Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Where will the science stop?

Didn't they cover the weakness of the slippery slope argument on the second day of law school?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I deal with people researching and investing in the area all the time. Venture investors with a timeframe for exit that is absolutely limited to 10-12 years, and prefers 5-8 years, are eager to invest, but are nervious about the time frame and reviewing and staging potential investments accordingly. Like all biotech investments, there is a possibility of exit in 5-8 years based on having a late-stage product not yet approved for marketing for human treatment (in other words, as much as 2-3 years from market), but, that gives you a reasonable timeline tested in the marketplace for there being real treatments from this research within a decade.

this reads like something PPNYC wrote.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
this reads like something PPNYC wrote.

Look, if you're going to stalk me, could you at least come up with a sock with a clever name or something?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"No other potential therapy—including adult stem cells—is nearly as promising for my ailment and others. Evaluate that as you wish."

-- Michael Kinsley

that it is his best hope, might still be no hope. I really think I am for it, but the ad seems dishonest, and not in the bilmore sense. I can't imagine the Dems are trying to get the votes of the unfortunate people waiting fora cure to whatever ailment- there can't be enough of them. the Dems are trying to convince the public that Reps are out to kill Fox due to religous dogma-

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Kinsley is too smart to miss - so he is willfully ignoring - the related argument that once you go down the road of willfully destroying embryos, what is stop anyone to go further down the road - cloning, organ harvesting, etc.

I think it's a little unfair to say that Kinsley is "willfully ignoring" something on the basis of a single sentence that I quoted in one of his many pieces on the subject. Go to Slate and search for "Kinsley stem cell" or something like that.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Didn't they cover the weakness of the slippery slope argument on the second day of law school?

I don't see what the big deal is about cloning. Aren't the Rs the ones that want us to stop fucking, anyway?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Look, if you're going to stalk me, could you at least come up with a sock with a clever name or something?

read what you wrote. I'll be out running for the next hour. rewrite your post, trying to convey your point a little more clearly.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Didn't they cover the weakness of the slippery slope argument on the second day of law school?

Which proves the point, since we all know that nothing they teach you in law school has practical import in the real world.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I think it's a little unfair to say that Kinsley is "willfully ignoring" something on the basis of a single sentence that I quoted in one of his many pieces on the subject. Go to Slate and search for "Kinsley stem cell" or something like that.

Don't be a dick. I read the whole article you linked to.

[SlaveNoMore]

Hank Chinaski
the Dems are trying to convince the public that Reps are out to kill Fox due to religous dogma-

the party of fear-mongering.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
the party of fear-mongering.

Rs -- the party of clone-haters.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
that it is his best hope, might still be no hope. I really think I am for it, but the ad seems dishonest, and not in the bilmore sense. I can't imagine the Dems are trying to get the votes of the unfortunate people waiting fora cure to whatever ailment- there can't be enough of them. the Dems are trying to convince the public that Reps are out to kill Fox due to religous dogma-

I'm sort of curious how it's going to play out in several dozen years. Preserve life through whatever treatment is available from all of this research or eschew the treatment because of the way it was derived? I could see, say, the Roman Catholic Church facing quite a dilemna should embryonic stem cell research lead to even half the things that preliminary models and findings suggest.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I read the whole article you linked to.

I didn't -- I just did the search and scanned for a sentence that addressed Hank's question. I found that one in the first article I picked. I offered the link as a citation, not to suggest I was recommending that article.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I really have no truck either way in the stem cell argument. If, ultimately, treatments are derived therefrom, then great.

Kinsley is too smart to miss - so he is willfully ignoring - the related argument that once you go down the road of willfully destroying embryos, what is stop anyone to go further down the road - cloning, organ harvesting, etc.

Where will the science stop?

I forget; was it Less or Plate who had the organ-harvesting business plan?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
the Dems are trying to convince the public that Reps are out to kill Fox due to religous dogma-

If they said that, it would be wrong. Just like the Republican ads trying to convince people that Democrats support Islamic terrorism.