1. Science part more - anything I inject will either be in brackets [] or I'll call it out:

    Animal Research:
    • Just over half (55%) of people find performing research on animals morally acceptable. Gallup surveys show this to be a generally-declining trend, as it was 65% in 2001 (when Gallup first started asking. Secondary surveys from 1988 also show this decline.
    • VCU in 2007 asked the question of whether someone was "in favor of using animals in research." 67% found it acceptable at that time.
    • A Gallup 2008 survey showed that 64% opposed banning medical research on animals, and 59% opposed banning it on products.
    • There is a gender and age gap associated - women and young people like animals, older meaner men hate them.
      • Joking pejoratives aside, women or younger respondents were less in favor than male or older respondents.
    • Results weren't much different internationally - in 2010 Europeans were asked about specific animals. When asked about dogs and monkeys [they didn't ask if you were a dog or cat person, though...], 44% strongly favored using them for medical research. 37% strongly did not want to use them. Again, men (49%) were more inclined to use them than women (39%).
      • When asked about mice instead of dogs or monkeys, the result spiked - 66% found it acceptable [because fuck mice?].
    Stem Cells and Cloning:
    • Most Americans (60%) saw using embryonic stem cells as "morally acceptable." This peaked in 2007 (64%) but has been stable since (57-62%) and is up significantly since 2002 (52%).
    • 71% of people were in favor of using non-embryonic stem cells. VCU found this number also peaked in 2007 (75%).
    • If the question was phrased as "if you or a member of your family had Parkinsons or a spinal cord injury, would you support the use of embryonic stem cells in order to pursue treatment for that condition?" respondents [predictably?] were more in favor.
    • A 2013 Gallup survey found that only 13% of people said that human cloning was "morally acceptable," and 83% said it was "morally wrong."
      • This is up from 7% in 2001, but since 2001 it has fluctuated between 8% and 13% meaning this is still within the range of "not really changing."
      • The remaining 4% looked at their younger, identical twin and said "haha, you're morally unacceptable." 100% of those younger twins said "no you are." [This terrible joke is obviously not part of the study]
    • When no medical purpose is mentioned, VCU found that 8 in 10 Americans opposed human cloning. When participants were asked specifically about using 'cloning technology' to treat rare diseases, the results were much more mixed (% not provided). Using cloning for "therapeutic" [i.e. medical] purposes has been increasing slowly.
    • 54% of Americans were "somewhat clear" or "very clear" on the differences between the uses of embryonic stem cells, stem cells from adults, and stem cells from other sources.
      • XX Comment: I didn't think I knew the difference, so I looked it up. It's quite probable that you knew and forgot because it's not something that really comes up - the current thought is that embryonic stem cells can become any type of cell. Adult stem cells can only become similar to their tissue of origin.
    • 2010 European survey found that 63% were in favor of using embryonic stem cells, though that's combined 12% result of "use without requiring special laws" and 51% "only regulated with strict laws."
      • 69% were in favor of using adult stem cells, with the breakdown being 15% and 54%.
    • Human cloning was not surveyed, but animal cloning was. Only 17% said animal cloning was "safe for future generations" [not exactly sure what that means], and 70% disagreed to the statement of "animal cloning in food production should be encouraged.
  2. Science part most:

    One last section (I'm pretty sure - I forgot about this one before), then a glossary.

    • 2010 - 24% of Americans had heard "some" or "a lot" about Nanotechnology (up from 2006 and 2008). 44% had never heard anything about it.
    • Similarly, 43% of respondents said that they had "no opinion" on if it would be harmful or beneficial. 37% said the benefits would outweigh the harms, 9% said the benefits and harms would be about equal, and 11% thought it would be more harmful.
      • XX Comment: So, 1% of the respondents said they had never heard anything about it, but had an opinion on if it would be harmful or not. I'm guessing the researchers told them about it briefly? Or they're just assholes.
    • Similar to GMOs, context mattered a lot. Energy applications of nanotechnology were much more favored than health and human enhancements.
    • Europeans are much more aware, but not much more accepting - 45% had heard of nanotechnology. 44% of respondents said that it should be "encouraged," but 35% disagreed. 22% had no opinion.
    • Interesting study in England - when provided balanced information about nanotechnology, a respondent's perspective usually only increased in severity. People positive about nanotechnology became more positive, negative became more negative, and most amusingly ambivalent became more ambivalent.
      • XX Comment: Each person in that last group is now my hero.
    Glossary (for all sections):

    • Biotechnology: The use of living things to make products.
    • Climate change: Any distinct change in measures of climate lasting for a long period of time. Climate change means major changes in temperature, rainfall, snow, or wind patterns lasting for decades or longer. Climate change may result from natural factors or human activities.
    • European Union (EU): Eurobarometer survey data for 2008, 2010, and 2011 include data for 27 EU member nations: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Eurobarometer survey data for years prior to 2008 include data for EU member nations as of the survey year (25 countries in 2005 and 15 in 1999).
    • Genetically modified (GM) food: A food product containing some quantity of any GM organism as an ingredient.
    • Global warming: An average increase in temperatures near the Earth’s surface and in the lowest layer of the atmosphere. Increases in temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere can contribute to changes in global climate patterns. Global warming can be considered part of climate change along with changes in precipitation, sea level, etc.
    • Nanotechnology: Manipulating matter at unprecedentedly small scales to create new or improved products that can be used in a wide variety of ways.
    • Reproductive cloning: Technology used to generate genetically identical individuals with the same nuclear DNA as another individual.
    • Therapeutic cloning: Use of cloning technology in medical research to develop new treatments for diseases; differentiated from human reproductive cloning.
  3. http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/10/...llusion-investigations-tide-turning-democrats


  4. San, posting a couple of links and running out of the thread isn't a reply, its an intellectual copout.

    Do you have a point to make or are you content to let other people make it for you?
  5. Sorry. I am simply saying that both mainstream news sources are coming out and saying the same thing in that the whole Russia investigation which I have been lead to believe is bs, is showing that there still no collusion going on and now there are a can of worms opened with the DNC.

    It will always come down to the intelligent designer and creator with me my friend but that is not what I was getting at.

    Nature intends a lot of things I don't think you want to go down there cause I could say.

    Why doesn't cows eat meat, is it nature? Why would a cow get mad cow disease when fed meat
    Why are cats/lions born with the instinct to pounce?

    Nature did intend for us to be a higher life form with intellect but we have choice in how we use it. Which is why to answer your question that yes we made great things like dairy products which are engineered but the same things can be said that we are equally capable of creating things not so good for our bodies, environment (coal) and our spirits.

    I TOTALLY disagree with Xander, don't take anything serious from a man that doesn't eat his vegetables. I think you meant to say you agree with me a little in that people should know what they are eating (which is what I was leading him to saying that labels should be put on GMO products). You just will not getting past getting better then what nature intended for us like natural sunlight (you won't come up with a better version) and fresh organic produce.

    I'm usually lazy in my response to you.....
  6. @San - Trump's son in law (Kushner) has already openly admitted they colluded with the Russians. I don't know why this is still a thing.


    Here's the original article on the Clinton dossier, The WP has done some really great stories lately:


    Clinton paid an independent investigator to research into Trump. She got the info on Russia, she passed it out to everyone to discredit him. That's what politicians do, unless you're Trump Jr and you go to the Russians for your dirt.
  7. @San: Cows can eat meat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXhElaGCZVU

    Animals do a lot of shit nature doesn't intend (though I'm pretty sure the burden is on you to prove intent). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

    Sunlight is only good for small amounts of time. After that it quite literally kills you... by mutating your cells. Nature turns you into a GMO. Nature also genetically modifies organisms... like the food we eat. We just do what nature does, except modify it the way we want and at a much faster rate.
  8. Ok..

    Cat's pounce out of reflex or instinct(although the two are not necessarily the same thing), a behavior developed through years of evolution forced by environmental factors and various other external/internal stimuli that necessitated the behavior as a basic method of survival.

    So, in order for me to deconstruct this vague and( please don't take this the wrong way) malformed teleological argument, I need some clarification first.
    Is it your contention that there is a direct correlation between Natural------Good, and that anything natural that is also inherently beneficial, is ultimately superior to all synthetic substitute?

    Sunlight is generally better than artificial light that's true, especially for photosynthesis and plant growth because of its evenly balanced photon emission, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of artificial replication through some sort of technological innovation or breakthrough. Not that we should invent an artificial sun(if possible) that emits at the same wavelength as the actual star and then take a rash left turn in human habitation and become subterranean mole people.(although I'm sure it would have futurist/sci-fi terraforming enthusiasts everywhere salivating at the mouth)

    Again, I need you to clarify for me whether your argument is predicated around the idea that nature "Intended"(intend can unknowingly be used as colloquialism quite often) for sunlight to be conducive for the propagation of life, I;e an inherent purpose.
    There are countless stars that exist in the universe devoid of a planet/satellite/body with the elements necessary for life that would under the right circumstances flourish beneath its rays. But the scientific explanation of "How and why" is much more clear cut than its philosophic counterpart of "How and why". Not that the debate is settled(far from it), this discussion is at the heart of Aristotelian logic and philosophy when loosely married with the natural sciences, as many religious intellectuals are accustomed to do in an effort to reconcile their science and faith.

    So for now, I'm going to withhold a more in-depth nuanced response until I have a better understanding of the ideas and concepts you are espousing.
    I want to avoid needlessly and unwittingly turning your argument into a scarecrow lovefest.
  9. So Trump's new voter commission decided it would be a good idea to put in a system where it cross-checked information across states. Turns out that for every 1 person who has a duplicate registration correctly identified by the system, 300 people are incorrectly identified by the system and automatically de-registered to vote.


    I wonder if I'm flagged / would be flagged - apparently when I registered to vote in Illinois they didn't correctly de-register me in Virginia. I have to register in my new state anyways, so... meh.

    I can't think of any situation where impacting 300 innocent people to get to one person is acceptable. We routinely let people walk who shouldn't because our system of law is built around preventing 1 innocent to be impacted, and even that isn't perfect.

    Links to studies are found in the article.
  10. Companies are testifying on capital hill today about the Russian ad campaigns. They've posted some of the images already - Facebook wasn't going to release them until Congress made them (amusingly I had to turn off my ad-blocker to see them).


    Note that after Hillary lost, the ads started switching to anti-Trump ads. Long story short, the Russians are trolls.

  11. I had to change it to foxnews because as usual nbcnews edited footage..smh
    San Goku likes this.
  12. @Vicious - is it the normal presidential military speech, except a few inserts of how great he thinks he is?

    Rick Perry does it again. This is a quote from an article in the Hill, and it's quoting Perry directly:

    I'd hit my head on the desk, but this desk isn't mine and I'm pretty sure I'd slam it hard enough to break it.

    Vicious likes this.
  13. More "swamp draining." And by that I mean Trump has done nothing to "drain the swamp" and keeps appointing unqualified people who give him lots of money or pat him on the back for breathing.


    As far as I can tell, there's never been an appointee with no trial experience. There have been many appointees (and as recently as the Nixon era) including supreme court justices who have no judicial experience, but that's still a significant gap from no trial experience at all.
  14. Whoah, good on him. I made the mistake of reading the comments though, not sure why I keep doing that.
  15. So I made this mistake of looking to see what the latest status of Pai's Net Neutrality push is. Here are some highlights!

    So AT&T is telling the FCC to make its internet services no longer a common carrier so it can avoid common carrier legislation, while at the same time arguing against the FTC by claiming it's a common carrier. Good times are had by all.

    Remember, when in doubt just say whatever you're doing is for freedom. BOOM - instant justification.

    Here is what authority the FCC is given:


    I'm not sure I see any way where that last paragraph doesn't cover broadband services.

    tl;dr - Pai's justification in pursuing Net Neutrality is that the FTC has the authority to pursue, not the FCC. However, AT&T has already won a court case against the FTC saying they don't have the authority even for mobile broadband. Pai refuses to wait until the new verdict has been determined, because... he's Pai? Also the FCC has the authority according to the Telecommunications Act of 1996.54 Section 706(a).

    It's now entirely possible for ISPs to be a common carrier and also not a common carrier at the same time, and they get to pick when and at what time they are common carriers... which then means that they determine that the FTC and the FCC have no authority to regulate them.
    dreed likes this.

Share This Page