Disqus - Latest Comments for tossup

Re: Is Conservatism Our Default Ideology?

tossup — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 10:05:45 -0000

The high percentage of democratic voting among blacks has nothing to do with levels of education. Prior to 1960, most blacks voted Republican, the party of Lincoln. In 1956, 57% had voted Republican. What swayed them to vote Democratic, and to remain so, was a phone call in 1960 from John Kennedy's campaign headquarters to Corretta King, indicating they would do what they could to spring Martin Luther from jail and get charges dropped. The next day, King was freed, and King's associates, including the NAACP, swore allegiance to the democrats thereafter.

Re: Pro-Life Movement Concentrating on ‘Personhood’

tossup — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:57:38 -0000

I can see you have a problem with objective comments. You use inflammatory
language for no apparent reason. How you use your time is, of course, up to
you, but anger management is recommended.

Re: Pro-Life Movement Concentrating on ‘Personhood’

tossup — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:33:24 -0000

Not only can thousands of sperm touch the ovum without penetrating it, but
the entire host of sperm can touch without any penetration whatsoever. If
personhood is suppose to attack abortion in ways conception cannot, it needs
a definition that is objective. From your response, I gather you are not
able to supply one. You appeal, instead, to a subjective standard for what
the fetus is evidence of, i.e., its "personhood." This is tantamount to
defining "red" by pointing to a color and saying "that's red" which is fine
if you want to substitute "personhood" for a fetus weeks into development.
How this makes it easier to deal with abortion, however, is not obvious to
me.

Re: Pro-Life Movement Concentrating on ‘Personhood’

tossup — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:36:32 -0000

Using the point where sperm and ovum touch as the basis for defining personhood is about as preposterous as claiming that parenthood begins when a boy and girl flirt. Why? Because the scientific fact is that thousands upon thousands of sperm will touch the ovum without conception ever taking place. Are the Personhood of Colorado folks trying to tell us that personhood exists without a person? Does that make any sense to you? Not to me!!!! Just what are the Personhood of Colorado.folks smoking????

Re: DNA: Compelling Evidence of Intelligent Design

tossup — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 06:39:12 -0000

Why is information as used by you and Ellis considered to be without an anthropomorphic basis, which is what I assume you mean when you say it is shown to exist outside humans? How is that evident without human observation that makes it evident? Chemical bonding is information of sorts: oxygen selectively bonds with certain other elements based on those elements electrons and charge. The arrangement of electrons is information for oxygen. But any situation, circumstance or condition, human or otherwise, below the earth's surface or above it, from our solar system to clusters of galaxies, is a matter of elements acting informationally, if information is a matter of recognizing electrochemical behavior predicated on the states and conditions of other elements Do you suppose elements have a notion of information, as do you? Or is the information argument based on a meaning of information that is uniquely human?

Re: NY Stem Cell Board Makes Human Eggs a Commodity

tossup — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:32:19 -0000

How so, Bob? At what point does it become unique? If you claim it is
unique at the point of conception, then what is unique about it? How does it
differ from the fertilized egg of a pig at the point of conception? Your
reference to "human life" as being a more trenchant aspect than a fertilized
egg is curious. Isn't the egg "alive." Isn't it alive before conception?
How is human life any more alive than a pig's life? It's all well and good
and understandable for you to be partial to "human" life and to highlight
its differences from porcine life, but life is life and differences are
differences. So what?

Tossup

In a message dated 6/14/2009 10:43:25 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
writes:

Actually, no, tossup, the uniqueness of the human embryo is not a matter
of speculation but a a matter of verifiable, scientific facts. But the
uniqueness of the embryonic human is not at issue here. It is only a
characteristic of the human life, not the definition or basis for human life.

**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoc...
eExcfooterNO62)

Re: NY Stem Cell Board Makes Human Eggs a Commodity

tossup — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 10:05:17 -0000

I am under the impression the fact money can be the consideration for eggs
was a minor point as it easily would be avoided by simply donating them.
The thrust of the article is broader, calling into question the whole issue
of stem cell research using eggs.

In a message dated 6/15/2009 6:51:19 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
writes:

Actually, due to the risk paying for the eggs is universally condemned by
the research community and no stem cell produced would be eligible for NIH
funding under Obama. Few long-term studies exist, but seem to indicate
increased risk of cancers, kidney and heart disease. There is evidence that
future offspring more subject to cancers, deformities, and still birth.
Visit HandsOffOurOvaries.com for more information on this. (Plus, embryonic
don't do anything adult/ips do - except cause tumors and be rejected by
subjects.)

**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoc...
eExcfooterNO62)

Re: NY Stem Cell Board Makes Human Eggs a Commodity

tossup — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:28:11 -0000

And surely, I have not argued anything concerning a toddler. I just don't
consider a fertilized egg a toddler. And the uniqueness of a fertilized
egg is speculative, impossible to ascertain until it undergoes development.
And what about cloning? Cloned DNA is an exact duplicate of another
organism's DNA, so "uniqueness" exists only in your assumptions about a
fertilized egg. In fact, every dividing daughter cell is a clone of the parent
cell, except in one respect. It inhabits an environment of multiple clones,
and that makes a difference in the end result. So, the of DNA in a
fertilized egghas nothing to do with uniqueness. The environment it occupies
accounts for any uniqueness, not the DNA itself. It's development in an
environment conducive to development, on the other hand, has everything to do with
the end result. Claiming "rights" on behalf of a fertilized egg is
preposterous. "Rights" mean that a legal duty is owed. By what authority? The
only rights there are here are the rights of the person whose eggs are
involved.

In a message dated 6/14/2009 1:43:22 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
writes:

Surely you wouldn't argue that a toddler is less human, less alive, less
deserving of the rights, protections and dignity of other human beings,
would you?

**************Choose the home loan that saves you the most $$$. Agents
available at ditech.com
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoc...
1%2F)

Re: NY Stem Cell Board Makes Human Eggs a Commodity

tossup — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:58:14 -0000

No, I am not aware that a human being is destroyed in the process. In
fact, for me, it is a biological mass that has a long, long way to go before it
fairly can be deemed a human being. Having the potential to become a
human being is insufficient for me to look upon a fertilized egg as human
regardless of the source. Are you aware that the DNA of fertilized eggs of
insects comes very close to matching the DNA of a fertilized egg from a human,
and only by a complex sequence of processes that activate and suppress gene
expression does a fetus eventually form? The idea that a fertilized egg,
de novo, is a human being is a matter personal preference at odds with
biological reality.

In a message dated 6/14/2009 8:35:07 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
writes:

You are aware that, unlike they typical kidney donation, that selling (not
donating) your eggs is (a) very impersonal and (b) to be used for
experimentation, and (c) will result in the creation of a new human being for the
specific purpose of destroying that human being in the process of research?

**************Refinance and lower payments online with Ditech. Visit
www.ditech.com Today!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoc...
)

Re: NY Stem Cell Board Makes Human Eggs a Commodity

tossup — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:39:08 -0000

Giving up eggs for research likely to save lives is not very different than giving up a kidney to save a sibling's life. The intended beneficiary is a living being, the "commodity" is living tissue, the risk to the provider of the tissue is real in either instance, and the benefit is calculable but never certain.

Re: Evidence of the Age of Planet Earth

tossup — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:45:06 -0000

The premise that evolution is bankrupt because it doesn't explain life, is
one that I cannot see is relevant to what evolution purports to be. Why
make "life" the determining factor for taking a position one way or another
about evolution? Evolution, not just biological evolution, is a fact of
life, instantiated in every aspect of the cosmos. . Why require, to
determine its correctness, that a fact of life also explain itself? I don't see
the necessity or the logic any more than I see another fact of life, beliefs,
as being untenable because it doesn't explain the phenomenon of beliefs.

Both your stories of conversion have a familiar theme. Of course, how can
anybody say it is wrong to believe as you do? I certainly wouldn't. But
what I can be found taking issue with is the notion that the beliefs are to
be debated, just as I would take issue with talking about the right or
wrong of an emotion or feelings. Beliefs are so tied to emotional dividends
and reward that I could not separate them, except by a cognitive effort. So,
in that it takes effort, there's something "unnatural" about
intellectualizing positions of belief.

Having said that it has struck me that intellectual positions are crafted,
honed and tailored to defend beliefs. I "believe" theological systems,
philosophical systems, rules of logic deductive logic, have only one purpose,
and that is to justify belief in whatever guise adhered to. So adherence
and conviction precede intellectual positions and viewpoints. The
overriding determinant, then, when beliefs are discussed are the mechanism(s) by
which belief becomes important, relevant, meaningful to an individual to the
point of conviction and adherence. What makes one belief more attractive
than another, so that a person is convinced by one and left indifferent by
another? What goes on in the subjective life of an individual so that he
can be found declaring his persuasion, his allegiance, to one belief system
or another. What's so important about beliefs that so much cerebral energy
is budgeted for their defense? What are the mainsprings of adherence?

In trying to find answers to such questions, I've come to recognize that
tales of conversion for reasons lodged in intellectual, philosophical
correctness are so much "just so" rationalizing (which is okay mind you, so long
as you don't make more of it than that) and don't address what really is
going on inside a person to make of him an adherent of a belief system.

Why, for example, was the question of "life" so important for you, such
that you gravitated to a belief system that protected life? It would not
surprise me if you said its importance is too obvious to warrant further
comment, after all you took the Hippocratic oath, to which I would reply that
you are not acknowledging the power over choice being exerted by valuative
systems operating in you as a biological organism that are outside and
beyond your control. Homeostasis and the organism's commitment to biological
viability and survivability are extremely powerful influences over choice,
actions, and viewpoints. Under threat of physical danger, people don't defend
themselves with arguments and belief systems. "Life" is so important to
you, that you could no more act inconsistently with it than you could resist
gravity itself. In fact, you might be horrified at the mere possibility,
however improbable, of a planet that, like the surface of our sun, had no
place in it for life.

The phenomenon of adherence to a belief system, as an aspect underlying
all intellectual positions, applies whether one is an atheist or a theist.
And under either banner, there are the fundamentalists, the moderates, and
in-betweens, and so forth.

I ask these questions because I've been hammering out the answer over the
last 50 years. I've got an answer, and it allows me to make the following
statement: theists are dead wrong who say god exists, and atheists are dead
wrong who say god isn't real. This is a truth that makes more sense to me
than all the banter between viewpoints that typically passes for
enlightenment among christians and atheists. It's an observation based on the
central nervous system and the developmental path it takes in infancy. Anyway,
good day gentlemen.

In a message dated 6/6/2009 9:43:21 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
writes:

dr. theo wrote, in response to tossup:

My rejection of evolution came as a result of in-depth study of biology
and medicine. I was a devoted Darwinist until I came to realize, like Mr.
Ellis, that the whole theory was untenable in light of what we know about
life. Evolutionists have not proposed, much less demonstrated, any mechanism
for the generation of new information in the genetic code; yet all of the
biological sciences have demonstrated the incredible diversity of life that
exists with encoded information that exceeds all the accumulated knowledge
of man from the beginning of time.

Information can only come from intelligence. You can not cite any
evidence to the contrary, because it doesn't exist. Remember when the SETI
program detected a rhythmic signal from deep space several years ago and all the
excitement and speculation that that stimulated? Why was Carl Sagan so
excited? Because he thought they had detected a signal containing
INFORMATION, which could only mean an intelligent source. Scientists know the first
law of information theory but disregard it when it comes to evolution, just
like they do the first and second laws of thermodynamics

Link to comment:
http://www.dakotavoice.com/...

--
You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off
notifications, go to your Disqus settings at:
http://disqus.com/settings/...

**************Stay connected and tighten your budget with a great mobile
device for under $50. Take a Peek!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoc...

Re: Evidence of the Age of Planet Earth

tossup — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:33:38 -0000

I'll quote you: "I used to believe in evolution…until I realized its weaknesses and all the insurmountable problems it faces within itself. And when I became aware of how well the evidence fits the Genesis account, and of the multitude of highly technical creationist studies and theories which have examined the evidence in detail, I ended up becoming a young earth creationist."

I'm guessing you "used to believe" because you were not thinking on it, just going along with the program. I'm guessing that somewhere in your life, you thought religion gave you a satisfaction you found no where else, and because evolution was inconsistent with the religion, you cashiered your "belief" in evolution, such as it was, for belief in a religion that rewarded you with something of value. I'm guessing that, because you got something of value from religion, you threw yourself into the literature of a young earth with a zeal you never knew when you "believed in evolution," which in comparison gave you nothing you valued. Frankly, I'm skeptical about how knowledgeable you are about evolution, now or when you had your "belief" about it, and suspect the conversion from one belief to the other is a pretense and a pose, wrought from a misguided sense of ministry.