and force them to help the poor, sick, and elderly, that seems wrong to me. And that's what a lot of people seem to want. They want to use the force of law, backed by the threats of punishment and violence, to force rich people to help other people.

When I was in high school in 1999, I read a book on the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and how the world ignored the Genocide Convention of 1948, which required them to act when genocide occurs in the world. I was pretty pissed off that 400,000-1.2 million people were killed in Rwanda for genocidal reasons, and everyone ignored the Convention and did little about the genocide. But looking back, I don't think anyone should've signed the Genocide Convention. You shouldn't force people to help someone or some other country. It's wrong.

It is more akin to the idea of WHICH good thing you wish to practice, or the thing being done that is said to be good not being good in your own moral judgement. One might say feeding the poor isn't done properly unless accompanied by a health dose of soul food. I am no one to tell them they are wrong. The hard part of doing good with other peoples money is we don't have the same idea of what good is, so any attempt is muddled in personal bias and dogma. Which is why I support more community based charity than national.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
Actually I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Jesus had in mind when he tells us to give up our earthly possessions and follow God, trusting in him to take care of us.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Is it Christian to let other people do good deeds for you instead of doing them yourself? Social services undercut many peoples ability to practice their own moral choices.


Trusting government is trusting God? That is a stretch I don't think that is what you meant, but it is what you seem to of said.

I'm no theologian, but nobody's ever cited to me the part of the Bible where Jesus makes a distinction between people helping others through an institution (like churches, non-profits, or government), or on their own as an individual.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:
Actually I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Jesus had in mind when he tells us to give up our earthly possessions and follow God, trusting in him to take care of us.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Is it Christian to let other people do good deeds for you instead of doing them yourself? Social services undercut many peoples ability to practice their own moral choices.


Trusting government is trusting God? That is a stretch I don't think that is what you meant, but it is what you seem to of said.


I'm no theologian, but nobody's ever cited to me the part of the Bible where Jesus makes a distinction between people helping others through an institution (like churches, non-profits, or government), or on their own as an individual.

Going back a week or so... Congrats to these fabulous folks who helped others Achieve Greatness.

Level 1, the first badge is always the sweetest: @Lawdeedaw @Shepppard @jan

Level 2 -- @Skeeve

Level 5 -- @kulpims

Level 6 -- fearless and much put-upon Leader @dag

And the crown jewels of the last week:

LEVEL 14 -- It's @Hybrid and @gwiz665!

Level 14. Wow.

Congrats!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

ISSUE ONE: "If you conservatives are so 'Christian' then why don't you do what he taught and help the poor/widows/whatever?"
Where neolibs make their blunder on this subject is in equating "giving money to government programs" with "charity". Christ taught people to personally help the poor & needy. He did not say, "Do it by giving your paycheck to the government."
When a conservative doesn't support a bloated, inefficient, ineffective, government program, it does NOT mean that they are not charitable and generous. However, the typical "godless liberal" (as you put it) thinks that conservatives are literally stealing money from poor people when they say they want to cut these programs. It is the exact opposite. Conservatives want to cut these bad programs so that ALL people everywhere keep more of their money. It is a conservative's firm belief that more people keeping more of their money will result in (A) fewer poor people and (B) more wealth that private citizens can use to help others via voluntary donation.
Conservatives help the poor and needy by volunteering thier own time and talents to help those in need - NOT by offloading that responsibliity into the hollow, empty, soulless 'substitute charity' of a government program. Studies have proven conservative individuals give more money and time to charitable causes compared to liberals. Without fanfare and without desire of reward, they help the needy through personal volunteerism. That is Christian behavior.


Ok, good point. No wait, that's utter bollocks. The conservative agenda has systematically set up the economy over the last 50 years so that poor people are poorer and the middle class is disappearing. And then they bitch and whine when asked to contribute a few extra dollars.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

ISSUE TWO: "If you conservatives are so Christian then why do you want to kill people all the time?"
The mistake neolibs make here is that they think that forgiving someone also means that you do not try to hold them accountable for thier actions. Conservatives don't do that. They try to follow Christ's example of forgiving others (loving them as fellow children of God) while at the same time following Christ's teachings of personal accountablity and accepting responsibility for actions. Just because you love someone as a fellow child of God does not mean that you have to just let them do awful things without trying to hold them responsible. The warped view of forgiveness held by a liberal says conservatives should just never hold anyone responsible for anything or they aren't "Christian". That's complete bull crap.
Does that help?


It helps to show how little attention conservatives pay to their own religion. So Christ was just kidding about "turn the other cheek"? You can hold someone accountable without killing them in cold blood. Yeah, a lot of the people on death row are evil fuckers. But they're confined. Killing them serves no purpose (other than to cost the state a fortune, where's your "small government" now?)

And you're being utterly disingenuous to pretend they're "cheering for justice". That is bullshit and you know it. They are cheering for vengence.

I don't get why conservatives are mostly Christian. Why is it that the "godless left" are more inclined to follow Jesus teachings (forgiveness, charity, etc) than his supposedly biggest fan club?

This statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of the principles of charity and forgiveness as Christ taught them. I do not say this with hostility. I really want to help you out here.

ISSUE ONE: "If you conservatives are so 'Christian' then why don't you do what he taught and help the poor/widows/whatever?"

Where neolibs make their blunder on this subject is in equating "giving money to government programs" with "charity". Christ taught people to personally help the poor & needy. He did not say, "Do it by giving your paycheck to the government."

When a conservative doesn't support a bloated, inefficient, ineffective, government program, it does NOT mean that they are not charitable and generous. However, the typical "godless liberal" (as you put it) thinks that conservatives are literally stealing money from poor people when they say they want to cut these programs. It is the exact opposite. Conservatives want to cut these bad programs so that ALL people everywhere keep more of their money. It is a conservative's firm belief that more people keeping more of their money will result in (A) fewer poor people and (B) more wealth that private citizens can use to help others via voluntary donation.

Conservatives help the poor and needy by volunteering thier own time and talents to help those in need - NOT by offloading that responsibliity into the hollow, empty, soulless 'substitute charity' of a government program. Studies have proven conservative individuals give more money and time to charitable causes compared to liberals. Without fanfare and without desire of reward, they help the needy through personal volunteerism. That is Christian behavior.

ISSUE TWO: "If you conservatives are so Christian then why do you want to kill people all the time?"

The mistake neolibs make here is that they think that forgiving someone also means that you do not try to hold them accountable for thier actions. Conservatives don't do that. They try to follow Christ's example of forgiving others (loving them as fellow children of God) while at the same time following Christ's teachings of personal accountablity and accepting responsibility for actions. Just because you love someone as a fellow child of God does not mean that you have to just let them do awful things without trying to hold them responsible. The warped view of forgiveness held by a liberal says conservatives should just never hold anyone responsible for anything or they aren't "Christian". That's complete bull crap.

Does that help?

On a final note - Bareboard above wrote about abortion. I'm paraphrasing, but essentially his point was that when liberals cheer abortions they are not cheering the killing of babies - they are celebrating freedom of choice. Likewise, it can be said that when conservatives cheer capital punishment they are not cheering the death of a person - they are cheering their support of JUSTICE. Accept or reject that as you will, but if a person only beleives the 'good' stuff about thier side and only the 'bad' stuff about people they don't like then that says a lot about them.

Or that our empathy is selectively reserved for the deserving few who meet a certain criteria. I don't have to select who I am going to feel something for..there is enough room to go around..


He is careful to make it very clear that that wasn't his point - I mean, listen again to what he says and I don't think you can possibly take that message away. He cares for people, he's just trying to help people imagine what it's like to listen to people who are ONLY concerned with themselves. People aren't universally and equally empathetic, and considering how complaints might sound to others is going to help many people in social situations. Haven't you met many people in your life who are perpetually blaming others and complaining about their problems? I sure have - and I've done it myself sometimes. And it usually isn't productive. Sure many people need help, maybe urgently, and there's nothing wrong with seeking help. But that can't be all you do - to build the kind of relationships that can be a support to you later, you need to show genuine interest in others. You will be a better person, a bigger person, and a more interesting person the more you show interest in others.

The key thing Stephan said here is that he finds himself less interesting than other people. This is because he has a few personality disorders and presumably they are embarassing to speak about.


No, it's because despite his problems he tries to show real interest in other people instead of focusing on himself. This is a very Christian ideal - kind of reminds me of Philippians 2:3 -

Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves


Stephen has been very candid about his own problems and has gone out of his way to help others - take this letter as an example. It's a simple, beautiful thought from a man who is honestly making effort to help a stranger.

Now, sure, his thoughts are a bit of a mess in this video (he's not on a script and he rambles and isn't always perfectly clear) - but his overall point is plain and is something that would really help a lot of people out of self-centered ruts. And, as before, I think focusing on others is a very Christian thing to do - coming in, I would have expected you to applaud this kind of thing.

I hope this guy wins, and wins big. It sucks that his fellow citizens are going to pay for it with their taxes, but I'd like to see him use that money to help others dealing with this bullshit.

capitalism is doing a dandy job undermining itself atm... it needs no help, other than what the banks/politicians (primarily Republicans, but also Democrats) are already contributing

it is quite simple to look back at history (which extends beyond 6000 yrs), and by looking at historical trends to extrapolate what future trends should be, to quite accurate degree

no one is saying taxes and regulation DIRECTLY affect the temperature... and if you believe that the left actually think that, you need to do a little introspection... however, again looking at history you can see that taxes/regulation are able to focus/define/direct economy and industry... its exactly what brought the US out of depression for example... so if your goal is to reduce environmental impact of industries that are leading sources of pollution, or to spur innovation/creativity in new, less harmful technology... taxes/regulation is how you do it

if you leave it up to the private sector alone, what motivation do they have to not do business as usual? the current US/World economy is less driven by innovation as it is driven by profit... someone comes up with a good idea? buy them out or leverage them out of the market if it competes with your product (or better yet buy their product, but sit on it... why bother going through the expense of changing systems)... the US has been brainwashed into thinking Capitalism is wringing every last drop of blood out of a stone, rather than creating new markets/fields

there has been alternative energy source vehicle technology for DECADES, yet they are just trickling into the market now... and its not because people haven't asked for it, its because profit is shortsighted and definitely not philanthropic... its because people stopped buying American gas guzzling penis extensions and started looking at the more economical foreign offering... industry couldn't predict that a shrinking middle class and rising gas prices would change the market... but change was there, so they might as well throw in that environmental issue people have been worried about for the past 50yrs

and when someone starts touting capitalism and poo pooing marxism, socialism, and the like... that's when I know I've been introduced to an idiot... you do realize your quality of life, your standard of living, services you consider essential, etc come from those ideals AS WELL AS Capitalism...

right?

and one or the other, on their own, taken to the Nth degree, are just as horrific as the other

an idiot who hasn't thought for themselves is QUITE ready to start cheering for one side or the other

>> ^RhesusMonk:

You can't seriously have just said that...>> ^mxxcon:
And that's why everybody needs to have a Window Breaker in their car.


I didn't mean for that car owner to use theirs.
Didn't you see there were other open cars nearby? Hence my statement that everybody needs to have one in their car. If not for your own use, but to help others.
Geez, was my statement that ambiguous?

A. "Traditional values" and religion haven't a thing to do with how empathetic you are. Remember that we've moved past such traditional values as racism, and we're in the process of dealing with another traditional value of homophobia. And how much empathy was there during the Crusades, a war fought pretty much entirely because of religion? For the record, I have no problem with religion or religious people, or all of what values people deem as "traditional"; I just have a big time problem with people who think only their values count, and only religious people are moral people.
B. How much he makes per year is irrelevant.
C. Since you don't know how much he contributes of his income to charity, gifts, etc., that makes him guilty of not giving enough? Whatever happened to the time old traditional value of "innocent until proven guilty"?

I didn't care for Olbermann's editorial here either, but two wrongs don't make a right.

>> ^quantumushroom:

One of the vermin responsible for destroying traditional values and attacking religion now decries, "a lack of caring".
How much does KEEF make per annum?
How much of it goes to "helping others"?

One of the vermin responsible for destroying traditional values and attacking religion now decries, "a lack of caring".

How much does KEEF make per annum?

How much of it goes to "helping others"?

Saving someone's life IS great, and wonderful. It is not automatically heroic. That depends on how the life was saved. A guy who throws himself on a grenade to save the lifes of his comrades is heroic. A paramedic saving someone's life on a very normal situation, is not heroic at all. It should be respected, and valued, but it's not heroic. However, a paramedic trying to save someone shot, in a crossfire, is indeed a hero.

Basically, if your life was not in jeopardy (directly or indirectly) you're not a hero for saving someone's life.

edit: wait, that's not right actually. If there's no self-sacrifice involved, you're not a hero. It shouldn't need to be at the cost of your own life. Let's say someone who gives away absolutely everything they have to try and help others. That's a hero as well.

edit 2: Oh, and today I ate some donuts, so yeah, I'm a god damn hero!