Posted 17 February 2015 - 12:11 AM
More anti-Christian baloney and bigotry. Now he attacks Mother Teresa! Rave on. Here is the real issue in the very words if anyone is interested. http://www.longecity...e-3#entry713519
This is the person who would deny life extension to the religious and those he deems without merit. Where have we heard these values before?
Posted 17 February 2015 - 12:22 AM
More anti-Christian baloney and bigotry. Now he attacks Mother Teresa! Rave on. Here is the real issue in the very words if anyone is interested. http://www.longecity...e-3#entry713519
This is the person who would deny life extension to the religious and those he deems without merit. Where have we heard these values before?
Denying the evidence even more! Apparently denying his foolish claim that the Christian church promotes life means bigotry. Oh ignorance is abundant. He's just like the few Muslims who aren't willing take any criticism. Shadowhawk refuses to admit how he would allow everyone to have immortality. He makes a variety of strawmans and is unable to answer an obvious question. Shadowhawk would destroy the world through overpopulation for the sake of his ethics. Promoting life by destroying life is the logic you can find with him. About as consistent as his claims that the catholic church promotes life.
Oh shadowtroll.
Edited by serp777, 17 February 2015 - 12:29 AM.
Posted 17 February 2015 - 12:27 AM
Private and public hospitals have been created all over the world from many people and organizations. Why only the christians have to be the leading factor for building of the hospitals? How much money the religion has given for building hospitals? And how building of hospital will make us immortal. We need the technology, not only the hospitals. And religion is stopping the technology.
Remember Hitler was into Technology and was very good at it. There are ethical isswues related to the use of technology. You seem to be willing to harvest body parts from the weak and defenless for the sake of the strong. Christians would have a problem wikth that. As for imortality due to technology, there is zero evidence for that.
You seem to be willing to let the world die through overpopulation by giving everyone life through immortality. Its two bad you can't see two steps in front of you.
Also red herring much? Your comparison of his point to Hitler is ignorant and childish. And Hitler was very good at technology? How old are you? Technology isn't an activity that you do. Your ignorance makes me laugh.
He's proposing growing humans without brains and extracting their organs to save thousands of lives. You would deny life to everyone who needs a new organ. So much for promoting life. Your double standards, inability to answer basic questions, and generally flawed arguments do not justice to debate whatsoever. This is like saying you can't grow human cells because those human cells are human. Human cells alone dont make someone human. The brain does. That's why doctors take people off of life support who experience brain death. You have no knowledge of realistic morals and medical ethics.
Edited by serp777, 17 February 2015 - 12:30 AM.
Posted 17 February 2015 - 12:31 AM
IMMORTALITY remains not a choice and does not appear to be for some time. The entire physical cosmos is running down and dieing. You would solve overpopulation by denying life to those that don't meet your criteria. Who elected you the determiner of who has merit?
Posted 17 February 2015 - 12:39 AM
IMMORTALITY remains not a choice and does not appear to be for some time. The entire physical cosmos is running down and dieing. You would solve overpopulation by denying life to those that don't meet your criteria. Who elected you the determiner of who has merit?
Wow. This is hypothetically if there was immortality. Obviously immortality doesnt yet exist; thanks for your profound obviousness. And no one elected me. if you'd read any of the posts that I made earlier, which clearly you didn't, I advocated for world leaders and a variety of government committees to find and agree on qualitative and quantitative standards. I gave some criteria which I think would have been relevant but im not proposing to be master of the decision making process. Read any of my posts to see this. You keep inventing my position which i've come to expect. You will not accept my words. I mean i should just let you speak on my behalf since clearly you're able to read my mind /jokes.
But who determined that you would make the decision that everyone gets immortality in order to "promote life"? Why do you get to determine that overpopulation and death is superior than limiting immortality to the best, most beneficial people on the planet?
Again, just answer the question: WOULD YOU LET EVERYONE BE IMMORTAL TO "PROMOTE" LIFE, ASSUMING SOME CURE FOR AGING EXISTED? Just answer the question. Stop avoiding it and pretending you have superior morals. Thanks
Posted 17 February 2015 - 01:08 AM
I am, like most Christians, for extending life as long as possible. Unlike you I would not limit that to anyone based upon their religion or some Hitler like choice of who lives or dies. But this topic is nonsense because Christians are not blocking life extension for everyone. They oppose some artificial limitation of the benefits of life for everyone.
Posted 17 February 2015 - 01:28 AM
I am, like most Christians, for extending life as long as possible. Unlike you I would not limit that to anyone based upon their religion or some Hitler like choice of who lives or dies. But this topic is nonsense because Christians are not blocking life extension for everyone. They oppose some artificial limitation of the benefits of life for everyone.
"Unlike you I would not limit that to anyone based upon their religion or some Hitler like choice of who lives or dies."
Finally you admit you would give everyone immortality. So i've never actually made a strawman then. Your ignorance is astonishing though. Hitler committed genocide because he actively killed people. if you think that not letting people get immortality the same as killing them, then you're a deluded fool, I hate to say it. Its like saying the United States and other first world countries are committing genocide, and basically being Hitler, against the rest of the world because we don't give all of our food, medicine, etc to prevent disease and starvation everywhere else.
By allowing everyone to live through immortality, it would actually be a great alien weapon to destroy the world. Overpopulation would kill everyone because it would deplete every natural resource and lead to huge dustbowls and gigantic wars over food. So you're not actually for extending life as long as possible--pretty much everyone would die because of your position--by starving to death too. My position actually extends life the longest for everyone because it allows the most people to live longer without killing everyone through overpopulation. Thus if you add up the total minutes of life in my position vs your position, I am actually promoting life the most. Clearly you are not capable of deductive reasoning or making any predictions. You keep spouting the same nonsense and comparing it to Hitler. I actually feel bad for you. I doubt you will understand this argument though. In before shadowhawk gives me a one line answer about how this is like Hitler, without justifying it at all.
Also please answer how you have the authority to choose that everyone lives so that everyone can die through overpopulatio? You get to determine that everyone dies, how is that fair or sensible? You would be the craziest genocidal maniac if you were a leader. Worse than stalin, Hitler, and Mao all combined into one person. You'd literally end the world.
You are incapable of reading. I gave you a solution for who would determine who receives immortality. Somehow that means no religious people. herp derp derp strawman.
Edited by serp777, 17 February 2015 - 01:32 AM.
Posted 17 February 2015 - 02:34 AM
You are right, life is open to everyone in my view but you are for denying some life. And of course no Jews or Christians will get life because the bigots are the ones who get to choose. Where have we heard this kind of talk before? We have to avoid over population you have repeatedly told me. again, I don't think this is the view of Longecikty and if it is we should know about it.
Posted 17 February 2015 - 02:53 AM
Hitler technology means nothing. We have more advanced technologies today, and we are not nazi.
I am not willing to harvest body parts from the weak, but from cloned embryos. There is diference. Please, stop making me write it over and over - it is that the cloned embryos have no mental activity until the 3rd month, and no consciousness, and no desire to live, and can be compared with a large group of cells, and would not exist anyway.
By technology I meaned all kinds of medical technology, including medical technologies, cloning and embryonic stem cells.
Will you please answer the question from my previous post? How much money your religeous organization, or your highest religious autorities have given for creating hospitals and health centers? Can you compare them with those, build by the government and by private people and private organizations? How about hospitals built in non-religious times, or in countries with a different religion? In Bulgaria the majority of the hospital buildings today are built in the 60-70-80s during anti-religious government politics.
Posted 17 February 2015 - 03:04 AM
They are human persons, human life with full genetic makeup, the same that they will have when they are 90 years. Nothing changes except development and change throughout human life. You have defined them as less than human so you can cut them up for your own selfish needs. It is monsterous to define the defenseless as less than human so you can kill them.
Posted 17 February 2015 - 03:22 AM
You are right, life is open to everyone in my view but you are for denying some life. And of course no Jews or Christians will get life because the bigots are the ones who get to choose. Where have we heard this kind of talk before? We have to avoid over population you have repeatedly told me. again, I don't think this is the view of Longecikty and if it is we should know about it.
What are you even talking about? Under my proposed system, its likely many jews would receive immortality if they wanted. Many jews have contributed a plethora to society. Furthermore prominent Christians like Francis Collins who did substantial work on the human genome would definitely receive immortality under the merit system. Probably even Frank Tipler as a well known mathematician. Would random christian bishops, on the other hand, receive immortality? Probably not--they doesn't contribute much to the world. Are you unable to comprehend what a merit system is? Merit doesn't mean--only if you're an atheist or agnostic. And we've heard your kind of talk from your same strawman every single time. How much longer do I need to keep showing how wrong your stupid strawman is? I doubt you will ever understand this.
"We have to avoid over population you have repeatedly told me. again, I don't think this is the view of Longecikty and if it is we should know about it."
Huh? You don't think over population is a view of longecity? Longecity is a forum--a combination of html, php, and other web languages that construct a forum. Longecity doesn't have opinions. Longecity members and moderators have opinions. And the members definitely think over population is an issue in the case of everyone having immortality.
And are you aware of population growth models? The only thing limiting population growth is the number of people who die--many of them from age. When you remove that huge number of people who don't die, then you get overpopulation. Then you've doomed the planet because suddenly, 20-30 years later, no one has anymore food. Is it that you don't think overpopulation is a valid consideration? I mean humans evolved with a 50% childbirth rate. Humans are predisposed to population growth.
Posted 17 February 2015 - 03:25 AM
They are human persons, human life with full genetic makeup, the same that they will have when they are 90 years. Nothing changes except development and change throughout human life. You have defined them as less than human so you can cut them up for your own selfish needs. It is monsterous to define the defenseless as less than human so you can kill them.
THe brain is what makes a human. By your logic since chimps have 99% of our genetics, therefore they're 99% humans and should have 99% of the rights we do. Fruit flys with 75% of our genetics should have 75% of the rights we do.
Do you think its a good idea for a brain dead person to be on life support while draining all the resources of their family and taking up valuable hospital space? Obviously not--anyone who has family with alzheimers will tell you that the disease of the brain destroys who that person is, until they don't resemble anyone anymore. I find your black and white ethics to be bizarre and contradictory.
Posted 17 February 2015 - 09:13 PM
They are human persons, human life with full genetic makeup, the same that they will have when they are 90 years. Nothing changes except development and change throughout human life. You have defined them as less than human so you can cut them up for your own selfish needs. It is monsterous to define the defenseless as less than human so you can kill them.
THe brain is what makes a human. By your logic since chimps have 99% of our genetics, therefore they're 99% humans and should have 99% of the rights we do. Fruit flys with 75% of our genetics should have 75% of the rights we do.
Do you think its a good idea for a brain dead person to be on life support while draining all the resources of their family and taking up valuable hospital space? Obviously not--anyone who has family with alzheimers will tell you that the disease of the brain destroys who that person is, until they don't resemble anyone anymore. I find your black and white ethics to be bizarre and contradictory.
The fetus has 100% of our genetics because, and I know this will come as a surprise, it is us!
Posted 17 February 2015 - 09:35 PM
They are human persons, human life with full genetic makeup, the same that they will have when they are 90 years. Nothing changes except development and change throughout human life. You have defined them as less than human so you can cut them up for your own selfish needs. It is monsterous to define the defenseless as less than human so you can kill them.
THe brain is what makes a human. By your logic since chimps have 99% of our genetics, therefore they're 99% humans and should have 99% of the rights we do. Fruit flys with 75% of our genetics should have 75% of the rights we do.
Do you think its a good idea for a brain dead person to be on life support while draining all the resources of their family and taking up valuable hospital space? Obviously not--anyone who has family with alzheimers will tell you that the disease of the brain destroys who that person is, until they don't resemble anyone anymore. I find your black and white ethics to be bizarre and contradictory.
The fetus has 100% of our genetics because, and I know this will come as a surprise, it is us!
And a fruit fly is 75% of us!!! A chimp is 99% of us!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Clearly its all about genetics. Notice how you conveniently left out most of the points on the post. Should we let brain dead patients with no hope of recovery stay on life support forever?
Also 100% of our genetics? You know we have different genetics as individual humans right? LOL. Everyone has a different genotype unless you're a monozygotic twin or a clone. So no, they're not 100% of us.
I also guess you gave up on your whole strawman argument claiming that I was allegedly advocating for jews and Christian not to receive immortality. So much for that.
Edited by serp777, 17 February 2015 - 09:38 PM.
Posted 17 February 2015 - 10:10 PM
Everything is diferent, man. Before their brain starts working a cloned embryo is a bunch of your own cells.
The only thing that is different is the stage of life which changes until death.
The stage of life is not a diference by itself - the embryo until a certain age does not have a working brain. You simply do not accept that as an argument. I don't see a reason of telling you that over and over.
Posted 17 February 2015 - 11:19 PM
Everything is diferent, man. Before their brain starts working a cloned embryo is a bunch of your own cells.
The only thing that is different is the stage of life which changes until death.
The stage of life is not a diference by itself - the embryo until a certain age does not have a working brain. You simply do not accept that as an argument. I don't see a reason of telling you that over and over.
It does have a brain and is genetically all there developing as it will the rest of its life. A newborn baby can't walk YET but will. A sprouted nut is not yet a tree but it is different from the tree only in its growth stage. There is no difference between a zygote and a senior citizen except age. This gives you the right to kill a human life. This is the difference between the religious and the non religious.
.
Posted 17 February 2015 - 11:31 PM
They are human persons, human life with full genetic makeup, the same that they will have when they are 90 years. Nothing changes except development and change throughout human life. You have defined them as less than human so you can cut them up for your own selfish needs. It is monsterous to define the defenseless as less than human so you can kill them.
THe brain is what makes a human. By your logic since chimps have 99% of our genetics, therefore they're 99% humans and should have 99% of the rights we do. Fruit flys with 75% of our genetics should have 75% of the rights we do.
Do you think its a good idea for a brain dead person to be on life support while draining all the resources of their family and taking up valuable hospital space? Obviously not--anyone who has family with alzheimers will tell you that the disease of the brain destroys who that person is, until they don't resemble anyone anymore. I find your black and white ethics to be bizarre and contradictory.
The fetus has 100% of our genetics because, and I know this will come as a surprise, it is us!
And a fruit fly is 75% of us!!! A chimp is 99% of us!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Clearly its all about genetics. Notice how you conveniently left out most of the points on the post. Should we let brain dead patients with no hope of recovery stay on life support forever?
Also 100% of our genetics? You know we have different genetics as individual humans right? LOL. Everyone has a different genotype unless you're a monozygotic twin or a clone. So no, they're not 100% of us.
I also guess you gave up on your whole strawman argument claiming that I was allegedly advocating for jews and Christian not to receive immortality. So much for that.
Clearly it is not all about genetics otherwise we would all be fruit flys.. Something else is going on here besides genes. I know you can't tell your genes from a monkey because you don't know you can identify human genes but you can. Yes, you can be 100% human. So now, as identified by you, a few Jews may have merit. I know what you said and no one is going to accept this plan, certainly not longecity.
Posted 17 February 2015 - 11:45 PM
They are human persons, human life with full genetic makeup, the same that they will have when they are 90 years. Nothing changes except development and change throughout human life. You have defined them as less than human so you can cut them up for your own selfish needs. It is monsterous to define the defenseless as less than human so you can kill them.
THe brain is what makes a human. By your logic since chimps have 99% of our genetics, therefore they're 99% humans and should have 99% of the rights we do. Fruit flys with 75% of our genetics should have 75% of the rights we do.
Do you think its a good idea for a brain dead person to be on life support while draining all the resources of their family and taking up valuable hospital space? Obviously not--anyone who has family with alzheimers will tell you that the disease of the brain destroys who that person is, until they don't resemble anyone anymore. I find your black and white ethics to be bizarre and contradictory.
The fetus has 100% of our genetics because, and I know this will come as a surprise, it is us!
And a fruit fly is 75% of us!!! A chimp is 99% of us!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Clearly its all about genetics. Notice how you conveniently left out most of the points on the post. Should we let brain dead patients with no hope of recovery stay on life support forever?
Also 100% of our genetics? You know we have different genetics as individual humans right? LOL. Everyone has a different genotype unless you're a monozygotic twin or a clone. So no, they're not 100% of us.
I also guess you gave up on your whole strawman argument claiming that I was allegedly advocating for jews and Christian not to receive immortality. So much for that.
Clearly it is not all about genetics otherwise we would all be fruit flys.. Something else is going on here besides genes. I know you can't tell your genes from a monkey because you don't know you can identify human genes but you can. Yes, you can be 100% human. So now, as identified by you, a few Jews may have merit. I know what you said and no one is going to accept this plan, certainly not longecity.
What is 100% human? You know everyone has different genes right? 200k years ago humans still existed but their genes were even more different. Neanderthals were also as intelligent and conscious as humans. Neanderthals actually merged with the human race, so there is no such thing as 100% humans. And neanderthals, because they are conscious, would have the same rights as a human. If you know what 100% human is then you should be able to give me a range of genotypes that define what exactly a human is, so that non human can be distinguished from human. Clearly you don't accept a chimp, but what about a human neanderthal hybrid? Is that human? I mean come on, drawing the line with this genetic argument is impossible.
Well everyone will at least accept my plan before yours. No one is going to accept giving everyone immortality so that everyone can die through overpopulation. My solution is the best one there could be. More likely what will happen is that only the rich will get it because of the capitalist nature of globalization. My plan gives it to the people who deserve it the most--the ones who contribute the most to society.
Posted 18 February 2015 - 01:49 AM
I have been studying genetics for some time and have had my own y chromosome tests done going back 64 generations. It is easy for some of us to tell a human from a fly. The genes are more like a keyboard, all alike but different products. It is easy to tell a human from a dog and in fact you, or I should say I, can tell the difference 100%. That must not be true for all who call themselves human. 
Edited by shadowhawk, 18 February 2015 - 01:52 AM.
Posted 18 February 2015 - 02:17 AM
I have been studying genetics for some time and have had my own y chromosome tests done going back 64 generations. It is easy for some of us to tell a human from a fly. The genes are more like a keyboard, all alike but different products. It is easy to tell a human from a dog and in fact you, or I should say I, can tell the difference 100%. That must not be true for all who call themselves human.
You missed the point entirely and instead regurgitated some sarcastic strawman nonsense. I am not talking about obvious cases like a fruit fly and a human. Im talking about differences between the higher hominids, like human neanderthal hybrids and humans, or where exactly along the line humans become non humans
Since you know all about genetics, enlighten us where exactly human became humans on the evolutionary path?
Talking about the fruit flys was to show you that basing the definition of what a human truly is on genetics is flawed, since genes are shared by many creatures.
Posted 18 February 2015 - 07:06 AM
Everything is diferent, man. Before their brain starts working a cloned embryo is a bunch of your own cells.
The only thing that is different is the stage of life which changes until death.
The stage of life is not a diference by itself - the embryo until a certain age does not have a working brain. You simply do not accept that as an argument. I don't see a reason of telling you that over and over.
It does have a brain and is genetically all there developing as it will the rest of its life. A newborn baby can't walk YET but will. A sprouted nut is not yet a tree but it is different from the tree only in its growth stage. There is no difference between a zygote and a senior citizen except age. This gives you the right to kill a human life. This is the difference between the religious and the non religious.
.
So, everything, that has the potential to become a human must not be killed, and must be given a chance to become one, right? Allow the cloning in your ideology then. Each usual cell from our bodies, including a random skin cell has the potential to become a human by cloning. We have an extraordinary big number of cells. When some one dies, take all his cells and make him this number of clones. Because it is so immoral to leave such a number of eventual clones to die. At least in your ideology. You see? Your ideology looks more like cretenism, rather than an useful ideology.
Posted 19 February 2015 - 01:50 AM
Without you dehumanizing some stage of life based upon your subjective whim, tell me when human life begins and ends.
Where life begins and ends doesn't matter. Consciousness is what matters. You don't keep someone with irreversible brain death alive--that's because all they would do is take up hospital space from people with working consciousnesses and drain the bank balance of a family who has to pay for pointless life support.
Your argument is bad becase it should be based on when consciousness occurs in the womb and not where some cells get together. Human cells are unimportant. We shed billions of skin cells and other stuff off everyday. You don't find those skin cells valuable, so why is suddenly an egg and a sperm together more valuable?
Posted 19 February 2015 - 02:39 AM
You are imposing your values upon others and your choices results in their death. A zygote is much more than a skin cell.
No, im not the one making claims that one type of cell is more important than another for arbitrary reasons. You're imposing your values that some forms of stem cells are more valuable than a skin cell. Both contain the information needed to construct a human. Both are just as worthwhile--you can take the DNA from a skin cell and clone a new person.
Should we keep people who have irreversible brain damage on life support forever pretty much?
Posted 19 February 2015 - 07:34 AM
Without you dehumanizing some stage of life based upon your subjective whim, tell me when human life begins and ends.
My subjective whim is mine, but also is beneficary for all people. I don't need spare parts (at least not yet). There are many people, who need currently. If we are to be immortal, we all will need spare organs in the future.
Purely biologically the life of the human lasts from the zygote to the death.
The human life that maters - from the brain starts working until the last electromagnetic activity of the brain.
If you don't allow the human cloning for organs, do you allow it as a technology for eventual protecting and proceeding the human race? If the clone remains alive, it seems, that your main argument becomes invalid, right? How about cloning people, who remained without a child in order to proceed their ofspring? Here again your main argument stops working - the clone is alive again.
Posted 19 February 2015 - 08:37 AM
Yes you are. They are not human until they meet your arbitrary definition of what is human. The small child lacks nothing
Nope, you're making a strawman; again!! Typical. Read before responding, or comprehend before responding. A small child is not a fetus, and a fetus is not an embryo. And we dont value all human life because its alive and its human. That's why I gave the example of an irreversibly brain dead person being taken off life support.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: ImmInst.org
