DescentBB

Testiculese wrote:

snoopy wrote:Non-christians hate God

I don't know a single non-christian that hates god. Non-christians hate christians.

If you don't have a conciousness, you aren't human. 50 cells you can't see without a microscope is not a person. If you are that desperate about polluting this planet with people, then you better make a law that requires every woman to submit every egg they pass during their period to be checked for fertilization, because guess what? Over 50% of a woman's fertilized eggs get flushed with the tampon. (Oh the horror! Oh, the agony!) Not every orgasm deserves a name.

1) What about people who are in a coma after an accident and eventually recover- where they not humans while they where in the comatose state?

2) Natural death happens- due to old age, due to disease, and due to lack of implantation. Discarding embryos is a conscious act by someone to end the life, while fertalized eggs that never get implanted arn't consciously destroyed. Our responsibility lies in not purposefully killing fertalized eggs, those that die naturally havn't been purposefully killed.

3) Doctrinally, christians believe that non-christians do indeed hate God-

John 15:18-19 wrote:If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you.

1 - They're composed of more than a handful of cells. They also had, at one point, conciousness. Very, very flawed try.

3 - Well, then they are obviously wrong!

not only is question #1 horribly flawed.. it is completley irrelevant to the topic at hand.

#3.. I'm not a christian. but I don't hate god. how insulting.

1- So you imply that the number of cells involved defines personhood? Grated, the coma example takes your definition to the extreme, but it forces you to complicate your definition of human life. What do you consider consciousness? Fetuses react to stimuli at a surprisingly young stage of development- would you consider them having a consciousness, thus making later-term abortions murder? If not, what does define consciousness? Is the presence of a brain wave not consciousness? Why not? My point is that consciousness is something you choose to use to define personhood, but it isn't necessarily correct, and simply consciousness is hardly a perfect definition of human life. Likewise with the number of cells involved. That forces you to add more details- and the more you add details, the more you run the risk of excluding bonafide people, and the more you risk conviniently excluding people. That opens the way to future definitions that exclude you and me, as has been done in the past. (bringing back the mention of the Third Reich) I let myself get sidetracked- but the definition of personhood is precisely the cause of the disagreement, and the difference between having a problem with embryonic stem cell research and not having a problem. You have to recognize the fact that people may disagree with your definition of personhood, you can't just place your definition out there as a foregone fact.

3. I'm sorry that you find that insulting, (though I fail to see why) but that's what we believe.

1. frogs' legs react to stimuli. are they alive?

Show me where six cells equates to sentience and I'll bow out immediately.

3. it's insulting because it pigeonholes me (a non-believer) into something that is wholly untrue. It's like this, and this example is hypothetical: \"Statistics show that 70% of white males are rapists\". does that make me a rapist because i'm white? not in the least. But your doctrine says that just because I fall under one description automatically makes it true.

Dang, miss a few days and suddenly I'm way behind. WAY to much to reply to, so I'm just going to try and hit a few high points. My appologies to anyone whom I SHOULD have replied to and didn't.

Palzon wrote:the freedom to choose what happens or does not happen to your own body cannot be sacrificed.

It's a point that can be legitimatly argued. BUT, the point here is not legislation about the legality of abortion or stem cell research, but whether the government should take my money by force and send it to research I don't approve of. The government takes money from me at gun point, they had darn well better spend it ONLY on things that they absolutely have to. Medical research, funding of the arts, and Christmas displays do NOT fit into that category.

Dakatsu wrote:The majority of this country believes that the scientific benefits of this overpowers the possibility of the fetuses being used as new babies.

And this is what disturbs me most about the stem cell debate. I keep hearing arguments from both sides about whether or not stem cells will be medicaly useful. The efficacy of the treatment has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is ethical to do the research. If it is unethical to rip up fetuses for parts to use in research, then it is unethical whether the research would save thousands of lives or none. If it is ethical to do this research, then it is ethical whether the research produces useful results or not.

Kilarin wrote:It's a point that can be legitimatly argued. BUT, the point here is not legislation about the legality of abortion or stem cell research, but whether the government should take my money by force and send it to research I don't approve of. The government takes money from me at gun point, they had darn well better spend it ONLY on things that they absolutely have to. Medical research, funding of the arts, and Christmas displays do NOT fit into that category.

Scientologists, as a fundamental tenet of their "religion", denounce psychiatry. Therefore, under you logic, there should be no government-funded physchiatric research.

Christian Scientists believe that medicine is evil. Therefore, under you logic, no government money should be spent on the development of medication.

Part of living in a democracy/republic is dealing with the fact that things are going to happen that you don't agree with. > 50% of the country is dealing with a war they didn't want to happen; the ~ 30% of the country who agreed with Bush's veto can deal with otherwise condemned blastocoels being used to potentially cure fatal diseases or repair organs.

Kilarin wrote:And this is what disturbs me most about the stem cell debate. I keep hearing arguments from both sides about whether or stem cells will be medicaly useful. The efficacy of the treatment has NOTHING to do with wheather or not it is ethical to do the research. If it is unethical to rip up fetuses for parts to use in research, then it is unethical whether the research would save thousands of lives or none. If it is ethical to do this research, then it is ethical whether the research produces useful results or not.

The biggest problem is that the Christian Right (and I hate using terms like that to describe people) has successfully convinced a significant number of people that harvesting embryonic stem cells involves destroying a fetus. It does not. It involves destroying a blastocoel, specifically by harvesting cells from the blastocyst, a lump of around 50 to 60 cells. There are orders of magnitude more cells in your toenail clippings or in the skin that naturally flakes off your body.

Once people are able to separate the abortion debate, which involves a personal decision made for personal gain/to avoid personal loss, from the stem cell debate, which involves an academia-wide decision made for the collective benefit, then the animosity will die down as people begin to think rationally. Unfortunately the Powers In Power are very good at dumbing situations like these down into polarizing, inaccurate extremes.

After all, isn't it funny how if I support the harvesting of stem cells from an embryo that has expired and is about to be destroyed as a biohazard, in the hopes that someone will be able to use its constituent 50 cells to discover something new about the human body and potentially even find a cure for an ailment, that I am the one with no sanctity for life?

roid wrote:

Duper wrote:But it's painfully obvious that people have grown cold to the value of human life or existance

oh no you don't, i'm not letting you pull a "holier than thou" here on the topic of "sanctity of life". Christianity has been the cause of death of too many people for anyone to allow it to take the moral high ground on "sanctity of life".
- Religious rhetoric used as justification for wars
- Faith healing
- Medical Conservatism (as this topic is yet another example of)

Christianity (and it's Conservative ideological base) does NOT hold the moral high ground.

Ferno wrote:

Genghis wrote:When a cadaver can be used by science to teach (in a med school) or to heal (organ transplants) it generally is, unless the surviving relatives are cockbites. Same goes here, except that the cadaver is tragically young.

you have me wondering if anyone tried to stop medicine from using cadavers as teaching tools. I'm not disagreeing with you at all on this part, but it's a question that came up when I read it.

Duper wrote:I'm all for "stifling science" when it chucks ethics out the window. 20 years ago, this would have been unimaginable by most.

hehe. okok i'm just gonna ruin the whole inside joke and announce to those here who don't know: it was the CHRISTIANS who used to accuse people of NECROMANCY when they disected cadavers for research. Leonardo Da Vinci risked being burned at the stake for his research, and was often threatened by the church.

Dakatsu wrote:Lets just pretend that the scientists are pulling the fetuses out of thin air, or not using fetuses at all. Stem cells are a good thing, they heal people, and save lives. Abortions are being done, and if you like it or not, those fetuses will go to waste. If stem cell research can happen, then the fetuses will be of use, if not, there is no point.

I personally think abortion should be allowed, but shouldn't be done alot or rarely. But even if you dont approve of it, it isnt as if abortion happens because a couple decides they want to donate to stem cell research. It happens because they get knocked up, or raped, or something. Allowing stem cell research just makes the fetuses of use. If you want to ban abortion, I wont be happy, but dont kill stem cell research just because the cells can come from a fetus. Even religious nuts should understand that stem cell research is good. The least religious nuts can do is realize that stem cells dont just come from dead babies!

The embryonic stemcells are not comming from abortions. They are comming from unused embryos that are a sideeffect of In-Vitro Fertilization (they always make more embryos than they need). These embryos have never even seen a falopian tube, they are not "abortions".

Duper, in response to the news of the veto, wrote:good

Yeah? well **** you. What condition rules your life that could be alleviated by this research? I'm betting NONE.
So sure, celebrate your victory. You know nothing of the other side of the fence, but one day you just might - (if you don't circum to denial) your perfect little world will be shattered and then your selfishness will change. But it will be too late for you.
But for now, sleep well on your silk sheets in your ivory tower, kiss your "god's gift" Auran children goodnight. Tell yourself that they will never get sick, it won't be on your head. Afterall, who gives a **** about EARTH if you're retirement plan reads HEAVEN.
"Leave earth for those filthy pagans and negros, we'll be too busy kickin martinis with Jesus to care"

and to think you mortal-coil tourists collectively try to play the moral high ground.

Ok, I missed all this.

dude. really. get over yourself. Also, than you SOOooo much for lumping the entire last 2000 years on my shoulders and including me as a bad apple.

I'm not going to try and explain myself. I don't think it would do any good anyways given trying for the last 3 years or better. You seem pretty much set in YOUR ways as well.

well duper.. you did come off as a bit of a snot.

like that's uncommon here?

pfft.

Duper, some of us are personally effected by this research. Keep that in mind before you decide again to insensitively announce how chuffed you are and maybe you'll better understand the reaction you trigger!

Duper wrote:

roid wrote:

Duper wrote:But it's painfully obvious that people have grown cold to the value of human life or existance

oh no you don't, i'm not letting you pull a "holier than thou" here on the topic of "sanctity of life". Christianity has been the cause of death of too many people for anyone to allow it to take the moral high ground on "sanctity of life".
- Religious rhetoric used as justification for wars
- Faith healing
- Medical Conservatism (as this topic is yet another example of)

Christianity (and it's Conservative ideological base) does NOT hold the moral high ground.

...than you SOOooo much for lumping the entire last 2000 years on my shoulders and including me as a bad apple...

You're the one who played the moral high ground card, don't blame me for calling BS on you. Blame "reason" .

The way you say "get over yourself" indicates how outof touch you are with how important this research is. Either that or you just don't care.

pika pi!

for me, this IS a moral matter and not science. and I'm no better than anyone else. Nor have I claimed such.

sanctity of life? eh hemmm,,, try saying that every time any war, any where happens. killing happens, people kill people, but they do it because they think it will help their cause.
in the case of embryos, a group of cells that are doomed to be destroyed as biohazard are put to a use where they will help research. restating another point, they are giiven close to the same deal as cadavers used for research.
They are not exactly violated, are they.

on a unrelated point in reaction to many, many religious generalisations, i need to say this.
being islam does not make you a screaming al quaeda freak and being american does not make you right automatically.

btw. i am not bhuddist.I am christian. do i hate bhuddists? no.

DCrazy wrote:Therefore, under you logic, there should be no government-funded physchiatric research. ... Therefore, under you logic, no government money should be spent on the development of medication.

Yes. There should be no government funding of medical research at all, except as is related to PUBLIC health issues. The government should be interested in the spread of communicable diseases, it's the same issue as defending the nation from foreign attack. But no, the government has no place funding psychiatric research.

DCrazy wrote:The biggest problem is that the Christian Right (and I hate using terms like that to describe people) has successfully convinced a significant number of people that harvesting embryonic stem cells involves destroying a fetus. It does not. It involves destroying a blastocoel

Not denying that most people are idiots, but I've spoken to plenty of people opposed to fetal stem cell research who understand exactly at what stage of development the fetus is. Your forgetting that most of them take it as a point of faith that life begins at conception.

Ferno wrote:1. frogs' legs react to stimuli. are they alive?

Show me where six cells equates to sentience and I'll bow out immediately.

3. it's insulting because it pigeonholes me (a non-believer) into something that is wholly untrue. It's like this, and this example is hypothetical: "Statistics show that 70% of white males are rapists". does that make me a rapist because i'm white? not in the least. But your doctrine says that just because I fall under one description automatically makes it true.

You ignore the root of the issue- individual human life doesn't necessarily equate to sentience.

Our doctrine teaches that you can't be neutral about God, you either love Him and serve Him, or you hate Him- there's no middle ground. Now I understand that you feel like you are at a middle ground, but in our doctrine neutrality towards God is the same thing as hostility toward Him.

snoopy wrote:Our doctrine teaches that you can't be neutral about God, you either love Him and serve Him, or you hate Him- there's no middle ground. Now I understand that you feel like you are at a middle ground, but in our doctrine neutrality towards God is the same thing as hostility toward Him.

Well your doctrine doesn't govern reality!
I personally don't love god simply because I'm unsure he even exists but I certainly don't hate him! In fact I sincerely hope and pray that he does exist! Just ask him, if he exists he could verify that I talk to him regularly...

I find your explanation of your doctrine to be eerily similar to the islamo-facsist interpretation of the teachings in the Koran. What's the word for infidel in the christian lexicon?

snoopy wrote:Our doctrine teaches that you can't be neutral about God, you either love Him and serve Him, or you hate Him- there's no middle ground. Now I understand that you feel like you are at a middle ground, but in our doctrine neutrality towards God is the same thing as hostility toward Him.

Your doctrine teaches that men are inferior to women and men should "rule over them" because Eve ate a god damn apple. (Genesis 3:16). That is just part of the 3rd chapter of the 50 chapters in the first out of at least 30 books in the bible. According to your logic, I should treat women as inferior, because in your book, they are. They are put on this earth to serve men, right? I think I should beat my girlfriend until she bleeds, as they are inferior, and I should be able to do whatever I want with women, as god intended! (TO WOMEN OF THE DESCENTBB: THIS IS SARCASM!)

Don't pull that "the bible says so" crap. Athiests don't believe in god alltogether by logical reason, such as scientific evidence of evolution, all the war and death that should be stopped by god, and many other reasons. How can we hate something if we dont believe it doesn't exist?

Now, if you excuse me, I am going to love and worship my SUPERIOR girlfriend, because I am not owned by that book of yours, and I don't follow logic from a book made over 4000 years ago.

And don't even try to kill my logic up there, as I have lots more from the bible that I believe is very "ethical" (SARCASM)

Actually, snoop is correct. Everyone's uproar at this makes it pretty obvious.

And, Snoopy never said he hated you.

The word hate in this instance cn be substituted for \"despise\".

Grr, I hate the Biblical "hate". Its definition doesn't match up to ours (c.f. "hate your mother and father" -- something Jesus said that many teenage know-it-alls like to point out, neglecting to realize its meaning is radically different).

Kilarin wrote:Yes. There should be no government funding of medical research at all, except as is related to PUBLIC health issues. The government should be interested in the spread of communicable diseases, it's the same issue as defending the nation from foreign attack. But no, the government has no place funding psychiatric research.

*mouth agape*

So you think that funding Watson & Crick's research at Brookhaven National Laboratory was an error? They weren't studying a communicable disease, but DAMN has their government-funded research helped in that cause.

The point of research science is that you don't always know where it will take you. Often times you just catch something interesting and investigate. To say that because no imminent threat to the general population is evident, and therefore no research on that subject should take place, is ludicrous, backwards, and anti-intellectual. It also contradicts human nature at its curious core.

Everyone at one point in their existence was a blastocyst. There's no denying that, and no matter how tied up you want to get in the semantics of my last statement, the fact remains that the converse is not true: not all blastocysts will become people. Many will not be able to bury into the uterus wall; others will be created in petri dishes in fertility clinics and deemed extras. Why not harness the power of our waste?

Both of you misrespesent thing, and you know it. For one, I never made any statements about my attitude toward non-christians, God's attitude towards non-christians, or what either entity is supposed to do about non-christians. Comparing my statements to Islamic extremists is a total non-sequetor.

Secondly, Dakatsu, you purposefully misinterpret the Bible and use that as justification to throw out the book? Please make it look as if you're at least trying to find a valid reason to dismiss the Bible. Furthermore, all of this originated because Roid was theorizing on why non-christians hate christians, and I was simply explaining why christians think non-christians hate us. Feel free to dismiss my explanation, but don't try to drag our beliefs in the mud in the process- simply stating that you disagree will suffice. Likewise, comparing us to suicide bombers for the belief is hardly justified- just say you disagree... I don't see myself as having slandered you in any way, why slander christians in response?

That was way off topic... and I have yet to hear any admission that we may not have a definitive definition on what individual human life is. I can justify my logic in my definition of human life, but I don't think you want to hear it.

snoopy wrote: Secondly, Dakatsu, you purposefully misinterpret the Bible and use that as justification to throw out the book?

I have more, even better ones, I just wanted one where I knew the exact bible thingy (Genesis 3:16).

What about the fact that the bible allows slavery, and encourages it. You can even beat your slaves, unless they lose an eye or a limb, then they must be set free. Note the fact that this isnt kinky BDSM slavery either, shame isn't it? You can beat the hell out of your slaves, but you can't masturbate. I'd prefer the masturbation anyway.

You can kill people if you want, slaughter, loot, and everything like that. As long as you confess your sins, we go to heaven. Me, I am a nice kind person, loves his girlfriend and gives to the poor. I am nice to people and I give people presents. But I am going to hell! Even if I turn into a chrisite, I am going to hell, because it is an "unforgivable" sin. So a serial killer goes to heaven, but I go to hell? Love that idea!

The basic idea that this country should be governed on this sole book, a collection of stories that are disproven at the first page, with the thoery of evolution and the fact that the world is round. Yet I am saddened that some people will let this govern every aspect of their thought and minds. I am okay if you ponder the idea of what happens after you die, if there is a god, or a heaven and a hell. If there is such as divine intervention, or if there is reincarnation. But when you follow a book that is mostly disproven except for a few historical references, then it just becomes like a regime. If you wish to believe in such, fine, but keep the government out of it, as there are many who do not follow your philosophy.

snoopy wrote: Secondly, Dakatsu, you purposefully misinterpret the Bible and use that as justification to throw out the book?

I have more, even better ones, I just wanted one where I knew the exact bible thingy (Genesis 3:16).

What about the fact that the bible allows slavery, and encourages it. You can even beat your slaves, unless they lose an eye or a limb, then they must be set free. Note the fact that this isnt kinky BDSM slavery either, shame isn't it? You can beat the hell out of your slaves, but you can't masturbate. I'd prefer the masturbation anyway.

You can kill people if you want, slaughter, loot, and everything like that. As long as you confess your sins, we go to heaven. Me, I am a nice kind person, loves his girlfriend and gives to the poor. I am nice to people and I give people presents. But I am going to hell! Even if I turn into a chrisite, I am going to hell, because it is an "unforgivable" sin. So a serial killer goes to heaven, but I go to hell? Love that idea!

The basic idea that this country should be governed on this sole book, a collection of stories that are disproven at the first page, with the thoery of evolution and the fact that the world is round. Yet I am saddened that some people will let this govern every aspect of their thought and minds. I am okay if you ponder the idea of what happens after you die, if there is a god, or a heaven and a hell. If there is such as divine intervention, or if there is reincarnation. But when you follow a book that is mostly disproven except for a few historical references, and force it on someone else by use of the government, then it becomes like nazism. If you wish to believe in such, fine, but keep the government out of it, as there are many who do not follow your philosophy.

Okay... I just realised this is getting way off topic from 'Should we fund stem cells', to 'Does Christianity suck ass or not?' Wanna go back to the topic?

A question, this veto does not stop private sector research correct?

snoopy wrote:Both of you misrespesent thing, and you know it. For one, I never made any statements about my attitude toward non-christians, God's attitude towards non-christians, or what either entity is supposed to do about non-christians. Comparing my statements to Islamic extremists is a total non-sequetor....

Well your doctrine has a certain 'us or them' ring to it! That's the parallel I see between the two particular interpretations of devine intent...

"but in our doctrine neutrality towards God is the same thing as hostility toward Him"

No you didn't actually mention the whole lake of fire bit or eternal flames etc. But we all know the drill.

I just have to say that I doubt god thinks I hate him even though I have doubts about his existence.
You have to admit he's been a bit hands off the last few millennia or so compared to the way he used to be, parting the sea and talking to people through a burning bush, handing out commandments and such.
I expect he might find my skeptisism to be warranted, maybe even wise on my part.

DCrazy wrote:So you think that funding Watson & Crick's research at Brookhaven National Laboratory was an error? They weren't studying a communicable disease, but DAMN has their government-funded research helped in that cause.

Oh, I recognize that government funded research has done much good, but that is beside the point. It's not part of the governments job.

I'm a libertarian, and our rule of thumb on taxes is, if you don't think they should shoot your grandmother if she refused to contribute to a cause, you shouldn't be spending tax dollars on it. Because taxes ARE taken at gun point. If you don't pay, they WILL come and arrest you, if you resist arrest, they WILL shoot you. So you should ONLY spend that money on what you really have to. Everything else should be funded by the private sector.

VonVulcan wrote:A question, this veto does not stop private sector research correct?

Correct.

Dakatsu wrote:You can beat the hell out of your slaves, but you can't masturbate.

If your thinking about the Onan story, you're misinterpreting it.

For issues like slavery and such, we've been over this before. You have to look at them in historical context. The rules that the Israelites were given about slavery, the treatment of women, etc, were superior to the way things were being done before. And even at this level, the people often failed to follow the rules. If they had been given more rigid rules, they probably would have simply ignored them altogether. Actually, for many of the rules they DID simply ignore them. For example, take the "Year of Jubilee", where one of the things that was supposed to happen was that slaves were set free. Unfortunately there is NO evidence that the Israelites EVER kept a single year of Jubilee. They found it too much, so it appears that most of the time, and perhaps even all of the time, they simply ignored it.

God was taking people to a better ethical level in baby steps because that was the biggest steps people would take.

Will Robinson wrote:I just have to say that I doubt god thinks I hate him even though I have doubts about his existence.

To understand Christian doctrine on this point we need to look at John 10. There Christ says:

I am the door of the sheep. 8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them. 9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved

Christ is the ONLY path to salvation. BUT, keep reading:

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Not everyone who is saved through Christ even knows who Christ is yet. There will be many in heaven who have never even heard the name of Christ.

snoopy wrote: You ignore the root of the issue- individual human life doesn't necessarily equate to sentience.

One, are you telling me people who experience a coma no longer are sentient? What about people who are under general anasthetic? are they not sentient?

Two, you dodged my question.

Three, a blastocyst is not a human life. it is cellular life.

Our doctrine teaches that you can't be neutral about God, you either love Him and serve Him, or you hate Him- there's no middle ground. Now I understand that you feel like you are at a middle ground, but in our doctrine neutrality towards God is the same thing as hostility toward Him.

your doctrine is wrong then. I am no christian but I have no malice towards God. I have no reason to harbor malice. Does this mean since I don't fit your doctrine, you are supposed to hate me?

If so, I find that to be a VERY divisive tactic.

Ferno wrote:your doctrine is wrong then. I am no christian but I have no malice towards God. I have no reason to harbor malice. Does this mean since I don't fit your doctrine, you are supposed to hate me?

If so, I find that to be a VERY divisive tactic.

You have to really understand the word "hate" here. It's kinda kooky, but it's very patriarchal. Jesus said to the disciples that any who did not hate their mother and father couldn't follow him. He wasn't advocating hatred in the sense that you should spit on them, but rather that you should disregard their expectations and demands of you when God's overruled them.

It's the same thing going on with Old Testament "hate". By definition, if you don't follow God, you "hate" him, because you are placing your disbelief in God above belief in God, which according to the First Commandment is what he wants his creations to have.

Kilarin wrote:I'm a libertarian, and our rule of thumb on taxes is, if you don't think they should shoot your grandmother if she refused to contribute to a cause, you shouldn't be spending tax dollars on it. Because taxes ARE taken at gun point. If you don't pay, they WILL come and arrest you, if you resist arrest, they WILL shoot you. So you should ONLY spend that money on what you really have to. Everything else should be funded by the private sector.

By definition, there is no market for general knowledge, because that implies that we are all consumers. And while you could argue that there are markets in each kind of specialized field of knowledge (people who produce vaccines consume knowledge about vaccines, which is produced by medical research scientists) that analogy doesn't hold up the concept of greater knowledge when you throw market forces into the mix. The laws of competition dictate that the vaccine producers will not want their competitors to know about something, because then they can produce goods based on that knowledge. This is why we have patent laws; knowledge becomes public when you file a patent, adding to the general knowledge.

But pure academics does not have a place in a libertarian's ideal society. If the general public can't pay for the knowledge it receives in return from academia, then the model of the "knowledge economy" breaks down.

Remember the law of supply and demand: demand creates supply, not the other way around. Since there's no incentive for academia to conduct "just-because" research without federal grants, that means the private sector is left to conduct that research. The private sector, however, has very specific research goals: research that enables the creation of a product. Since demand for that product must exist first before the supplier is willing to supply it (and therefore demand the R&D), then "just-because" research goes away completely, and potential life-saving research (or computing advancements, or mathematical theorems, or astronomical research, or...) will never even be attempted, because its outcome is not known beforehand.

Market economics is very good at explaining things, but it's not always a doctrine to live by. And that's where my problem with libertarianism lies: the free market is not the solution to all problems, because sometimes it's just too logical for its own good.

DCrazy wrote:And that's where my problem with libertarianism lies: the free market is not the solution to all problems, because sometimes it's just too logical for its own good.

Actually I AGREE with you that the libertarians are nuts. They want to privatize things that simply can not be privatized and still maintain a society. Such as the highway and road system. There is no way you can maintain a free trade system if one person can buy all of the roads into an area and control physical access.

BUT, scientific research is not in the same boat as a system of freely available roads. If the people decided not to fund pure research, we might fall behind, but we would still survive.

The same argument is made about funding the arts, if the people don't WANT to fund the arts, they will lose many arts. Thats too bad, we will survive. Much as I love the symphony and will continue to send MY money their way, I could NOT justify taking money from someone else by force to fund my favorite art.

Private companies DO sometimes fund pure research. Phillips used to have a pure research department, may still. But lets assume that they won't. If people want to fund pure research, they can VOLUNTARILY send money to their favorite research foundations. If we need more organization, they can form large NPO's that gather money and funnel it to "worthy" research projects.

It's a simple matter of being voluntary. If people WANT to fund pure research, they CAN. If they don't, then we don't deserve the benefits of it. In either case, it is NOT something we should take money by force for.

The problem I see with that is that those who benefit from the results of pure research aren't aware that they might benefit.

For example, you like your local symphony orchestra. You know that by donating money to them, you're helping them continue to play. You know the expected outcome of your donation.

On the other hand, you don't know what you're going to get out of pure research (if it's being done right). Rational expectations dictates that people won't spend money on something whose direct benefit to them they cannot estimate (because you can't measure the utility of an unknown product). Therefore, only those who are interested in the pure research aspect will be willing to spend money on pure research. Of course, not everyone behaves rationally, but the law holds for large markets/societies. Since most people in this country are not scientists and they stand to benefit from what pure research can bring, but they don't appreciate the only outcome of the research whose utility is measurable before spending money on it -- pure knowledge -- they are unlikely to spend money.

Which brings us back to private sector companies (\"Big Pharma\") being the driving force behind research, and all the divisiveness that comes with it.

DCrazy wrote:The problem I see with that is that those who benefit from the results of pure research aren't aware that they might benefit.

Which boils down to, "We know better than you do where you would best benefit from spending your money."

Now then, in many cases, you may be right, but so what? It's not the governments job to figure out whats "Best" for me, whether I want it or not.

It's the governments job to protect us from outside attack, and from each other. It's NOT the governments job to stop me from spending my money in stupid ways, or to figure out where it would really be "wisest" for me to put it.

Like I said, I AGREE with you that pure research is a valuable thing. We have no disagreement on that point at all. I just don't think it would be right to take money from my neighbor at gunpoint so I could spend it on a research project I thought worthy. It's not right for the government to do it either.

Kilarin wrote:It's the governments job to protect us from outside attack, and from each other. It's NOT the governments job to stop me from spending my money in stupid ways, or to figure out where it would really be "wisest" for me to put it.

Except that this is the very issue in question.

Jeff250 wrote:

Kilarin wrote:It's the governments job to protect us from outside attack, and from each other. It's NOT the governments job to stop me from spending my money in stupid ways, or to figure out where it would really be "wisest" for me to put it.

Except that this is the very issue in question.

Great, now this discussion can become intelligent as opposed to simply being a rhetoric-driven christian bashing ground.

For the record, I'm with Kilarin on this one.

dang, it's so much easier (and fun) to just bash christians for being crazed lunatics.


Jeff is right, think about it. The govt IS going to spend your money on stupid crap, look at any of the bills with the pork, you will see the absolute dumbest, most idiotic earmarks and yet, it passes.

Research is research. It does not produce results the second day after starting. That's the problem with America today, we've become a fast food nation. We only want what is readily available, if it's hot and ready we'll eat it. If not, it's not worth it. Has anyone here ever bought a lesser model item simply because the store ran out of the one you actually wanted? This kind of stuff takes time...

I like the fetus soldier idea...nobody else wants them, I'm sure the military will take them. Hell, they've erased all the mandatory enlistment criteria to let just about anyone go over to Iraq and wait around to be blown up or have your heads cut off. It works out well both ways.

Why can't you fire politicians for incompetence?

Zuruck wrote:Why can't you fire politicians for incompetence?

That's what elections are for. Also I'm pretty sure that a recall system exists.