the_classicist

Joined

• started 62 topics
• posted 2,005 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by the_classicist

• 
  112

  Stem Cell Research article

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.

  the united states used to be number 1 in science research.

  we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  you repeating this over and over again is not going to help any.

  it's not a false analogy, as there is no magic in the conception process, unless you say there is.

  23 chromosomes come from one parent, 32 from the other. 23 x 2 = 46. that's all!

  the chromosome in a cell has all the data required for a clone. so how is it a false analogy? just because not all 46 come from one parent?that's ridiculous. it still equals the same amount, the code and chromosomal addressing is the same. it computes into a human! so?!

  False analogy: " In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so also B must have property P. An analogy fails when the two objects, A and B, are different in a way which affects whether they both have property P." Property P is the ability to become a human being: an embryo is a human entity reliant on another human being. A toenail cell is a part of your own entity and will not grow into another person, ever, unless you wish to use the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.
• 
  112

  Stem Cell Research article

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.

  the united states used to be number 1 in science research.

  we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  actually, humans only have 46 chromosomes. 23 from each parent. apes, YOUR closest living relative, have 48.
  

  but the cells in each parent all have 46 chromosomes. the only cells that do not are the sexual reproduction cells, which only carry 23 chromosomes.

  incidentally, the "killing" of any human cell, including hair cells for example, is the "killing" of the same amount of chromosomes as contained in the cells that make up the fertilized cell in sexual computation.

  so if life is 46 chromosomes, then i would advise you not to cut your hair anymore, or shed any skin cells. it's "murder".

  
  

  Woops. As Doctor Who would say to me, "Stupid Ape."

  Any human cell cannot grow into a complete human being, as I've said before. It's a false analogy.
• 
  10

  Thought for the day

  by ozziepost in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i just heard this statement in a sermon this morning and had to write it down:.

  "complaining and arguing is about selfishness".

  the more i looked at the words, the more i wondered.. how about you?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  "Fate melts poverty and power like ice." -- Orff?, at least he made the music for it.

  "Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power." -- Seneca
• 
  112

  Stem Cell Research article

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.

  the united states used to be number 1 in science research.

  we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  I think you may be on shaky ground on this "argument from nature". Abortion (miscarriage) is quite natural. It is also quite natural for animals to kill those of their own kind - even for food. There may be a moral argument against this practice, but certainly you cannot argue that this is not natural. Anything that happens in nature is natural.

  Miscarriage is natural, but for humans, purposely causing the death of one's own young is not. It is quite natural for other animals to kill their own young, but not humans or any other kind of animal closely related to us, so that's a false analogy.

  I also think you are a bit disingenuous in how you categorize a clump of cells with a certain probability of becoming a human vs. a living person. If you are religious, do you believe these clumps of cells are going to heaven? Do you hold funeral services for them? The problem is that many people have black and white thinking on the matter, when really it is a complex issue and there are gray areas.

  A clumb of embryonic cells do have the ability to become a human being and I don't feel it's too useful to discuss religion with a naturalist, but I'll do so anyway. Yes. No. Happy?

  I think we can only agree to disagree on our individual interpretations of what makes a person a person. For instance, I do not see a clump of cells with a probability of becoming a living, breathing human a full human with full human rights. I do see a fetus that is fairly far along in the process as being a human. Where is the line? It's hard to say, but just having 48 chromosomes doesn't cut it for me. It that were true, then the cells on my toenail would be fully human and I would hesitate to clip them.

  I don't see an embryo as a full person, either, but all humans have the right to live. Using your the cells on your toenail is also a false analogy, because if you let your toenails grow, they'll still be toenails. You do not end your own existence by cutting them. By destroying an embryo, you are destroying someone else's existence, which is quite a pontificaton.

  Perhaps there is some objective way of solving it... maybe determining when the probability of life hits a certain threshold, or when sentience begins, or a combination... I don't know, but that's a real discussion. Ending the thought process at the number of chromosomes in a cell is, in my mind, naive.

  It's completely logical and rational, though.
• 
  112

  Stem Cell Research article

  by DevonMcBride in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in today's wall street journal there was an excellent article about stem cell research.

  the united states used to be number 1 in science research.

  we are now number 2 and continually on the decline even more.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  You said you would gladly pay extra. (This isn't even entirely possible, but for the sake of debate ...ok) How much extra are you willing to pay? How much can we raise taxes or cut other spending to do this? Money is a finite resource. The stem cells being harvested now would otherwise be thrown in the trash....ok incinerator. Can I ask how much you spend on anti-abortion activities? How much you donate time & effort to said causes? Do you promote adoption alternatives locally? Your profile says you are 18 and I think you are in school so I can guess at your answers.

  I don't spend any money or time on anti-abortion activities as I know that it's completely futile to do so in Canada, unless you overthrow the government and throw away the constitution (or at least all the precedents that made abortion legal).

  However...my debate stands to the white picket fence, 1/2 acre, SUV driving, suburbanite, Republicans, making $ 100,000+ that are anti-abortion. When I ask them specifically what they do....they stammer.....hymm....haw......for once they have to get their hands dirty with ACTUAL effort to put behind their ideology....well they fold like a deck of cards.

  Well, I live in a 1300 sq ft. house in a working class area that is also semi-industrial (not as bad as it sounds, though; the house was completely renovated by the landlord, but there was quite a mice problem for a while). I only made $7050 last year and I must admit, I didn't work a single day for that; it came from the family trust, which also happens to be a corporation for tax purposes. So, what do I do? I'd like to think I debate well about the subject, but that's my subjective opinion.

  This would be like having a deer killed because it got hit by a car. But you take the stand that since it's not "deer season" you shouldn't eat the meat. So leaving the carcass on the road to rot benefits no one. But you have held to your moral / law abiding standard. These stem cells exist. If not used will be discarded with the trash.

  Well, as for the deer, a dead deer would be able to absorbed into the ecosystem. Here's the moral problem with using these fetuses: they were procured by immoral means and to use them directly would be co-operating in that immorality. To insist that we use fetal tissue for stem cell research will only create a perpetual cycle of injustice. For example, a sucessful treatment is created using fetal stem cells. Their use will create demand for more embryos to be destroyed for the increasing number of patients. And so the cycles of abortion and creating embryos in order to destroy them continues.

  Though, that is debatable.
• 
  46

  What do you usually eat for breakfast?

  by JH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  .

  ok, this is what i eat for breakfast: 2 whole wheat toasts with strawberry jam and a glass of orange juice....that's it... .

  i guess that i don't eat enough at breakfast time, because 2 hours later, i'm already hungry for lunch .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  I usually wake up far after breakfast, but when I do wake up for breakfast I enjoy: a bowl of Life cereal and some yoghurt. Maybe some fruit, but that's only if it's cut up beforehand (hey, I'm not carving out a melon!).
• 
  7

  Three years here!

  by Blueblades in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  three years and 1699 topics and responses since aug, 4th, 2002!

  we have escaped the watchtower!

  thanks to this forum and all you posters!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  Happy JWD Birthday, Blueblades!
• 
  49

  Bush - Idiot Hypocrite

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  jerusalem - president bush said on israeli television he could consider using force as a last resort to press iran to give up its nuclear program..

  erm ... doesn't israel have nuclear weapons?

  i guess they are allowed to do what they want eh?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  It is more about the free exchange of rhetoric, rather than ideas, in these types of threads, though. I can more than see where u/d is coming from.
• 
  27

  THE BIBLE ITSELF the rotten foundation of Watchtower theology

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  (below continues an idea started in another post).

  just consider the difference in meaning between these two renderings.

  1.all scripture is inspired by god and useful for teaching, reproving and setting things straight.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  I would also like to ask, are there any disputed parts/readings in the New Testament manuscripts that involve doctrine? (there's only one I can think of off the top of my head, that is when a scribe changed a part from "the boy's father and mother marvelled," to "Joesph and his mother marvelled."). And thanks to modern manuscriptology, we are able to correct these scribal abbherations.

  That's it above. Thanks for considering it.

  I didn't realize I had an ideological world view.

  We are all shaped by our experiences.
• 
  11

  I use Firefox for this site -- why don't the hyperlinks work!!!

  by inquirer in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i've never really complained about this before.

  i hope simon will answer me... but now it's starting to really get on my nerves!

  everytime i reply to someone and i want to use a web link... eg www.yahoo.com ... it doesn't come up properly!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  the_classicist

  Oh, I should have said more instead of being so abrupt, sorry, but for some reason, the JavaScript that works on JWD to do all the fancy stuff doesn't work in Firefox. That's the extent of my computer knowledge about these sort of things, though.