1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Shocking Michael J. Fox Ad in MO Senate Race

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Deeper_Background, Oct 24, 2006.

  1. sportschick

    sportschick Active Member

    Do you know how hard it is to find a pic of Def Lep from before the drummer lost his arm?
     
  2. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    Let me clear up this adult vs. embryonic debate.

    The reason embryonic cells are needed is because they can be manipulated to grow into ANY cell type. For the most part, adult cells are what they are -- they can only be grown to form the cell of the type of tissue from which they're extracted. Some progress has been made in manipulating the adult cells, but even the most optomistic projections conclude that they will still be very limited.

    In addition, from a single embryonic cell, thousands of other cells can be produced. Not so for the adult cells. That's important, because for this treatment to work, you need millions of these cells.

    Anyone who argues that adult cells are just as good embryonic cells has no clue what they're talking about. For God's sakes, just think about it. If the same things could be accomplished with adult cells, why in the world would there be a debate? What scientist in his right mind would spend hour after hour fighting with the government to use embryonic cells when they could be doing the same research with adult cells?

    But let's not allow any facts to get in the way here.
     
  3. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    dog --

    While you and I know that, you're dealing with people who will openly write that people who argue for funding for embryonic research do so because they like to kill babies for sport.

    Logic has no place here. Got a link to a clown picture?
     
  4. dog428

    dog428 Active Member

    Oh, I know.

    And I wasn't really posting for those people. I just wanted to make sure other interested folk knew for certain that the "debate" here is idiotic.
     
  5. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Something like 65-70 percent of the American people understand.

    This debate is like gay marriage. Over, except for as a Republican campaign issue.

    But it is fun to watch the knuckle-draggers flim-flam.
     
  6. JackS

    JackS Member

    As long as you're being fair, go back to my original post and note that I used the word "consensus," not "everybody."
     
  7. Birdscribe

    Birdscribe Active Member

    Dog, well aware of this fact. Read a good story in the Globe & Mail Sunday magazine when I was in Canada a few months ago about one of the foremost researchers on the subject who moved to Irvine, Calif. to do research on ESC's.

    Seems he couldn't get the funding in Canada and things were laid out for him in SoCal, especially at a research university like UC Irvine.

    I'm just trying to pin down the rampant hypocrisy inherent in such Luddite thinking. A futile gesture, I know, but one does what one can.
     
  8. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Hold on a sec. Gay marriage was routed everywhere it was on the ballot. People said if you let gays marry, they'd be wanting to marry their dogs and whatever.

    So they can't, and our pets should be safe, so why this week do we have conservatives screwing dead dogs and dead deer on the sides of America's highways and in one case in view of a day-care center!

    What kind of America have you brought us to, GOP?
     
  9. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

    Blame it on the full faith and credit clause, Ace.

    We'll all be fucking dogs and deer, soon.
     

  10. The Wiki entry says that the consensus among the educated elite was in the direction of some sort of round earth.
    And your argument is still incoherent.
     
  11. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    I do now. :D
     
  12. JackS

    JackS Member

    If it's incoherent now it's because you took an off the cuff remark (which I now regret) and had to pick nits with it. And to top it off, you apparently skipped the second paragraph of the Wiki entry and the first paragraphs of the segment on antiquity...

    It is believed that in early Classical Antiquity, the Earth was generally believed to be flat. This is indicated by early Greek philosophers such as Anaximander, who believed the Earth to be a short cylinder with a flat, circular top.[1] The first person known to have advocated a spherical shape of the Earth is Pythagoras (6th century BC)...

    Antiquity

    Belief in a flat Earth is found in mankind's oldest writings. In early Mesopotamian thought, the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean, and this forms the premise for early Greek maps like those of Anaximander and Hecataeus.

    By classical times an alternative idea, that Earth was spherical, had appeared.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page