Some good points going around here, most of them from Emp, though. Schem, damn man. I actually feel bad ripping apart your posts because it's just so easy. I'll take care of your last one sometime later. For now, I just want to address this:
| unfortunately the truth is that this is what happens. do you really think these guys are in it to watch some cells grow in a petri dish and see absolutely nothing? |
The ignorance shows itself again. Of COURSE some people are fascinated by watching things grow in a petri dish, granted, that's a horrific oversimplification of what they do. Just because you don't enjoy something doesn't mean there isn't someone else who does, just because it's not your thing doesn't mean nobody else wants it to be their thing. Many people are legitimately fascinated by the scientific process: the feeling of being involved in something that could be revolutionary, the satisfaction one gets when they solve a problem and make progress, or just the process in general. To say that EVERYBODY in an entire field of life-long careers is self-motived to fame when *nobody* in their field has *EVER* achieved such fame, all just because you aren't interested by the process, is just foolish. You can't use yourself to judge everything else. Do you also think metal bands are self motivated to the money they make just because you don't like metal music, and do you also think atheists are selfish just because they don't believe in god and you do? Those are just some random examples that may or may not apply, but the point remains.
| Issac Newton, Gallilleo, Einstein. |
Great. One discovered gravity. The second confirmed a heliocentric solar system. The third came up with the law of relativity and became a pop culture icon. They made huge discoveries, and therefore got into the history books. But they are bogus examples, because none of these people have heard of stem cells, and none of these people have even been around during the last sixty years, and minus Einstein, none have been around in the last
three hundred years, making the example totally anachronistic. And SURELY none of these people were motivated to their profession out of an insidious desire to be famous. These three are great examples of the right person in the right place at the right time. They loved what they did, were brilliant people, and made incredible discoveries because the time was right. Seriously, just sit down and think it out. So one day, 20 year old Al Einstein wondered how to succeed in life. Suddenly it hits him, I know I'll be a scientist, because they are so famous and get all the chicks! No. Rock stars maybe, scientists no.
Besides, I am willing to wager that if you walked up to a bunch of random people on the street and asked them if you knew who Galileo and Newton are, the majority of them wouldn't know. It might be surprising, but its's not common knowledge.
Finally, it's not like Newton or Galileo got rich and famous during their day. Newton already WAS quite rich, he was from a wealthy farming family. So, why would that motivate him? Hell, Galileo almost got BURNED AT THE STAKE for his discovery! Where was the self motivation in that? Are you implying Galileo Galilei, the great astronomer, revered by astronomers and astrophysicists the world over, was a suicidal masochist? No. He was just a smart guy who came around when the time was right and technology was developed enough for the advent of the telescope. Plus, the notion of 'fame' was undoubtly not even conceivable to a late-to-post Renaissance person. Communication was not developed enough back then for someone to be "famous." So, with both of these examples, you've unintentionally killed your own point. Moving on...
| you cannot let transgressions pass, let alone ones as wide cast as this. |
I think some transgressions obviously need to be punished. But when you don't have a legitimate reason to call something a transgression when it could be a simple mistake, and have nothing to back up your rather radical accusation, then I think quitting while you're behind would be a good strategy.
As for Emp. some good posts there. Figured you were from the eastern Europe area. To be honest, I don't really know how Russia became one the the main topics in this thread. I suppose from saying it was the pinnacle of oppression, when it clearly is not. Obviously it's not the most progressive country, but it's certainly not up there with the most oppressive states in the world, certainly not even in the top ten.
| a hypocrit, by definition, is someone who criticizes action that he wont, himself, account for. |
Ha, we all make mistakes sometimes. I won't hold it against you. I've probably unwittingly gone against myself here at least once.
| As for high hopes, i think Russia is finally curving away from depression and corruption, its economy is on the rise. |
That would be nice. They still have lots of work to do, though. The Russian mafia has such a hold on the government in some places that it's difficult to draw a line between the two. I hope they can manage it eventually.
you didnt even read the article did you. way to go.
what other rational was there for doubling the civilian death rate?
they were worried about military casualties. its much much easier to deny civian casualties than military ones. |
Uh, no. Simple common sense: the deaths of a bunch of unarmed people who didn't do anything to get themselves in a situation are going to get far more attention than the deaths of armed military soldiers who were ordered to be where they were. The world already knows that Chechnya is a disaster and so was the previous Chechen war, so what's there to hide?
| they go together. wow, that was a complicated one to figure out. |
No, that doesn't make sense, and neither does the example you provided.
You began your crusade against stem cells by saying they are too complicated to be practical and therefore are not worth our time. Then, you went on to say we already know everything about stem cells, and that the money is the actual problem. Money is not a problem - any type of credible research is going to get the big dollars. Since you are contradicting your previous point in favor of an equally waterless point, I am lead to suspect you are just making things up to continue the fight.
I think your distinction between discovery and understanding is misleading. You really think we fully understand all the potential benefits of a theoretical science? How? You're saying we have worked out every potential branch off and every potential development that might come of the field? I would certainly think not. There are plenty of possibilites we don't understand and can't even imagine or comprehend of that could be left out there to discover. Acknowledging that the human genome is a complete mystery to us and saying that this field of science, which is sitll in its infancy, is already almost fully understood are two statements that are incompatible with each other.
And true, we do not understand the human genome, which is one of the reasons the field is progressing slowly. I mean, this is getting into some of the highest possible imaginings of science: figuring out exactly what makes the human being tick. It's not going to be easy. But trial and error can only lead to greater understanding, which could bring about some impressive discoveries.
Besides, these scientists have completed high school, college, graduate school, and studied in laboratories for years. What have you accomplished? I think there's a slight chance that, seeing as scientists champion stem cells over your objections, that they just
might know something you don't.
| bullshit, there are numerous mechanical devises being created to bypass nerve damage as we speek. |
Like?
Well, I'm done with stem cells now. There's just no reason to continue the discussion. Neither of us really know much about them in general, yet you try to pretend you have seen their future. It's pointless and a waste of time to continue on the subject, so I'm going to try my best to ignore all future comments aobut them. (Here is me admitting I don't know everything *eyebrow raise*)
| Next statement, okay Sarcasm a word of advice, dont relate psychology to politics or countries. |
No, I think I'll continue to make relevant points. Fact is, governments can develop in certain regions of the world because of a number of factors, and the psychology of the inhabitants is one of them. Plus, sociology and psychology are so closely intertwined that the two actually study some of the same fields (behaviorism, for example.)
| do you know how they attacked the capital? instead of using rather descriminate techniques (like say, foot troops!) they bombarded the capital with high explosives. |
Yup, nicely done, considering it's a common tactic used by every military power. Let me think of another good example...oh yeah! The bombing of Baghdad by the U.S. in 2003. Remember all those news stories, live from Baghdad, with all the explosions in the background? Yeah, not very discrimatory, but very effective. Everyone does it. I think it sucks, but you can't use it as an example of wanton oppression.
I think we're all making a much bigger deal out of this whole religion thing than it has to be, especially when referring to Chechnya. Chechnya is not a religious war; it does not have the backing of major clerics within the faith and it is not lead by zealots preaching the word of god - the current Chechen war is a case of one secular state versus a secular separatist group seeking political independence. The fact that they happen to be Muslim is coincidental. I suspect the reason so much attention is given to their religion is because of the current war on terror.
Sigh, yawn. To conclude...
Recap of Schem's Baseless Assumptions:
-All scientists are insidious, self-motivated villains who only get into science to make themselves rich and famous. Discovery serves only to enrich the self.
-Russia is an oppressive gulag-building, rights-suppressing, and horrible country that enjoys killing its own people and saying it was an accident in order to look powerful in the eyes of the world.
-China is a backwards, undeveloped country that is making no progress and enjoys killing its own people for the hell of it.
-Stem cells are worthless because they are a waste of resources that could be spent on other currently undiscovered and nonexistant potential solutions and are a waste of time because there are too many variables to figure out even though the science is simple and there is nothing to figure out anyway.
-Anyone who disagrees with me is attacking me and insulting my personal honor.
Now, Schem, I challenge you. I notice you like to conveniently ignore parts of my posts that you can't deal with. But this part you have to deal with. Quote it and respond to it, otherwise you will longer have any credibility. I challenge you with this:
-Go talk to a scientist who works with stem cells about his job. Tell him he is a self-motivated bastard who only cares about his own enrichment and let him respond.
-Go visit Russia and ask the opinions of random people on the street about what they think of their country. Alternatively, find someone you know who has lived in Russia extensively and ask them their opinion of the direction their country is heading in.
-Go visit Shanghai and see what it's like. Alternatively, talk to someone who has been to Beijing or Shanghai and tell them that their country is backward and undeveloped.
-Spend a day in a stem cell laboratory. Talk to the scientists. Watch the process.
Now, some of these are obviously more far fetched than others, but most are reasonably possible. What I'm saying is that you need to go out and test what you are saying before you can start presenting it as incontrovertible fact.
To be honest, the more I keep this going to more pointless it starts to seem. I write a big post, and schem quotes tiny selected sections and dismisses them with two sentences and a bunch of capital letters, all of which show nothing. Them Emp comes along and psychoanaylzes both of us and says we suck at arguing even though many points that have been expressed are solid. Kind of difficult to talk to someone if they won't listen, but oh well, I've delt with worse I suppose. It might be wise to actually addess everything I say and not carefully select what you do and don't have a retort for.
