I never had a desire to see I, Robot. It was obvious from the trailer that the original story was watered down as a big Hollywood action thriller. In addition to that, I can't stand Will Smith. His acting is just as good as his music. I have no desire to go see him play the character he plays in all his other films. I'd rather see Anchorman, which was meant to be stupid.
GenericMan
JoinedPosts by GenericMan
-
20
I, ROBOT
by Yerusalyim ini took the wife and kids to see i, robot with will smith last night....great movie.
my son is a real issac asimov fan.
he said asimov would have hated the movie, but that he really enjoyed it.. come to think of it, i'd be hard pressed to name a will smith movie i don't like.
-
-
-
4
The odds of getting diseases from blood transfusions
by GenericMan ini got these numbers from the website www.bloodbook.com/index.html .
the odds of getting infected by blood transfusion transmitted disaeses in the united states:.
hepatitis b - risk of transmission in the unites states is said to be 1 in 66,000. .
-
-
GenericMan
I got these numbers from the website www.bloodbook.com/index.html
The odds of getting infected by blood transfusion transmitted disaeses in the United States:
Hepatitis B - Risk of transmission in the Unites States is said to be 1 in 66,000.
Hepatitis C - Risk of transmission in the Unites States is said to be 1 in 121,000.
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) - Risk of transmission in the Unites States is said to be 1 in 563,000.
The WBTS has over-hyped the odds of getting a transmitted disease. Sure, there is a risk of getting infected, there are risks when dealing with medication. Theres even a risk for individuals who are allergic to latex gloves. There is no excuse for dismissing blood transfusion on the basis of these kinds of risks. Its a shame that many adherents of the WBTS make life and death decisions without being informed. I sympathize with doctors who try to walk the line between informing the patients about the actual risks of this procedure while at the same time trying to avoid violating their rights.
-
26
Crisis of Conscience online or ebook?
by lookingnow25 ini have no 'safe' way of reading a physical copy of this book really.
but after flipping through a copy at the university library here i finally want to examine it.
is there a copy online anywhere, or someway that i can view it on my computer?
-
-
GenericMan
No need for name calling Farkel. Buying the book from the store can be really stressful. I remember when I bought my copy of CoC. I freaked out because the book was so thick making it almost impossible to hide. With ebooks, you can maintain your privacy. I'm sure Ray Franz would want it that way.
-
14
how many corporations are owned by the wts -what is it worth?
by amazone inhas any x jw or journalist ever compiled the whole financial side of the wt corporations?
where does the money go?
it cannot have been spent for building factories and bethel homes.
-
-
GenericMan
I know the society owns Tellway Publishing. Here's their website:
www.tellway-publishing.com/index.php
Who knows what other companies they own.
-
215
Abortion...
by Lostreality inwrong or right?.
right to choose, or murder?.
what is everyones point of view?.
-
-
GenericMan
Cassi said:
"Is it fair to ask a women to put her own life at risk or die because she has found herself pregenant if she did not make the choice to become so?"
Becoming pregnant is not the same as discovering the existence of a tumor or a wart on your thumb. You are begging the question why is there only one life at stake instead of two?
-
215
Abortion...
by Lostreality inwrong or right?.
right to choose, or murder?.
what is everyones point of view?.
-
-
GenericMan
Odrade said in two posts:
1st Post
"It's one thing to debate philosophically the idea and impact of infanticide. It's another thing to say that pro-choice individuals are in favor of it. Your insistence that this is a legitimate argument NOT to support the right to choose is unbelievably misguided. Not one person in this thread has even insinuated they support infanticide. If you went down to planned parenthood, (which is a pro-choice organization) and asked if they supported infanticide, they would probably call the police. In fact many of us have said that although we support the right to have safe abortions in certain circumstances, we do not support third trimester abortion unless death is imminent for mother or fetus. This is the age when the fetus becomes viable, with medical support. How can you translate that into a possiblility of argument for infanticide?
An academic discussion of a philosophical question does not necessarily mean the parties are in favor of the argument, and even if there are a few that are... well, there are indeed people who hold ridiculous and extremist views that the vast majority of the population would find repugnant. Using these extreme ideas to support your argument is nothing even close to good scholarship, and only displays your reactionary attitude to a very legitimate discussion."
2nd Post
"Hmmm, I said that you were using this argument to support your position against abortion, not that it was your SOLE support. Out of context again. What a great philosopher. Aren't the greatest philosophers committed to intellectual honesty? Maybe you are not really interested in the philosophy portion, but rather the sophomoric portion."
I wonder how many other ideas (including those of scientists) you have taken out of context and twisted by quoting only an elipsed fraction of the true intent? Well, we've already seen one of your three..."
I never said that all pro-choicers argue in favor of infantcide. What I meant was that alot of arguments in favor of abortion are flawed because they can also be used as arguments for abortion. I was not attempting to provide a knock-out argument against abortion. Heres what I said in another post:
"I believe Roe vs. Wade to be an atrocity because Judge to it upon themselves to separate personhood from humanity. If the unborn are considered human but not people then when does a human become a person? Alot of arguments for abortion are also arguments for infantcide. What if we decided to define a person as having an IQ over 70? Then alot of humans would not be considered people."
I am not the right wing nut job that you portray me to be. I am attempting to share my own views based on what I've read so far. I aspire to become a philosopher, but I am not claiming to be one already. I resent that you portray me as intellectualy dishonest, since one of the biggest reasons I want out of the organization is because of their intellectual dishonesty. As for the Pinker quote, it was a mistake that I regret-- I have no intent of misleading anyone. Please, do not indulge in calling me sophmoric or dishonest. I have never called anyone names in this topic and I expect likewise.
-
215
Abortion...
by Lostreality inwrong or right?.
right to choose, or murder?.
what is everyones point of view?.
-
-
GenericMan
"GenericMan, I'm not finding Stephen Pinker argueing for infanticide anywhere either. Could you provide a (direct) quote." I apologize, in Pinker's case, he said that as far as biologists are concerned, birth is as insignificant as any other event. Nevermind I have to correct myself.
-
215
Abortion...
by Lostreality inwrong or right?.
right to choose, or murder?.
what is everyones point of view?.
-
-
GenericMan
I'm not saying that its the sole argument against abortion. What I said is that many arguments in favor of abortion are flawed in that they allow infantcide to be logically possible.
-
215
Abortion...
by Lostreality inwrong or right?.
right to choose, or murder?.
what is everyones point of view?.
-
-
GenericMan
The "hosts of others" I speak of are the scientists and academics who agree with the reasoning of these people. Notice the institutions that have been associated with these names. Vanderbelt, MIT, Princeton,...-- these are not just of fringe quacks these people are teaching at the top universities around the county. I don't want to sound paranoid. There are just as many who argue against these views, like bioethicist Hadley Arkes. I know I provided a small sample of names but I know there are many within the academic realm who adhere to this thinking.
-
215
Abortion...
by Lostreality inwrong or right?.
right to choose, or murder?.
what is everyones point of view?.
-
-
GenericMan
"Not true in the slightest. I've never once heard a pro-choice person argue for infantcide. Not once. I'd wager you haven't either Generic Man."
Actually there are many scientists and academics who have argued for infantcide:
First, theres Dr.James D. Watson the man who co-discovered DNA. He wrote:
"Because of the present limits of such detection methods, most birth defects are not discovered until birth."
"If a child were not declared alive until three days after birth, then all parents could be allowed the choice...the doctor could allow the child to die if the parents so choose and save a lot of misery and suffering."
Children from the Laboratory (1973)
Its also interesting to note that he believes abortions are acceptable in cases where the foetus is found to be genetically inclined to homosexuality.
Second is Dr. Virginia Abernethy, a psychiatrist and anthropologist at Vanderbilt University's School of Medicine. She writes:
"As long as an individual is completely dependent upon the mother (for survival), it's not a person."
January 14, 1985, Newsweek
Also the Australian philosopher Peter Singer has argued for infantcide as well as MIT cognitive scientist Stephen Pinker.
I kid you not.