Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://gizmodo.com/5713498/man-officially-cured-of-hiv



Got to the site to get a better read with the working links.


But, this made me really happy.

As I said on Facebook, the fact that it was stem cells made me even happier. Take THAT conservatard theists.

Originally posted by dadudemon
the fact that it was stem cells made me even happier. Take THAT conservatard theists.

i read about this this morning.

I know investors are paying attention. they wanna see how they can profit somehow in anyway even if it means lives.

I posted about the CCR5 mutation years ago in here, glad to see process was actually done with it since then.

Originally posted by Robtard
I posted about the CCR5 mutation years ago in here, glad to see process was actually done with it since then.

I wonder if they could ever make something like a vaccine out of the mutation?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I wonder if they could ever make something like a vaccine out of the mutation?

When I had posted, there was some guy working that. He happened to be part of the very small population that carries the mutation.

No idea how far he's come though. I'd also imagine the pharmeceutical giants would want to suppress a vaccine/cure. There's billions to be made in prolonging the lives of HIV patients for decades with daily pills and injections, less in outright curing them.

I am glad that they found a cure but am not glad that they are useing stem cells to cure it.

Originally posted by Robtard
There's billions to be made in prolonging the lives of HIV patients for decades with daily pills and injections, less in outright curing them. Sad but true
Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I am glad that they found a cure but am not glad that they are useing stem cells to cure it. And why not?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I am glad that they found a cure but am not glad that they are useing stem cells to cure it.

I guess if you say stem cells some people will jump to conclusions.

AIDS is vengeance from God and we need to make sure that all **** die from it because that will teach them to sin against nature.

Originally posted by Robtard
When I had posted, there was some guy working that. He happened to be part of the very small population that carries the mutation.

No idea how far he's come though. I'd also imagine the pharmeceutical giants would want to suppress a vaccine/cure. There's billions to be made in prolonging the lives of HIV patients for decades with daily pills and injections, less in outright curing them.

But if the technology to make the cure is out there someone will release it. Even if the upfront cost is high due to big companies not wanting to use it people will pay to not have the disease hanging over their heads.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
AIDS is vengeance from God and we need to make sure that all **** die from it because that will teach them to sin against nature.

More heterosexuals have the disease and die from it than homosexuals, so your God is as inept as RogueJedi's manager.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But if the technology to make the cure is out there someone will release it. Even if the upfront cost is high due to big companies not wanting to use it people will pay to not have the disease hanging over their heads.

Must you shit on my conspiracy?

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
AIDS is vengeance from God and we need to make sure that all **** die from it because that will teach them to sin against nature. I always thought republicans were gods vengeance.

Originally posted by Robtard
More heterosexuals have the disease and die from it than homosexuals, so your God is as inept as RogueJedi's manager.
AIDS is God's vengeance against fornicators and adulterers, so we need to make sure that all the **** die because that will teach them to sin against nature.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
AIDS is God's vengeance against fornicators and adulterers, so we need to make sure that all the **** die because that will teach them to sin against nature.

Newborns get HIV/AIDS too, your God is inept. Sorry.

Why doesn't he chooses a new Noah and flush's the toilet again?

Seemed to work well in the past...

Originally posted by Robtard
Newborns get HIV/AIDS too, your God is inept. Sorry.
God hates children born to atheists.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
God hates children born to atheists.

I thought you were going to go for the we are all born into sin line.

That too.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
God hates children born to atheists.

Still inept, as theist and their children get AIDS too.

But since it's also now the 'sins of the father' type of attitude, your God's an @sshole too. An inept @sshole, sorry.

Then they weren't real Christians and they were going to hell anyway.

Probably, as only Mormons can get into heaven, so they say.

But Jesus loves everyone

Originally posted by Parmaniac
But Jesus loves everyone

Yeah, his dad is a bit of an old-timer though, eh?

Magic Johnson's keeping a close eye, i bet. An H.I.V. cure would mean a slam dunk for him and all who'm look up to him as a beacon of hope that have the disease.

He is after all the poster boy for the virus. (or was)

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Magic Johnson's keeping a close eye, i bet. An H.I.V. cure would mean a slam dunk for him and all who'm look up to him as a beacon of hope that have the disease.

He is after all the poster boy for the virus. (or was)
All whites are racist.

Glad to see the thread took a turn about religion discussion.




I was hoping everyone would be as happy about a cure as I was. I mean, this was the first time I said, "yes!" out loud when I read about this. I've been wanting AIDS to be cured for a long time. Fer realz.

Originally posted by Robtard
Probably, as only Mormons can get into heaven, so they say.

No, they say that all people go to heaven...just not the best kind unless you're a good Mormon.

And all Zeal Ex's are negros. You make no sense. The fun part's that it's never known when and if you're ever kidding or not.

H.I.V. and anything positive (no pun intended) having to do with it is serious news. Take it that way. It'll make you think.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Glad to see the thread took a turn about religion discussion.




I was hoping everyone would be as happy about a cure as I was. I mean, this was the first time I said, "yes!" out loud when I read about this. I've been wanting AIDS to be cured for a long time. Fer realz.



No, they say that all people go to heaven...just not the best kind unless you're a good Mormon.

I always wanted it cured for 1 longer than you!!!





Oh and I think Robtard was referring to South Park, where only Mormons go to heaven.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
AIDS is vengeance from God and we need to make sure that all **** die from it because that will teach them to sin against nature.
Reported for trolling.

Question: Is there a danger of exaggerating compassion fatigue by telling people that "AIDS is cured" without mentioning that the millions dying in Africa have no chance (that is, probability of 1X10^-9%) of actually being given that cure?

Sure it's nice, but it is a bit like saying that we have biocomputers simply because there was a recent breakthrough in the language of cells.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well it's barely a cure, the procedure they used kills 2/3 of the people that undergo it. What we do have is the biggest step forward in over a decade.
This is exactly my point. This is one step. It is an important one, like the step from the loading platform onto the flight deck of the shuttle, but there are still many more tasks to perform.

My gripe about this thread is that, with respect DDM, this is no more a cure for AIDS than expert systems are working AIs. What's more, my concern is that in the medical and philanthropic arenas, the typically sloppy "science journalism" displayed here may actually cause harm. If the alert that AIDS has been cured fully enters the mainstream, it is possible that charitable giving* may slow out of a premature sense of accomplishment.

http://blog.buzzflash.com/articles/files/bush-mission.jpg
From the general public

No, he actually has a good point. This may be a "cure", but to most people who suffer from AIDS, its a cure in the purely academic sense; it can never be practically used towards the extermination of the disease. Its like when organ transplants were discovered to work for identical twins; it was now technically "possible" to do an organ transplant, but until immune suppressants were later discovered, it really was only "possible" to a very small amount of people in special circumstances.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it's a cure, plain and simple.

There's no way around that. It is a plain jane cure.

If you wanted a proper comparison, it would be like a perfect AI system that crash, randomly, on 66% of it's tests, but still passed all tests (if you got lucky.)

And it only runs on 1% of the worlds computers (the odds of being a bone marrow match to one of the few people in the world that is immune and offering bone marrow is probably far less than that) and rather than crashing it destroys the computer completely and only one trial with the AI has ever been done so far.

Yes you call it a cure but I agree that it is very misleading. When people hear "we have a cure for HIV" the think "I can now be cured of HIV" which isn't even remotely the case.

Profile For Zeal Ex Nihilo

Auto-Note (Today 06:10 AM) User banned by Peach, for 6 days

Reason: Constant trolling and flaming.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_p3a45pxM1OM/SzORznRo0nI/AAAAAAAAAFg/B2XlAi7Psj8/s400/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg

Its about time. I wish he would have just chilled out because he was one of the only conservatives on the forum, but I honestly can't believe he lasted this long with the way he was behaving.

I thought his posts were pretty damn funny and awesome, to be honest.

I'm not PC though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And it only runs on 1% of the worlds computers (the odds of being a bone marrow match to one of the few people in the world that is immune and offering bone marrow is probably far less than that) and rather than crashing it destroys the computer completely and only one trial with the AI has ever been done so far.

Yes you call it a cure but I agree that it is very misleading. When people hear "we have a cure for HIV" the think "I can now be cured of HIV" which isn't even remotely the case.

I agree.

But it's still a cure, none-the-less, and we have not had one until now. It has been an uphill battle and many thought they were on to something but failed.

Since it is not a "this might work" model, but a "this really did work and the results have been verified", we should be happy. Not saying, "this is crap. Nothing new to report, here. Move along." And, it is 1% for "caucasians".

The "mass" breakthrough would be better bone marrow transplant procedures and drugs. When this can be brought to more than just leukemia or lymphoma patients and with over a 95% suvival rate, then we have what I call a "universal" cure.

With Stem Cell research, however, we may not need bone marrow transplants.

It could be possible to take a pill or perform "gene therapy". But, right now, I believe we are only seeing 20-30% gene change with our gene therapy procedures. That's a huge change for some processes, but small for others: for instance, myostatin gene therapy vs. natural cell immunities (respectively).

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I thought his posts were pretty damn funny and awesome, to be honest.

I'm not PC though.

A mac man, eh?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A mac man, eh?

hmm

...missing a very important article adjective in order to make that a good joke.

I am the mack, yes. "Return of the mack... return of the mack..."

Pretty exciting news, though I suppose as pointed out before it's not exactly the best cure out there, but it's definitely a great breakthrough and hopefully it will lead to many more in the future.

And side-note, there's seems to be a lot of hate towards conservatives in this part of the forum, as a conservative/christian I must say I'm intimidated O_O

Originally posted by General_Iroh
Pretty exciting news, though I suppose as pointed out before it's not exactly the best cure out there, but it's definitely a great breakthrough and hopefully it will lead to many more in the future.

And side-note, there's seems to be a lot of hate towards conservatives in this part of the forum, as a conservative/christian I must say I'm intimidated O_O

I'm a Mormon so I can hate all I want.

I don't hate conservatives...I dislike conservatards. There is a difference...just like there's a difference between a liberal and a libtard.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Its about time. I wish he would have just chilled out because he was one of the only conservatives on the forum, but I honestly can't believe he lasted this long with the way he was behaving.

You are silly.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I thought his posts were pretty damn funny and awesome, to be honest.

I'm not PC though.

Yeah, I enjoyed his posts, too.





As for the cure thing, I can understand the point Zampano is trying to make, but attacking dadudemon for his correct usage isn't really necessary. Especially since he even put it in a question in the title and the article itself explains that it is only one man who got cured and some of the problems for the future.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well it's barely a cure, the procedure they used kills 2/3 of the people that undergo it. What we do have is the biggest step forward in over a decade.

It just speeds up Darwinism yo.

Because those cells are parts of an aborted baby that is why.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Because those cells are parts of an aborted baby that is why.
Um, no, they weren't. Did you read the article? They came from adult bone marrow.

I had AIDS once, a couple of aspirin and it soon went away, I don't see what the fuss is all about.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Because those cells are parts of an aborted baby that is why.
Stem Cells aren't only found in aborted babies

Where else are they found then?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Where else are they found then? In stem cell mines

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Where else are they found then?
ARTICLE. DID YOU READ IT?

Yes I did!

No, you didn't. It says in the article where the stem cells came from. If you think they came from an abortion, then that proves you didn't read it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, you didn't. It says in the article where the stem cells came from. If you think they came from an abortion, then that proves you didn't read it.

That's not true.






It might just mean she didn't understand it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, you didn't. It says in the article where the stem cells came from. If you think they came from an abortion, then that proves you didn't read it.

Dang...


The brutal truth, you don't hold back, man.


Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not true.

It might just mean she didn't understand it.

hmm


That's also true. I did not think about that.

Maybe she isn't aware that stem cells can come from places other than unborn babies? That would be understandable as not everyone loves or understands medicine's complexities: it can get pretty complex and convoluted...even for really really really super smart people. So what have we?

I understand it fine and if it is by unborn babies then that is fine.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I understand it fine and if it is by unborn babies then that is fine.
Once again, if you actually understood it you never would have kept babbling about "unborn babies".

I was just saying that most of it is used on unborn babies.What makes it right for unborn babies to be used for something like this?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I was just saying that most of it is used on unborn babies.What makes it right for unborn babies to be used for something like this? What makes it wrong?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I was just saying that most of it is used on unborn babies.What makes it right for unborn babies to be used for something like this?

They won't live anyways, they can't feel it, they will potentially save a shitload of lifes.


It would be immoral not to use them.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Where else are they found then? In the bone marrow of adults. They replicate and diferentiate into all the different kinds of blood cells throughout a person's life, but a number of them remain as stem cells.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I was just saying that most of it is used on unborn babies.What makes it right for unborn babies to be used for something like this?
Most adult bone marrow is used on unborn babies? I'm sorry but that's simply wrong. 10 points deducted, come see me after class.

Originally posted by Bardock42
They won't live anyways, they can't feel it, they will potentially save a shitload of lifes.


It would be immoral not to use them.

Wha?

No.

Killing any life to save another is unethical. The outcome should be "save both lives and if that is not possible, one lives, and the one that would have died, dies."

A doctor should never take a life to save another.


Besides, there's no reason for us to be using embryos for stem cell research. There are plenty of other stem cell options out there.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Most adult bone marrow is used on unborn babies? I'm sorry but that's simply wrong. 10 points deducted, come see me after class.

lol

Would have been funnier if you said "10 points deducted from gryffindor!"

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wha?

No.

Killing any life to save another is unethical. The outcome should be "save both lives and if that is not possible, one lives, and the one that would have died, dies."

A doctor should never take a life to save another.


Besides, there's no reason for us to be using embryos for stem cell research. There are plenty of other stem cell options out there.
So if there was a train headed towards five people, and you could divert it (but not stop it) onto a track that only hits one, you wouldn't do it?

Originally posted by King Kandy
So if there was a train headed towards five people, and you could divert it (but not stop it) onto a track that only hits one, you wouldn't do it?

Absolutely not.

I'd push the dude on the other track out of the way and change the tracks, saving both lives.

Never ever ever ever would I take the life of another to save someone else. That's morally wrong.

This is more of the philosophy forum, though, as it is one of the "big" philosophical questions.

Now, I would certainly give up my life to save a loved one, which is different, because it is my own life.

But, hey, it's nice to know that you would kill someone to save me, if I were on that train...but I would have to live with the guilt the rest of my life that I had to kill someone to live. I guess I don't think as much like an animal as others...none of this "survival over others."

I would, however, kill to help my children survive, depending on the situation. Is that animalistic enough for you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wha?

No.

Killing any life to save another is unethical. The outcome should be "save both lives and if that is not possible, one lives, and the one that would have died, dies."

A doctor should never take a life to save another.


Besides, there's no reason for us to be using embryos for stem cell research. There are plenty of other stem cell options out there.


That would make sense if women who intend to carry the embryo to term got forced into abortions to supply stem cells for research. Which is of course not what happens. It's embryos that will never, ever become a human life.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd push the dude on the other track out of the way and change the tracks, saving both lives.

This assumes you can run many times faster than a train.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Absolutely not.

I'd push the dude on the other track out of the way and change the tracks, saving both lives.

Never ever ever ever would I take the life of another to save someone else. That's morally wrong.

This is more of the philosophy forum, though, as it is one of the "big" philosophical questions.

Now, I would certainly give up my life to save a loved one, which is different, because it is my own life.

But, hey, it's nice to know that you would kill someone to save me, if I were on that train...but I would have to live with the guilt the rest of my life that I had to kill someone to live. I guess I don't think as much like an animal as others...none of this "survival over others."

I would, however, kill to help my children survive, depending on the situation. Is that animalistic enough for you?

I'd probably not do that either. I don't feel comfortable to choose 1 life over 5 without any other information. I might pull the plug on someone with no brain functions and no chance of recovery to save someone else though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This assumes you can run many times faster than a train.

And you think I can't?

estahuh



Here's what I would do:

I would switch the tracks (assuming I don't have time to do both at the same time), then grab the train as it passed and then tell the conductor to stop because there's a bloke on the track that cannot get up.

I'd save all lives, in the process. Weeehehehehehe.


That, or I'd just apparate to each location needed.


Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd probably not do that either. I don't feel comfortable to choose 1 life over 5 without any other information. I might pull the plug on someone with no brain functions and no chance of recovery to save someone else though.

Yeah, I'd probably do the same: pull the plug. Reason: I told my wife if I ever ended up as a vegetable and there was no chance of brain function restoration or I've been in a coma for 6 months, pull the plug. I told her that I would work out a deal with God if I was supposed to recover such as writing in the fogged up mirror or having other signs sent to her. So if there is not signs, pull the plug.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And you think I can't?

estahuh



Here's what I would do:

I would switch the tracks (assuming I don't have time to do both at the same time), then grab the train as it passed and then tell the conductor to stop because there's a bloke on the track that cannot get up.

I'd save all lives, in the process. Weeehehehehehe.


That, or I'd just apparate to each location needed.

Lets rephrase. Without dodging the nature of the though experiment, what would you do?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Lets rephrase. Without dodging the nature of the though experiment, what would you do?

Absolutely nothing.*

The train of people would have survivors and I would not be responsible for knowingly killing someone (second degree murder, depending on how much of a jerk you wanted to get about this thought experiment.)



*Well, that depends. Who is who at each location? Family on the train? Save the train. Family on the track? Save the track person.

Really really hot chick on the track or the train? Save the track or the train peeps. weeehehehehehe

Originally posted by dadudemon
Wha?

No.

Killing any life to save another is unethical. The outcome should be "save both lives and if that is not possible, one lives, and the one that would have died, dies."

A doctor should never take a life to save another.


Besides, there's no reason for us to be using embryos for stem cell research. There are plenty of other stem cell options out there.



lol

Would have been funnier if you said "10 points deducted from gryffindor!" the embryos they use end up being discarded if not used for anything, so yeah, they werent gonna make it anyway.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Would have been funnier if you said "10 points deducted from gryffindor!"

That would have been really funny.

Originally posted by 753
the embryos they use end up being discarded if not used for anything, so yeah, they werent gonna make it anyway.

Goes back a bit further than that: I do not think they should have been using embryos, to begin with.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Goes back a bit further than that: I do not think they should have been using embryos, to begin with. So you're against artificial insemination or in vitro baby technologies?

Originally posted by 753
So you're against artificial insemination or in vitro baby technologies?

Nope.

But I'm against using the failures for anything other than those.

Nice try, right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nope.

But I'm against using the failures for anything other than those.

Nice try, right?

Why not? It's a failure it doesn't even have a chance of becoming a human.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nope.

But I'm against using the failures for anything other than those.

Nice try, right? Everytime embryos are produced in vitro for artifical implantation in someone's womb, extra embryos that won't be implanted are produced, it's just the way the process is. These are usually stored for a while and then incinerated or something. If they'll be discarded anyway, why not use them for research?

Nice try what?

Originally posted by 753
Everytime embryos are produced in vitro for artifical implantation in someone's womb, extra embryos that won't be implanted are produced, it's just the way the process is. These are usually stored for a while and then incinerated or something. If they'll be discarded anyway, why not use them for research?

Nice try what?

They should be destroyed and not experimented with: have some respect for the dead.

They did not consent to medical experiments.

Nice try and in trying to present an exception because there wasn't one, in my book.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They should be destroyed and not experimented with: have some respect for the dead.

They did not consent to medical experiments.

Nice try and in trying to present an exception because there wasn't one, in my book.

What? Respect the dead? They're zygotes not people. They die when they're destroyed and if they are cultivated, they are living on (as experimental cell cultures, not as the people they could become in a womb, of course)

Well, they are not people to begin with. Consent is not just impossible, as would be the case for an actual child, it's innaplicable.

I wasnt digging at an exception I was trying to grasp what you were getting at.

every sperm is sacred!

Originally posted by dadudemon
They should be destroyed and not experimented with: have some respect for the dead.

They did not consent to medical experiments.

They didn't consent to implantation either. But really the point is that we have what are piles of dead bodies that can be either destroyed, stored forever or used to save and improve millions of live.

Originally posted by inimalist
every sperm is sacred!

We might be able to get guys to stop masturbating through draconian laws. The real problem is menstruation, women kill a baby every month they spend not being pregnant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We might be able to get guys to stop masturbating through draconian laws. The real problem is menstruation, women kill a baby every month they spend not being pregnant.

shouldn't have eaten that apple if they didn't want to be child murderers

Originally posted by dadudemon
They should be destroyed and not experimented with: have some respect for the dead.

They did not consent to medical experiments.
Are you against autopsies?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Are you against autopsies?

Nope.

It's not disrespectful to the dead to discover the reason they died or possibly find a killer. Capisce?

You can specify if you do not want an autopsy, btw. A failed baby cannot.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
We might be able to get guys to stop masturbating through draconian laws. The real problem is menstruation, women kill a baby every month they spend not being pregnant.

No they don't: that's an egg which does not contain the relevant DNA to be a human.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They didn't consent to implantation either. But really the point is that we have what are piles of dead bodies that can be either destroyed, stored forever or used to save and improve millions of live.

They don't have a choice on whether or not they want to live when two people want to have a baby. However, there is a choice for us, as fully thinking adults, to show respect for the dead.

Originally posted by 753
What? Respect the dead? They're zygotes not people. They die when they're destroyed and if they are cultivated, they are living on (as experimental cell cultures, not as the people they could become in a womb, of course)

Well, they are not people to begin with. Consent is not just impossible, as would be the case for an actual child, it's innaplicable.

I wasnt digging at an exception I was trying to grasp what you were getting at.

Complete nucleotide sequence = human, to me.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Complete nucleotide sequence = human, to me.

really? explain...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Nope.

It's not disrespectful to the dead to discover the reason they died or possibly find a killer. Capisce?

You can specify if you do not want an autopsy, btw. A failed baby cannot.
So it is not disrespectful to do an action that has a low potential of yielding useful life-saving information... it IS disrespectful to do an action that advances medical research that would likely save many more lives.

No, it can't, which is a good reason why treating it like a thinking human is pointless.

Originally posted by King Kandy
So it is not disrespectful to do an action that has a low potential of yielding useful life-saving information... it IS disrespectful to do an action that advances medical research that would likely save many more lives.

No, it can't, which is a good reason why treating it like a thinking human is pointless.

I'm confused.

Why generalize when this is not a generalized discussion? You can't do that. Leave it at it's specifics and leave the negative generalizations up to those that try to paint the other side as negatively as possible.

It's is disrespectful and unethical to experiment with humans that do not consent, even if they are dead. It is not unethical to experiment with/on humans the fully consent, but it can be illegal. This is independent and regardless of what ever good or bad can come from it.

Originally posted by inimalist
really? explain...

It's in it's simplest form possible. I cannot make it any simpler.

What is it that is not kosher to you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm confused.

Why generalize when this is not a generalized discussion? You can't do that. Leave it at it's specifics and leave the negative generalizations up to those that try to paint the other side as negatively as possible.

It's is disrespectful and unethical to experiment with humans that do not consent, even if they are dead. It is not unethical to experiment with/on humans the fully consent, but it can be illegal. This is independent and regardless of what ever good or bad can come from it.
I'm trying to understand the general principle upon which your argument is based, so that this can be a logical rather than emotional discussion. Any "generalization" i'm doing is an attempt to see why you treat other situations different from this one.

If there is a form of life that cannot give any consent no matter the circumstance, then asking for consent is senseless. Its like asking if a pea plant "consented" to be picked by Mendel. If it could never get consent, then there's no point in asking.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's in it's simplest form possible. I cannot make it any simpler.

What is it that is not kosher to you?
What makes humans special, empirically speaking?

Originally posted by dadudemon
No they don't: that's an egg which does not contain the relevant DNA to be a human.

If DNA is the standard then all your cells are individual humans.

Originally posted by dadudemon
They don't have a choice on whether or not they want to live when two people want to have a baby. However, there is a choice for us, as fully thinking adults, to show respect for the dead.

Then why aren't you respecting all the people who have died of horrible degenerative diseases and doing everything possible to cure those problems for future generations?

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's in it's simplest form possible. I cannot make it any simpler.

What is it that is not kosher to you?

I don't see what qualities a string of DNA has that you would also attribute to a human being with rights

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If DNA is the standard then all your cells are individual humans.

No, it would be an embryo, which is what we are talking about.

But, hey, if you think you skin cells are the same thing as your embryonic self, that's cool. It's just scientifically ignorant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then why aren't you respecting all the people who have died of horrible degenerative diseases and doing everything possible to cure those problems for future generations?

How very illogical of you.

You skipped many many steps to conclude Q.

But, once upon a time, I did aspire to be a doctor and wanted to save as many lives as possible.


Originally posted by King Kandy
I'm trying to understand the general principle upon which your argument is based, so that this can be a logical rather than emotional discussion. Any "generalization" i'm doing is an attempt to see why you treat other situations different from this one.

K. It's simple.

Complete DNA of a human is a human.

Not a complete nucleotide of a human is not human.

There is a difference between blood stem cells and embryonic stem cells. That should be a "duh", right?

There is a difference between a dead person that has been murdered and a failed AI embryo, right? That should also be a "duh".

This is all from an "ethical" and "moral" measure, not some sort of warped sense of "religion", of which, none has been injected into this conversation but I believe all of you are assuming that.

I believe the Mormons believe stem cell research through embryos is neutral. So dash out the idea that this is somehow "religious" based.

Originally posted by King Kandy
If there is a form of life that cannot give any consent no matter the circumstance, then asking for consent is senseless.

I agree. This is why you won't see me standing over a test tube, screaming "HEY! Is it okay if squish you to pieces?"

Originally posted by King Kandy
Its like asking if a pea plant "consented" to be picked by Mendel. If it could never get consent, then there's no point in asking.

K.


But, no, point me to where I ever stated that they should be asked.



Now, what I did say was that it should not be done because they cannot give consent.


Originally posted by King Kandy
What makes humans special, empirically speaking?

We can do calculus.

Originally posted by dadudemon
K. It's simple.

Complete DNA of a human is a human.

Not a complete nucleotide of a human is not human.

There is a difference between blood stem cells and embryonic stem cells. That should be a "duh", right?

There is a difference between a dead person that has been murdered and a failed AI embryo, right? That should also be a "duh".

This is all from an "ethical" and "moral" measure, not some sort of warped sense of "religion", of which, none has been injected into this conversation but I believe all of you are assuming that.

I believe the Mormons believe stem cell research through embryos is neutral. So dash out the idea that this is somehow "religious" based.
These aren't "duh" at all. If your principle is that DNA=human, then both blood cells and corpses qualify. This only means that your initial premise is flawed, or at the very least extremely oversimplified. Try again.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I agree. This is why you won't see me standing over a test tube, screaming "HEY! Is it okay if squish you to pieces?"
No, you'll just make nonsensical arguments that people should need to do that to do stem cell research.

Originally posted by dadudemon
K.


But, no, point me to where I ever stated that they should be asked.



Now, what I did say was that it should not be done because they cannot give consent.
A carrot can't give consent. Consent or no consent is completely meaningless when referring to something that can't give consent in the first place.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We can do calculus.


A failed embryo can't.

Originally posted by King Kandy
These aren't "duh" at all. If your principle is that DNA=human, then both blood cells and corpses qualify. This only means that your initial premise is flawed, or at the very least extremely oversimplified. Try again.

Not at all. You missed the point entirely.

I clearly explained what I meant.

Conversational context should have made that clear to you. Go back and reread my posts and you will know what I meant.

On top of that, your second sentence seems to ignore everything I've been telling you this entire time.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, you'll just make nonsensical arguments that people should need to do that to do stem cell research.

Incorrect. I never said that they would have to do that or that they should do that. That's just stupid and you know that.


Originally posted by King Kandy
A carrot can't give consent. Consent or no consent is completely meaningless when referring to something that can't give consent in the first place.

Cause carrots can do calculus and, if fully grown, would be appalled at the things you wanted to do to it, right?


Originally posted by King Kandy
A failed embryo can't.

Because it's failed and....drum roll please...you should show respect for the dead, which is what I said from the beginning.



Edit - This is one of those dicussions that you'll never ever get me to budge. Not ever. It is a futile attempt to get me to see something from what I consider a flawed perspective. There is viable stem cell options other than embryos.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Because it's failed and....drum roll please...you should show respect for the dead, which is what I said from the beginning.

Serious question. Why does respect for the dead override respect for the living?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Serious question. Why does respect for the dead override respect for the living?

Because your question has a false premise, to begin with: I do not see it as an override for respect for the living, at all, because there are plenty of other legitimate ways other than experimenting on embryos: dead or alive.


Even if that was the only way and we had no other alternatives, I still would say "nay." But, even more so, beacuse there are plenty of ways outside of human embryos, there is really not good excuse.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Because your question has a false premise, to begin with: I do not see it as an override for respect for the living, at all, because there are plenty of other legitimate ways other than experimenting on embryos: dead or alive.

To an extent. I've been told that embryonic stem cells are still the best option.

For reference, what are your views on dead people that didn't leave last wishes? Cremation? Medical science? Burial? Eternal preservation?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Even if that was the only way and we had no other alternatives, I still would say "nay." But, even more so, beacuse there are plenty of ways outside of human embryos, there is really not good excuse.

Yes it is. The longer we wait to research ways of improving their quality of life the more people that will suffer and die. We shouldn't make people suffer just because the method of saving them isn't quite as perfect as we would like.

DDM, Bardock, I really didn't mean to come off as confrontational or even particularly chastising. i just wanted to point out that we aren't as far along as the press has suggested. I think that this sums up my thoughts:

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
To an extent. I've been told that embryonic stem cells are still the best option.

I have not heard that they are the best option, but I have not heard that the others leave something to be desired (or not), either.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
For reference, what are your views on dead people that didn't leave last wishes? Cremation? Medical science? Burial? Eternal preservation?


Just how the law has it: up to the direct family members on how they want to proceed...which is completely independent of embryos.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yes it is. The longer we wait to research ways of improving their quality of life the more people that will suffer and die. We shouldn't make people suffer just because the method of saving them isn't quite as perfect as we would like.

No it is not. Why don't we spend more time developing gene therapy than we do stem cells? They could net us a much more viable solution to an HIV cure by "injecting" the immunity into the HIV patient.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have not heard that they are the best option, but I have not heard that the others leave something to be desired (or not), either.


http://www.explorestemcells.co.uk/AdultVSEmbryonicStemCells.html

Apparently their range of differentiation it much greater in embryonic cells. Work with adult cells is still pretty good, though, since they're already keyed to the person's body.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just how the law has it: up to the direct family members on how they want to proceed...which is completely independent of embryos.

But we accept that these embryos are dead and that we do not know their wishes. Similarly we accept that the people are dead and we do not know their wishes.

It seems like it should be up to the family in both cases.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No it is not. Why don't we spend more time developing gene therapy than we do stem cells? They could net us a much more viable solution to an HIV cure by "injecting" the immunity into the HIV patient.

People have moral issues with it, I'm sure. It also requires perpetual care of the person.

But we do put a lot of money into it as it is. We shouldn't be putting all our eggs (hrm) in one basket with medical science, no matter how promising one area may be.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not at all. You missed the point entirely.

I clearly explained what I meant.

Conversational context should have made that clear to you. Go back and reread my posts and you will know what I meant.

On top of that, your second sentence seems to ignore everything I've been telling you this entire time.
No, at this point you're just refusing to elaborate because you have nothing to say. A blood cell has human DNA. You said, and I quote:

Originally posted by dadudemon
K. It's simple.

Complete DNA of a human is a human.

Not a complete nucleotide of a human is not human.

No weaseling out of it, this DOES include every cell in your body. So now, all you can say is that you were wrong when you boiled it down to that "simple" level. Otherwise, there is a contradiction that is obvious to everyone except yourself.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Incorrect. I never said that they would have to do that or that they should do that. That's just stupid and you know that.
You said you objected because they didn't give consent; implicit in this is that if they DID give consent, you would have been fine with it. So no, that's exactly what you're saying; for embryonic research to be fine with you, they'd have to get the embryo's permission.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Cause carrots can do calculus and, if fully grown, would be appalled at the things you wanted to do to it, right?
A failed embryo can't do calculus. Hell, most high school students can't do calculus. From what i've seen in other threads, your own calculus isn't even that hot.

"If fully grown" is a totally moot point. This isn't an abortion; once it reaches the state where we make the decision, its likelihood of becoming fully grown is already zero.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Because it's failed and....drum roll please...you should show respect for the dead, which is what I said from the beginning.
Why should we show respect to humans that we don't show to other animals? Is it human intelligence? Emotional depth? The contributions they make to society? Failed embryos have none of those, nor do they ever have a chance of having those (except, ironically, by scientific contributions they may yield). Why, from a purely empirical perspective, do failed embryos deserve respect beyond that of lifeforms with similar capabilities?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Edit - This is one of those dicussions that you'll never ever get me to budge. Not ever. It is a futile attempt to get me to see something from what I consider a flawed perspective. There is viable stem cell options other than embryos.
You're abandoning scientific thought completely at this point. You are saying here, that your thesis is not falsifiable. That means that it is literally not worthy of logical analysis.

Originally posted by King Kandy
No, at this point you're just refusing to elaborate because you have nothing to say. A blood cell has human DNA. You said, and I quote:



No weaseling out of it, this DOES include every cell in your body. So now, all you can say is that you were wrong when you boiled it down to that "simple" level. Otherwise, there is a contradiction that is obvious to everyone except yourself.

Ridiculously wrong. So much so that I think you're trolling. I'm not Zeal: calm this type of stuff down. You specifically selected text to support your original post on this to further your liberal agenda against what you thought was a conservative perspective. If you would calm down a bit you would have read the following:

Originally posted by dadudemon
There is a difference between blood stem cells and embryonic stem cells. That should be a "duh", right?

Meaning, "Don't be a dumbass and pretend that when I say human DNA, I mean any all all complete nucleotide sequences derived from any human cell."*

That was glaringly obvious and it further obvious that you are using me as a target of your liberal agenda because that was the very next section in my post that you conveniently overlooked when quoting me in your last post.

In context, it should be obvious that the first portions refer to SC's erroneous references to eggs and another's of sperm: they are not complete DNA sets that represent a 'real' human because they only constitute one chromosome set, not the pair (The reason for the "duh" portions. I elaborate on why I did not expand on this, in my asterisk.) The portion about the source of the DNA being from an embryo directly represents that silly question about "ZOMG! You can ge teh DNA from bludz and skin cellz, 2!" Great, nice strawman.

In your own words: there's no weaseling your way out of this one: you just tried to mislabel me, did not pay attention to my posts, or tried to commit slander: take your pick.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You said you objected because they didn't give consent; implicit in this is that if they DID give consent, you would have been fine with it. So no, that's exactly what you're saying; for embryonic research to be fine with you, they'd have to get the embryo's permission.

No matter what you think is implied, that's not the case, I said it wasn't, so stop trying your hardest at painting me a fool: an embryo cannot give consent and that's part of the reason I oppose it. There is no "but if an embryo could, you'd be fine with it" bullshit. That's not what I said or implied, nor is it possible. Keep those illogical and wasteful discussions out of here as they do nothing to contribute to a discussion. Truthfully, what does it accomplish other than bordering on a strawman and/or trolling?

Originally posted by King Kandy
A failed embryo can't do calculus. Hell, most high school students can't do calculus. From what i've seen in other threads, your own calculus isn't even that hot.

1. You missed the point entirely and I really do not think you missed the point at all: you're pretending to not get it to further your opinion.
2. The research should not be conducted because the species is capable of it.
3. The "calculus" qualification was a joke and a reference to Mass Effect 2. However, I still hold that it is a good meter stick.
4. The ability to do calculus is not bestowed on that particular embryo being destroyed, but to the species, as a whole. Why has that not been obvious to you? (Again, I think you're ignoring that and, instead, trying to miss-paint my points as foolish...which is not really cool, at all.)
5. I've only done calculus, once, on this board and it was a single derivative. It was also a correct derivative. So I'm 1/1, so if that's your measure of "not so hot" then you have a bad memory. Why would anyone do calculus on the message board when it rarely could apply to any discussion? (I do more collision, friction, and motion physics than any other sort of "math", and that's almost exclusive to versus threads.)

Originally posted by King Kandy
"If fully grown" is a totally moot point. This isn't an abortion; once it reaches the state where we make the decision, its likelihood of becoming fully grown is already zero.

No, "if fully grown" is completely relevant. You used a faulty comparison and no sort of backpedaling will change that.

It is also not the fact/point that that particular embryo cannot make a decision at that point or not. It is also not the fact/point that the embryo, if not "dead", could grow into an adult and say, emphatically: "do not experiment with me."

Originally posted by King Kandy
Why should we show respect to humans that we don't show to other animals?

We should. Who said we shouldn't? Did I? No. Why even bring it up?

You do know I'm a bleeding heart animal lover, right? See, I'm also a liberal, deep down inside.

What does this mean to me, as an animal lover, but a meat eater? We should have "humane" ways of raising and eating our animals. We should conduct experiments on the animals in as "humane" of ways as possible. At times, I have been heard saying something similar to this: "We should not conduct research on animals, at all, for human benefit: we should do those studies (drugs) directly on humans that are fully able to give consent and if they die, they gave consent for it."

But that's when I get into an anti-human mode and I do not really want that to happen.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Is it human intelligence? Emotional depth? The contributions they make to society?

Sure. If you want it to be and those help you come to terms, that's it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Failed embryos have none of those, nor do they ever have a chance of having those (except, ironically, by scientific contributions they may yield). Why, from a purely empirical perspective, do failed embryos deserve respect beyond that of lifeforms with similar capabilities?

Well, that's really easy to answer, because I've answered it already:
1. There's no need to because of alternative sources that exist for embryos. Additionally, we have the avenue of gene therapy which may replace most of the functions of stem cells in our research. (In this AIDS case, we could instill the mutation into most of that man's cells with gene therapy. Eliminating the need to destroy his immune system and replace it entirely: just modify all of the cells. We can get the desired effect, usually, with only a 20% "penetration" to his cells with a modified virus that delivers the genetic "payload" to lots of cells. We are noticing some success in other areas.)
2. The embryo cannot give consent.
3. We belong to the same species.
4. Respect for the dead.
5. It's a human because it has a complete, unique, nucleotide sequence. (What about cloned embryos? As soon as we clone a human and it can live, I'll change my stance, there. But, I think a human should get the chance to create their own clones/embryos because it IS them(I can expand on this, if needed, just ask and I will)...not someone else. Combine two different sets of DNA, and make a new living human, that's different.)


Originally posted by King Kandy
You're abandoning scientific thought completely at this point. You are saying here, that your thesis is not falsifiable. That means that it is literally not worthy of logical analysis.

This assumes, of course, that your approach has been completely scientific from the beginning and my intended approach, originally, was completely scientific, as well. Not the case for either party. Now quit pretending that one of us has a higher ground to stand on: intellectual or moral. It is an opinion and nothing more.



*I did not elaborate on that, like that, because I thought it would be rude and condescending to do. I also took for granted that you understood completely and for me to elaborate in such a manner would also be patronizing (because it was such a simple point): you're not stupid. But, I can see you were blinded (not really as you knew exactly what I meant but chose to ignore it either because you hoped I would get lost in the argument mess or that I would flub and backpedal...I dunno) by an agenda to indoctrinate your opinion into someone that was "wrong on the internet." Not going to happen and as I explained, it will never happen.




Edit - What is your perspective on embryonic stem cell research? Outline your stance (which I know already) and provide your supporting arguments. I've done that for you on mine so the law of recipricocity demands you do the same, right? lol

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
What makes it wrong?

Because abortion is murder.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Because abortion is murder.
You know that most of the fetuses don't come from abortions, right?

Yes I do.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Yes I do.
Then why did you act as if stem cells = abortion, if you knew that wasn't true?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Then why did you act as if stem cells = abortion, if you knew that wasn't true?

Why do you keep confronting her like that? Do you expect some sort of change in her behaviour? I think everyone else got the point, maybe just chill a bit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why do you keep confronting her like that? Do you expect some sort of change in her behaviour? I think everyone else got the point, maybe just chill a bit.

Because he's a liberal.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why do you keep confronting her like that? Do you expect some sort of change in her behaviour? I think everyone else got the point, maybe just chill a bit.
I wanted to see how long I could get her to go in circles for.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I wanted to see how long I could get her to go in circles for.

Don't get me wrong, you are definitely not a troll...but isn't that trolling?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Don't get me wrong, you are definitely not a troll...but isn't that trolling?
Maybe. I was hoping it would evolve into good discussion because the socratic method would kick in and she'd realize the error of her ways. But I wouldn't have been too bummed if it didn't.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Then why did you act as if stem cells = abortion, if you knew that wasn't true?

Because most of the time it does.and I had not made any errors.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
Because most of the time it does.and I had not made any errors.
You just said in your last post that you knew that "most of" the stem cells didn't come from abortion. Which is correct? Do most embryonic stem cells come from abortions, or do most of them come from fertility treatments? I'll give you a hint; its number two.

MEANWHILE, the stem cells in this particular case didn't come from embryos at all, they came from adult bone marrow.

Ok ok whatever you say.

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://gizmodo.com/5713498/man-officially-cured-of-hiv



Got to the site to get a better read with the working links.


But, this made me really happy.

As I said on Facebook, the fact that it was stem cells made me even happier. Take THAT conservatard theists. AIDS comes from gays so the conservatard opinion will obviously be "Don't have bum sex in the first place".

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I am the mack, yes. "Return of the mack... return of the mack..." hell naw!! I can't believe that you brought that back!

Happy about the news about progress made toward controlling aids.
Use them damn stem cells! I hope they use more than ever now.

Seriously, you must be stoned off your ass. Do you smoke a blunt after every post or do you skip a few?

Who are you talking too?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Seriously, you must be stoned off your ass. Do you smoke a blunt after every post or do you skip a few?

yes

Originally posted by inimalist
yes

oh, preach on my brother man!