You can't possibly tell me capitalism is flawless.

no, but its certainly not the overarching parent that socialism is.

I'm pretty sure that the Russian government doesn't practice kipnappings of political dissidents and door-to-door rapings like some governments

*cough* *cough* *cough*
have you payed attention to ANYTHING that has happened within (and without) her borders in 20 something years?
its a goddamn mess!

I see lots of improvised theories and opinions presented as fact, and no proof at all.

its a goddamn board, get over yourself.

defer to the guys who managed to cure a 19-year old spinal cord injury with stem cells.

yes, they function. but that doesnt mean work.
they were intended to be miracle transplants, which they aren't. in fact they are even more risky than are normal transplants in most cases
tumors, infections, rejections, and malfunction in the organ themselves are all high risk in stem cell transplants.

Schematic, let me tell you right now that you know very little about the world in general

and I'm sure your gods gift to knowitalls

but I wouldn't call it oppressive

oh god, I absolutely refuse to respond to this.
no... wait... here comes something
THERE ARE NUMEROUS FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS OF PEOPLE'S HOUSES BEING BROKEN INTO JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN EXPENSIVE SOMETHING OR OTHER.
ex: lady's house was broken into and messed up because her cousin (in america) sent her an expensive piano.
dont give me more of this.

and as a side note: if you dont want to irritate anyone clean up your posts.

And my post was promptely ignored, well you can continue your almost useless rivalry. Although you both state reasonable ideas, you fail to prove anything wrong or right. Sure you both give good points and can uphold your theories, but there are huge holes in them.

I have to say something about stem cells, since all of our DNA is diffrent(even that of twins), then technicaly they are transplants and if the DNA is too diffrent it might start mutating and then be rejected by the host causing cancer or even death.

Cool, let me get right down to business ripping this response up. From the looks of it, it won't be difficult. Ready, GO!

it gassed and killed 130 of its OWN PEOPLE so that they didnt have to release 10 LOW PRIORITY "TERRORISTS" (of which were handling logistics, not weapons)

So, you are claiming Russia purposely gassed it's own people in a Saddam-vs.-the Kurds manner? Holy damn, man. If you showed me your source for this exclusive information, I'm sure you could get an interview on CNN. Sarcasm aside, this example shows Russia is guilty of bad planning, not murdering its own people. I suppose you're in the same group of people who think JFK was assassinated by Martians working for Castro and that the 1972 Munich Massacre was orchestrated by neo-nazi panzerpoliticans who secretly work in the shadows to use the German government as a tool for promoting the perfect race, right?

See, I'm willing to take some statements with a grain of salt and not criticize them for lack of proof, because it's the freakin' internet, and most of this is opinion, so I can accept that not everything you say is going to be backed up by years of research and at least five highly credentialed professionals. But to accuse a major world power of murdering its own people for a COMPLETELY bogus and nonexistant purpose without presenting anything to support your view is simply ludicrious.

Africa could be taken over with three people with pistols. unfortunate but true.

Holy crap. You did not just say that. Wow, you did. You lose all credibility, man. You seriously just said that Africa can be taken over by a triumvirate of Glock-wielding westerners. This statement shows you truly, truly do not have a claue about which you are speaking, my friend. I don't even know how to get into detail about this, but I shall try.

Africa is big. Africa is home to a billion people. In that number, there are thousands upon thousands of different ethnic groups, tribal societies, and cultures that all conflict with each other and all have different views on such things as religion, morals, politics, and just how many licks it really takes to get to the center of a Tutsi pop (if you get that pun, bravo). You seriously think that you can walk inot Africa with a couple of ill-equipped men and suddenly unite them all on a common ground and lead on the road to romantic progress? I think not. Since that is CLEARLY impossible, and I think you are smart enough to see that yourself, this means that you must be suggesting that we should invade and destroy Africa instead. A very ignorant and ill-informed view, to say the least. Africa is not stuck in the Zulu age. Go visit South Africa, you'll see Africa can be quite industrialized and civilized. They were one of the single-digit amount of nations in the world with an active nuclear weapons program, till they decided it wasn't their vibe. Go do some reading of the current headlines, and you'll see Ethiopia has tanks and an air force. Try using your three pistols and junior high school education against that.

The point is, let me emphasize, Africa is big. It is home to some of the most notorious human rights violations ever committed. How about that little gig in Rwanda, where the government ordered the massacre of a quarter of the population because their noses were of a different shape, resulting in hundreds of thousands dead in one night? It is home to the poorest nations on Earth. Ever been to Sierra Leone? You are not going to get an accurate picture of wealth or oppression by looking at Europe and America. There are plenty more examples you are ignoring.

heres my point: dont like it, bite me thats enough of an arguement to end your point. I dont need to be civil online. although I would prefer not to be barbaric.

Oh, fine by me my dear, getting overly defensive is your problem, not mine. Only goes to show blatant ignorance and uncaringness. The point is that you don't know anything about what you are presenting to us as irrefutable fact. Try getting out into the world and bursting that affluent white protestant suburban bubble of yours. That gets me to this point:

sorry, I'm pretty hard to stop once I get insulted.

I think you're taking this message board arugment a bit too far. I'm not insulting you. I have no reason to - I don't know you, I won't remember this discussion at all in two days, and you're smart enough to talk for yourslf. What I'm saying is that you clearly have an extremely sheltered and woefully narrow view on the world. Suburban america is not the gateway to all knowledge of the world (neither ir Urban or rural America, I just assume you're a suburban kid since we are the ones who are most likely to be spoiled - yup, I empathize haha). You need to try branching out and looking at other people's views. There's more to it than just disagreeing with someone and labelling them as wrong. We all have our motivations, and once you look at them, it's hard to say someone is "wrong" in these types of discussions. My guess is that you, for example, are motivated to your beliefs because you were raised in a conservative Protestant household, so thus you developed the way you were brought up to.

take out the annoying sarcasm.

You first.

yes, yes they are backwards and oppressive, people destroying government.

I cannot argue with people who choose not to see what's in front of them.

we aren't ready for them.

Wow. That's a mighty grand pronouncement there, my friend. So you have singlehandedly determined the course of human development, you alone decide what mankind is and isn't ready to discover? You alone decide how we go about such discoveries once they have earned your approval?

Science is trial and error. The Egyptians thought the heart was the center of all emotional existance, and so did people for a milennia after that. We may have proven that the brain is the emotional center of our existance, but we are still discovering new things about how it works all the time. We figure these things out by forming a hypothesis and testing it. I'm sure you're familiar with the scientific method.

Going on, even if stem cells don't pan out correctly, they might lead us in the right direction. Why shouldn't we try? What is holding us back? Why should we abandon reasonable possibilities and not try to make any progress until an option comes around that is 100% provable without testing it? Why - because it will never happen. Schem, you have no idea if stem cells will pan out. You are not some scientific prophet, you have not seen the future, and you do not know everything about the science. So you've done a few research projects on the subject. Scientists spend their entire lives in the field and only get their name mentioned in a footnote in a doctoral dissertation that's read by a 12 person comittee and never seen again. Science is all about screwing up and learning what went wrong, and changing your direction. So if you were an Egpytian in 2000B.C., would you have run up to pharaoh's greatest surgeons and said, "NO! YOU'RE STUPID! YOU CAN'T PROVE THE HEART GENERATES EMOTION, SO YOU ARE WRONG!" No, you wouldn't have.

Making a discovery is a damn long process, and every process needs a starting point. Sometimes that starting point is completely unrelated to the result. Who cares? It started somewhere, in resulted in something great (well, or terrible, like the discovery of atomic weapons.) Arguing that stem cells are worthless and a waste of time is extremely close-minded and rather ignorant, given the fact that you have zero idea how the story will develop. What matters is that the starting point be reasonable, not provable. You can never prove something from the beginning, otherwise you wouldn't be testing or researching it in the first place.

True, there is "A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E-L-Y NO" proof that stem cells can cure neural or spinal injuries. But you still haven't answered my question: what is YOUR proposed alternative? Scientists made a conjecture, a hypothesis, that stem cells may be able to restore lost spinal or brain functions. It's certainly a valid place to start. maybe it will work, maybe it will lead to something else entirely. It's uncertain. What IS certain that sitting around saying that an experimental medical science is a worthless waste of time is, in itself, a worthless waste of time.


I constantly bring attention to your young age, limited schooling, sheltered raising, and ignorant opinions in the hope that it might force you into opening your mind a bit, even if out of spite. Certainly it's a cliche, but cliches are cliches for a reason. You are young, you have not experienced the world at all. I haven't experienced much of it, either. But I do know that sitting here making uninformed assumptions that you heard from Ann Coulter does not do anything for you or me, and certainly doesn't do anything for the world. Go test some of your opinions. Go sit down and talk to a homeless person, offer to buy them a meal. Go the physical therapy ward of a major hospital and talk to a victim of full body paralysis who hopes that they will one day be cured and tell them that stem cells, their current highest hope for a normal life, and worthless and will fail in the end. Try something new. Don't just jump from a hypothesis to a conclusion. Test yourself, man, test yourself. It's only a good experience.

Sorry for neglecting you Empy, I'll respod to your post tomorrow (hopefully?). Right now, I have missed too much of the remaining hour and 13 minutes of 2006! Oh, and Happy News Years to us all! (that means you too, Schem)

My favorite word so far "claue"

Happy New Years!!    And cheer up please!!   

O i found something even better, it was awesome sarcasm brought up some psychological history, it made me laugh even more cause it was WRONG!!
Yes i can be sarcastic too, man am i bored   

Well, not necesarily although sarcams was able to prove his point a bit better, they were both too caugh up in rivalry to state a reasonable arguement. Schem was to angry, and Sarcasm a bit too sarcastic. Still it made me laugh at more than one ocasion and be very annoyed in others. I think ill let them simmer for a bit, should be interesting.

Wow. That's a mighty grand pronouncement there, my friend. So you have singlehandedly determined the course of human development, you alone decide what mankind is and isn't ready to discover? You alone decide how we go about such discoveries once they have earned your approval?

because I have the BRAINS to realize that you need to CRAWL before you can WALK before you can RUN.
cells are INSANELY complex, more so than ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE. and we dont even UNDERSTAND THEM YET
they are more dangerous than any other thing in your body, why? because you cannot give yourself a pill to kill yourself without KILLING YOURSELF.
anyone who has stem cells is taking an irrefutably huge risk, one which our current technological society cannot diminish with our blunt tools of genetic weaponry.

I cannot argue with people who choose not to see what's in front of them.

well then I guess I'm validated by the fact your arguing so insanly with me.
see, I dont have that inhibition, thats why I'm here.

Try getting out into the world and bursting that affluent white protestant suburban bubble of yours.

loooks like we both have the same problems asshole
stop trying to be a morally superior jerk. it makes you sound even more ill educated and stupid.

not murdering its own people

I sure as hell hope you dont run my government.
let me spell this out

for you
THEY RELEASED BIG AMOUNTS OF GAS
MUCH LARGER AMOUNTS THAN NEEDED TO PUT THE PEOPLE TO SLEEP
THE GAS WAS IN VERY ALPHA TESTING STAGES
THEY KNEW IT WAS TOXIC
THEY KNEW THE KILL RATE WOULD BE HIGHER WITH THE GAS
THEY RELEASED IT ANYWAY
THEY COVERED UP THE DEATHS

Africa is big

well duh, what I meant was that they are so tied up in a knot that anyone could come in and take them over
or, if you want to fail at the impossible, try to straighten them out... and fail.
let me spell THIS one out for you
THAT WAS SARCASM! golly, that was hard

Science is trial and error

science is trial and error with ONE, perhaps if your lucky TWO variables
THE HUMAN GENOMES IS OVER A TRILLION OF THOSE VARIABLES

Going on, even if stem cells don't pan out correctly, they might lead us in the right direction.

and where would that be?
stem cells are the engineering death to a long and very tumultuous scientific road. IE there is nothing left to understand about cells except what does what, and we havent gotten there yet. come back in a millinia.

you have no idea if stem cells will pan out

I've done 2 years worth of research, I'm pretty well off. much better than you are I assure you
stem cells is a false idealism, I wish you could suck up your ego long enough to realize that this point is valid. I can admit that stem cells will be mirracle cures some day, but it sure as hell isnt today.

Scientists spend their entire lives in the field and only get their name mentioned in a footnote in a doctoral dissertation that's read by a 12 person comittee and never seen again

and even THEY admit that they are lengthy decades away from completing any sort of research. they arent doing this for the help of people, this is for personal fame. "I was a pioneer in that field" blah blah blah
if you want stem cells than listen up sark: you need three things
1) somehow to remove all genetic manipulation (of which there are hundreds of sorts we dont even KNOW about yet)
2) you need someway to put on markers that would simulate maleable cells
3) you need some way to determine what is where (of which there is extensive research on)
otherwise your playing russian rulette with 5 bullets.

Science is all about screwing up and learning what went wrong, and changing your direction

problem is that we know EXACTLY whats going wrong, and we dont have a way to fix it. people want to deny that their life's work is at the VERY LEAST HALF A CENTURY away from being realized.

Making a discovery is a damn long process

let me be absolutely and completely clear:
THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS FOR THIS FIELD. its completely BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING. there is nothing left to learn from this. nothing.

Scientists made a conjecture, a hypothesis, that stem cells may be able to restore lost spinal or brain functions

I'll grant that spinal injuries have a chance. but brain function does not. innumerable experts have lined up on this thing, only very few discenting opinions believe the brain can be rebuilt by stem cells, and they are very ill informed, or ill believers in most of what science has proven
besides, its kindof difficult to disprove something you havent proven.

sitting around saying that an experimental medical science is a worthless waste of time is, in itself, a worthless waste of time.

what irritates me is the loss of resources, people are pouring massive amounts of money into something that is almost garunteed to pan out unexpectedly, and considering everyones expectations, it is almost impossible for them to be worth what their costs are.
you aware of the book "search for the E-Bomb"? its about the pentagons search for bullshit ideas, like the nuclear handgrenade.
people refuse to see when they are getting duped, I wont sit around and get duped.

I constantly bring attention to your young age, limited schooling, sheltered raising, and ignorant opinions in the hope that it might force you into opening your mind a bit

the hell is WITH YOU NUTCASE?
I've had more education then you have. I can garuntee that. but I'm gonna irritate you especially and not tell you why
btw: how the hell would you know ANYTHING about me, what? psychic? stalker? or are you god?
just shut the HELL UP about stuff which is impossible for you to know.
and you WONDER WHY I THINK YOUR AN OBNOXIOUS ASSHOLE??? GET YOUR ASS IN LINE

talk to a victim of full body paralysis who hopes that they will one day be cured and tell them that stem cells

I wish I was naive enough to believe taht would work. life would be so much more easier than it is, but then I would be super religious and all that, and I wouldnt understand the world to the level I do. which is obviously superior to someone who says that I should keep an open mind while not considering what I'm talking about in the least.
and yes, I realize I'm being an ass. I've fully and conciously decided to cross that line. I'm not being hypocritical here, just critical. you definately pushed me over the edge here.

their current highest hope for a normal life, and worthless and will fail in the end

they are completely false hope. the only way to help these people isnt to give them that "maybe tomorrow god will descend to your bed, and give you stem cells" but to give them cold, hard progress. wiring up signals for the neural highways would be much simpler with nanotechnology (which, I might add, we have a firm grasp on) than with stem cells. and I'm serious what I said about picasso paintings, it doesnt exactly fit to put your toe cells in to your eye, now does it?

Happy News Years to us all! (that means you too, Schem)

well, HNY to you to.

now that I've finished ranting for the 3rd time I'll say I'm willing to bring this down to a rational arguement. I'm going to go search the internet for my reasons, find yours sarcasm.

and I'm not kidding about that, our biggest success in making organs has been two bean sized cancers that were supposed to be kidneys.

Wrong. From the December 06 issue of Popular Science: "Atla and his colleagues have created bladders from scratch, clearing one of the biggest hurdles in tissue engineering: growing a real human organ in the lab and proving that it works...This year Atla made the landmark announcement that none of the seven patients who received the organs four years ago suffered the rejection problems that commonly plague transplant patients."

but take the brain for instance, you think that you can just let the body take DNA from a skin cell (which, I remind you, has been extensively acetalyzed and methalyzed) and miraculously turn it into a complexly organized and fully functional brain? I absolutely and completely think not. that would require extensive nanotech to work, which, like I said, we should be working on. its much MUCH simpler and much MUCH safer.

Actually you can do better. You can create a whole new body. From the January 2007 edition of Popular Science: "Scientists at the university of Pittsburgh and the University of Connecticut created two cloned mice from mature blood cells. Conventional cloning wisdom used to consider adult cells a lost cause for making carbon copies because they were thought to be too developed to form other tissue types."

From the December 06 issue of Popular Science

I wouldnt trust pop sci, its not a great source.
but, taking you for a grain of salt

Actually you can do better. You can create a whole new body. From the January 2007 edition of Popular Science: "Scientists at the university of Pittsburgh and the University of Connecticut created two cloned mice from mature blood cells.

contrary to belief, making a body would be much simpler. why? because your asking a cell to try and do something natural. which cannot be done with the brain.
think of it like this. you build a building from the bottom up, right? you repair it wherever small problems come. but if the MAIN SUPPORT is crumbling, you cannot just shmuck some random concrete in there and hope for the best.
its much simpler to make a building than to repair one thats collapsing.

and do you realize how many times they have tried to create mice, just to come out with two?
its rediculous. and very very risky

and tell me, how old are these mice. will they live well?


and before you say that its harder to create a new body, tell me why our bodies do that so simply, if repairing the brain was simpler. it makes no sense whatsoever.
basically we can do very little (biologically) that our body cannot do already. and our body cannot even repair its own main wiring system. for gods sake WE dont understand it beyond "um... emotion has something to do with... *waves fingers around crazilly, pokes brain* THAT PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"


and finally, the liver is one of the simplest organs. its really not much more complex than an aggregate of specialized cells, I would applaud creating one. but i wouldnt say its an indicator of things to come

and let me point out that I'm not taking this from 3rd person. my familly is high risk for a particular genetic kidney disease that is lethal, in fact I've had numerous family members who have had it.

look it up before you speak of it

hahaha, you think I dont know what neurochemicals are?

you didnt just destroy the whole psychological field of scince with your balant and ingnorant post. Please, dont insult some of the most briliant scientific mind of mankind.

it was exaguration. by a ton.
but what I'm saying is that, in terms of mechanics we know very VERY little about the brain. thats undeniable
ps: discrete sections, but not technically organs

I know plenty about the brain, I'm not an expert but I spend a lot of time mixing it up in the field.

See one thing people dong understand about psychology is that it is one of the most difficult sciences to record and even more difficult to advance in

which supports the point I made earlier. ty + much

why not just grow a body and then take its brain

its a small human trait known as
M-O-R-A-L-I-T-Y
your talking about clone farms, and thats just sick

no insult intended

dont worry, I can understand that experts in fields have more experience AND knowledge than I do. its just being called an idiot by a complete stranger. thats incendiary

And it seems like they see some kind of a future in the science

actually most scientists (I believe it was 80%) believe that the field is null. its just media oversight thats creating the huge buzz.
like I said, its a holy grail type quest.

questionable

???
excuse me???
do you even know what Scientific American is???
and dont insult wikipedia either!!! those are some of the best sources you'll ever find.

well, at least I'm winning 1/3, and tied for the other 2.

and let me reiterate: Stem cells do have the potential to do EVERYTHING those people want. but the thing is that WE DO NOT have the potential to use them. we just dont, that simple.

your both not giving any reasonable proof

what is "reasonable proof"
gassing your own people so that you dont seem like a weakling nation that you are is something I see as proof enough.

how do you measure emotions?!

subjectively, like colors

they are inexplanable but logically they make sense

you should be a philosopher !

adding a tad of personal experience

what were those again...
I just hear him saying "I this I that"... where is the personal experience.

As for why your arguing about each others personalities, knowledge, or prefrences i have no idea

I am NOT arguing that, I'm saying that he has no idea who the hell i am and shouldnt pass judgement. let alone make blatently stupid and unsupportable claims online...

very profitible and would benifit a capatalistic and shallow society like our, wouldnt you say so

no, not really. not at all.
besides, contrary to belief clones would INDEED have your personality. they arent braindead (unless you inhibit upper level brain maturation...)

You cant measure emotions, you can define them but they arent good explanations for behavior or other forms of brain function.

Also, i didnt know if you were being sarcastic or not but thanks!!

I said not denying that, you gave one example and you keep restating it over and over again. In my opinion thats not good enough, every government makes mistakes, i mean your government killed hundreds of thousands of its own people(thechnically they were), just for the sake of the Union. If you ask me thats kind of messed up as well.

Why wouldnt be profitable, give me some reasons.

Schem, reading your posts, you have unwittingly proven my point in at least ten separate occasons. My point being that you are young and ignorant, and completely clueless about the things you are talking about. You really need to lighten up on the severity. Since you have no argument to respond to, just random fact from wikipedia (LOL) and personal attacks, I'm going to pick and choose what to respond to. Much like you did with my post, I noticed.

the hell is WITH YOU NUTCASE? I've had more education then you have. I can garuntee that. but I'm gonna irritate you especially and not tell you why btw: how the hell would you know ANYTHING about me, what? psychic? stalker? or are you god? just shut the HELL UP about stuff which is impossible for you to know. and you WONDER WHY I THINK YOUR AN OBNOXIOUS ASSHOLE??? GET YOUR ASS IN LINE

Why do I think I know you? Because I know (most) people. And I know that you are an immature teenager who thinks he knows everything. That's ok, we all have to go through our developmental stages of course. But damn, man, it's just making you look bad in all this. All of your opinions are taken from wikipedia and other such highly reliable sources. The fact that you're getting defensive enough to start namecalling instead of responding only proves my point. Since it's been proven, I should move on...

and dont insult wikipedia either!!! those are some of the best sources you'll ever find.

Yikes...no. Try using wikipedia as a cited source on a college paper. Your professor will laugh at you and give you an F. Wikipedia is full of mistakes and blatant lies, and, while being something that's god to read once in a while, is not something that should EVER appear in a footnote.

Oh, but of course, you're also the same person who thinks that Popular Science, a pay-for-subscription magazine written by professionals within the field who also have journalism degrees and include interviews with some of the biggest names in science is "not a great source." You lose a tally for that one.

Also, Emp, I'm not "hiding behind a wall of personal experience." I've stated n multiple occasions that I have a whole lot to learn myself. The reason I keep bringing it up is because, well, Schem doesn't know anything about the world, and yet he thnks he has the planet Earth all sorted out and classified. Which is...wrong.

As for Russia, Schem, I think you need a small schooling in the politics of the RUssian Federation. So I'll give it to you.

Of course the government censored the coverage of the school standoff incident. In Russia, all news agencies are state controlled, meaning there are no private CNN-like media entities, so the government controls who gets to learn about what and when. Yeah, kinda scary I suppose. But of course they are going to censor them screwing up an event. But to say they did it on purpose? Short sentences and capital letters prove nothing.

You say that Russia's invasion of Chechnya is an example of imperialism, when you could not be farther from the truth. Let me explain how Russia works. Russia is a federation. A federation is a large group of individually independent republics working together under the same government. For the most part, each major city, county, or region in Russia is its own independent republic that is a member of the Federation. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is one such "federal subject," as it is called. It is an independent republic that agreed to surrender its independence and operate under the same federal government as everyone else, much like the system of indivdual states that are subject to the federal government system we have in the US.

Now, Muslim rebels within Chechnya decided they did not like the federal government and decided to declare independence. Now, Russia has to go pull Chechnya back into the federation. This is much like any civil war, where a region withdraws from the union and the union tries to bring it back in, usually against its will. Wars are nasty, and civil wars are even nastier, and I can definately say I don't in any way approve of how Russia is handling themselves over there and the things they are doing to people who aren't involved, but it's certainly not an imperial war.

gassing your own people so that you dont seem like a weakling nation that you are is something I see as proof enough.

What? That's your rationale behind them gassing their own people? Bwaha...what? Ok, so you think that the rest of the world hearing about how you COMPLETELY screwed up a terrorist-hostage situation and got half the hostages kileld makes you look..strong? You think that story is going to make Russia look...powerful? Look everyone, we're powerful enough to suck at hostage situations!

And this happened during the middle of the War on Terror, when Russia was trying to be an ally to the U.S. against terrorism. You think that their screwing up a hostage situation caused by *MUSLIM* *EXTREMIST* *GUERILLA* *REBELS* is going to make them look good? No wonder they tried to censor it!

This just goes to show you have nothing to say on the subject and are just making new things up, much like your view on stem cells, which I'll get into below. Fact is, you have nothing to say on the subject so you just make things up to support the viewpoint that you get from Bill O'Reilly or whatever third party source told you to think what you think.

let me be absolutely and completely clear: THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS FOR THIS FIELD. its completely BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING. there is nothing left to learn from this. nothing.

Now you're just contradicting yourself. First you said that stem cells are not worth it because the host can reject them and make it turn messy and because they are "too complicated," yet now you are saying that you object to stem cells because they are resource wasters. So which one is it? Too complicated, or too expensive?

Well let me answer that for you. Obviously if there is nothing left to discover, then it isn't too complicated. Yet, you said yourself that the host can reject the cells, blah blah, this could happen and thats why we shouldn't pay any attention to it. Doesn't this suggest we have something to learn? Are you telling me it is absolutely 100% impossible for scientists to find a solution to this problem? You don't know, so you can't answer that. Thus, you are contradicting yourself now, which leads me to believe you are just desperate to throw some water into an otherwise empty pothole of an argument. It's easy to see you're just making up what you can to support your point.

See, I'm done arguing about stem cells for a while after this, because a) it goes nowhere and you don't know what you're talking about, yet ceaselessly insist you do. In all this quoting, responding, complaining, and namecalling, I still have not heard an answer from you Schem: What's the alternative? If stem cells are irreparably hopeless, then go give scientists another lead. That is what science is, after all: following the leads. If something credible comes around that looks like it might solve a problem, then by all means, go for it. Right now, stem cells are the only lead on curing and reversing many nerve problems and possibly even brain diseases.

and even THEY admit that they are lengthy decades away from completing any sort of research. they arent doing this for the help of people, this is for personal fame. "I was a pioneer in that field" blah blah blah

WHAT? HUH? Where did THAT come from? Whoa. Let's take this in two parts:
1) Of COURSE they admit they are decades away from a real discovery. Is that bad? This is what I have been saying: science takes time, and a lot of it. Most of the time, your work in a field will be as a low paid lab lackey working obscenely long hours that you might not even get paid overtime for. It's a very inglorious profession for 99% of your time in it, which leads me to
2) You think scientists get into their field solely for personal fame? Get real. Go talk to a scientist. This is what I'm talking about when I say get out of your suburban bubble. You just sit here and assume you know everything when, in fact, you do not. Scientists spend most of their careers siting in labs for 18 hours a day. Most of their pay comes from money grants from large firms and companies, which means most scientists will have to go out to dinner with potential grant-givers and butter them up and tell them their research is amazing. Most of the time, this process turns into a long, painful, bureaucratic affair complete with its own politics.
Then, once you get back into the lab, you get to look forward to seeing the hypothesis you have been testing for five years and are about to complete a scholoarly paper on has been disproven through one experiment. GREAT! Well, now where do I restart from?
You see, being a scientist is usually a rather vain and inglorious profession. How many people actually get famous? How many names of stem cell researchers can the average American recite from memory? Zero. This is yet another baseless accusation, Schem, and one that is just foolish. It doesn't even make sense.

Ok, that's it for stem cells. My point is that they are a starting point for a much longer process which might result in what they're looking for, and might result in something else, or might result in nothing. You don't know what one it will be, thus you have no good reason they shouldn't try. Humans never learn anything without trying and testing it first. Try it sometime. Ok, done with stem cells. There's nothing left to argue on therem, and it's just becoming painfully circuitous.

Oh, Emp, please put my tally up on stem cells now. I'm clearly ahead.

and yes, I realize I'm being an ass. I've fully and conciously decided to cross that line.

No, no, you're not being an ass man, asses I can deal with, because I am one. You're just being a little kid. Which is unfortunate, because I can see you're smart enough to talk to me and not have to talk at me with curses and references to the human sphincter.

Thats why i like Freud's theories, they are inexplanable but logically they make sense.

You do realize almost all of them are completely discredited by now, and those that aren't have been tweaked to the degree that they do not even remotely resemble Freud's original theories? I think the only think Freud came up with that has survived to today is psychoanalysis, and it now functions under a different name.

It really doesn't take much to kill of Freud's theories. I don't know about you, but I'VE never wanted to have sex with my mother out of jealously for my father. *shiver*

When it comes to psych, I think the behaviorists are the closest to being right. Those are the guys you were talking about, Emp, who mostly believe we are subjects of the environment and people around us. I mean, there are so many examples everywhere. This is even relevant to the current discussion. People in China easily accept the government's dominance because they have lived in a society that, for thousands of years, upheld obedience and silent consent as some of its greatest ideals - these are some of the hallmarks of Confucianism, which I believe still holds ground in China today. Thus, the people are more likely to accept dominion.

We Americans are a bit different. We're spoiled, and like to complain the second the gas prices go over $3.00. We're mostly inexperienced and actually psychlogically develop slower than people from poorer nations of the world. Read some of Piaget and Skinner, the former actually discovered that children from the poorer and more chaotic sections of the world develop much quicker than children from developed nations. See, we're all sheltered within our little worldly bubble of capitalism, stable economy, cars, and free sex. While I don't think those things are bad (the former could use some tweaking though, but the latter is just fine) the fact is they make us naive to many of the things that go on. I mean, come on. A kid who's living in Baghdad and watches his family explode in a roadside bomb is going to grow up and mature much quicker than the average American middle-class suburban kid who's parents provide him with everything.