View Poll Results: Your vote on this proposal would be?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    9 20.45%
  • no

    25 56.82%
  • no, but I would vote yes on labeling

    8 18.18%
  • undecided

    2 4.55%
Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 224

Thread: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

  1. #41
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Which single species did natures numbers add up to during the "great dying?"

    It's very unlikely that humans will have the same effect with GMO's, than did "natures" great dying.
    Sorry, but your post is still filled with the naturalist fallacy.
    Harry your first query seems a bit incoherent...hard to know how to respond...but should suffice to say that the numbers added up to their inevitable total at that time just as they do in every moment in time, and that applies regardless of the particular scenario in question because the equation analogy applies to all scenario's.
    We have science or deductive reasoning to help us contemplate what those numbers may have been at the time as exampled here:

    The Great Dying - NASA Science
    "Becker's team had previously found such gas-bearing buckyballs in rock layers associated with two known impact events: the 65 million-year-old Cretaceous-Tertiary impact and the 1.8 billion-year-old Sudbury impact crater in Ontario, Canada. They also found fullerenes containing similar gases in some meteorites. Taken together, these clues make a compelling case that a space rock struck the Earth at the time of the Great Dying.

    But was an asteroid the killer, or merely an accomplice?

    Many scientists believe that life was already struggling when the putative space rock arrived. Our planet was in the throes of severe volcanism. In a region that is now called Siberia, 1.5 million cubic kilometers of lava flowed from an awesome fissure in the crust. (For comparison, Mt. St. Helens unleashed about one cubic kilometer of lava in 1980.) Such an eruption would have scorched vast expanses of land, clouded the atmosphere with dust, and released climate-altering greenhouse gases."

    As to the rest of your statement, its kind of like saying hypothetically that even though we don't know we need heat shielding and even though we don't know the distance so as to carry the sufficient amount of fuel and even though we haven't even figured out we need oxygen yet let alone how to store or produce enough, that "It's very unlikely that humans will have" a problem getting to the moon and back.
    The only reason any moon mission was successful was because we had the above described info. With genetic engineering we simply don't yet have that info and the potential consequences are far greater reaching than a rocket failing to get to the moon as such unintended or intended effects could be as great as the 'great dying' in a worst case scenario.

  2. #42
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    Harry your first query seems a bit incoherent...hard to know how to respond...but should suffice to say that the numbers added up to their inevitable total at that time just as they do in every moment in time, and that applies regardless of the particular scenario in question because the equation analogy applies to all scenario's.
    We have science or deductive reasoning to help us contemplate what those numbers may have been at the time as exampled here:

    The Great Dying - NASA Science
    "Becker's team had previously found such gas-bearing buckyballs in rock layers associated with two known impact events: the 65 million-year-old Cretaceous-Tertiary impact and the 1.8 billion-year-old Sudbury impact crater in Ontario, Canada. They also found fullerenes containing similar gases in some meteorites. Taken together, these clues make a compelling case that a space rock struck the Earth at the time of the Great Dying.

    But was an asteroid the killer, or merely an accomplice?

    Many scientists believe that life was already struggling when the putative space rock arrived. Our planet was in the throes of severe volcanism. In a region that is now called Siberia, 1.5 million cubic kilometers of lava flowed from an awesome fissure in the crust. (For comparison, Mt. St. Helens unleashed about one cubic kilometer of lava in 1980.) Such an eruption would have scorched vast expanses of land, clouded the atmosphere with dust, and released climate-altering greenhouse gases."

    As to the rest of your statement, its kind of like saying hypothetically that even though we don't know we need heat shielding and even though we don't know the distance so as to carry the sufficient amount of fuel and even though we haven't even figured out we need oxygen yet let alone how to store or produce enough, that "It's very unlikely that humans will have" a problem getting to the moon and back.
    The only reason any moon mission was successful was because we had the above described info. With genetic engineering we simply don't yet have that info and the potential consequences are far greater reaching than a rocket failing to get to the moon as such unintended or intended effects could be as great as the 'great dying' in a worst case scenario.
    The problem is the you're continuously assuming that "nature" has it right in every case, even though you say "nature" isn't a thing, that can plan.

    No we're learning more and more, but your apparent luddism is wanting us to prevent it's use, because we don't know every single possible thing.
    With all that I doubt you'd want it legal then.

    It's nothing again but, the naturalist fallacy, appeal to fear, etc.
    You don't have much to back you up, except for these things.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Going by your system, we would of been left, in the stone age.
    No thanks.
    Not even that far. We'd still be microbes.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  4. #44
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,091

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Yea, all you're doing again, is the naturalistic fallacy.

    "Nature" has done things, that have had irreversible and dire consequences for many species on this planet.
    You're assuming, that most things done by "nature" are correct, rather that just are.
    these arguments also assume that we aren't part of "nature" ourselves.

    with some perspective, our cities and highway systems really aren't that different from what ants and beavers do. they are simply bigger and more complex. sustainability is a likely opposing argument, and in some cases, it has merit. however, an outright ban on a particular kind of research is not the same thing as finding a balance, and it would be highly counterproductive.

  5. #45
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    these arguments also assume that we aren't part of "nature" ourselves.

    with some perspective, our cities and highway systems really aren't that different from what ants and beavers do. they are simply bigger and more complex. sustainability is a likely opposing argument, and in some cases, it has merit. however, an outright ban on a particular kind of research is not the same thing as finding a balance, and it would be highly counterproductive.
    Precisely.
    I thought of that too.

    If "nature" did not want us to do these things, then why did "nature" give us the tools.
    Animals, whether or not, they realize it, engage in selective breeding all the time, to enhance certain genetic traits in their species.
    Ohh noes, GM animals!!!
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #46
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    The problem is the you're continuously assuming that "nature" has it right in every case, even though you say "nature" isn't a thing, that can plan.

    No we're learning more and more, but your apparent luddism is wanting us to prevent it's use, because we don't know every single possible thing.
    With all that I doubt you'd want it legal then.

    It's nothing again but, the naturalist fallacy, appeal to fear, etc.
    You don't have much to back you up, except for these things.
    Harry, I said nothing about 'right' or 'wrong' either for that mater, this is your terminology.
    Nature simply inherently has all the numbers to work with and we simply as of yet don't.
    The proposal posted here simply forces science where profit motives have supplanted such.
    If you were really a fan of the 'facts' and science then you would surely be in support of this proposal because it demands such before allowing the 'not ready for prime time' biotech players to bungle the gene pool much as other profit motivated 'experts' in other sectors have handled the economy etc for example.
    Finally Harry, to that bit you keep parroting at the end of every post...you force me to then feed you crackers...I only wield the all powerful quote of destiny again because you have brought such on yourself...I did attempt mercy and reconciliation as I am required, but that seems to have failed...I know the Occam's Razor like blade of the quote of destiny is devastating, but don't fight the urge to continue even if it is just involuntary conditioned reflex of the nervous system, much like a decapitated snakes head will still bite even though oxygen has been cut off from the brain, or how its heart will still beat and the body will still coil and strike out in reflex up to a day after its beheading.


  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    Harry, I said nothing about 'right' or 'wrong' either for that mater, this is your terminology.
    Nature simply inherently has all the numbers to work with and we simply as of yet don't.
    The proposal posted here simply forces science where profit motives have supplanted such.
    If you were really a fan of the 'facts' and science then you would surely be in support of this proposal because it demands such before allowing the 'not ready for prime time' biotech players to bungle the gene pool much as other profit motivated 'experts' in other sectors have handled the economy etc for example.
    Finally Harry, to that bit you keep parroting at the end of every post...you force me to then feed you crackers...I only wield the all powerful quote of destiny again because you have brought such on yourself...I did attempt mercy and reconciliation as I am required, but that seems to have failed...I know the Occam's Razor like blade of the quote of destiny is devastating, but don't fight the urge to continue even if it is just involuntary conditioned reflex of the nervous system, much like a decapitated snakes head will still bite even though oxygen has been cut off from the brain, or how its heart will still beat and the body will still coil and strike out in reflex up to a day after its beheading.



    Totally awesome. I have known you from a past life when I was freezing Ted Williams

  8. #48
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    these arguments also assume that we aren't part of "nature" ourselves.

    with some perspective, our cities and highway systems really aren't that different from what ants and beavers do. they are simply bigger and more complex. sustainability is a likely opposing argument, and in some cases, it has merit. however, an outright ban on a particular kind of research is not the same thing as finding a balance, and it would be highly counterproductive.
    How in the world could you possibly deduce such a faulty conclusion?
    Have you read the posts here? I can't imagine reading my posts and concluding such especially when I specifically state that from my perspective the opposite is true.
    This place feels a lot like landing on planet assumption...or better planet backward assumption...and this is the same brain you use to wipe before flushing?
    Last edited by DNAprotection; 01-20-13 at 12:27 PM.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Make no mistake. DNAprotection knows.

  10. #50
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,091

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    How in the world could you possibly deduce such a faulty conclusion?
    Have you read the posts here? I can't imagine reading my posts and concluding such especially when I specifically state that from my perspective the opposite is true.
    This place feels a lot like landing on planet assumption...or better planet backward assumption...and this is the same brain you use to wipe before flushing?
    i work in molecular biology, and have also worked in food safety research. we aren't trying to kill you. scientists are trying to make corn grow in very dry environments, and to prevent pests from decimating crops.

    i'm all for thoroughly testing any new kind of crop for safety. as for outright banning, though, not at all. that would be dumb.

    just out of curiosity, though, what's your science background?

Page 5 of 23 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •