Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search
hide menu
Latest users (1): schnizel, anonymous(22).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#8887 - jokeface (09/16/2012) [-]
Let's talk stem cells. Yay or nay?

I'm for stem cell research as long as they use the umbilical stem cells and not embryonic ones. Those opposed, give your reasoning.
User avatar #9008 to #8887 - oxan (09/18/2012) [-]
It's something we should be doing. The potential it has isn't ignorable; it could change the lives of so many people. There are no objective reasons you can oppose it with.

And unlike pokemonstheshiz who believes in the magical powers of an impossible free market, the government should take lead in the research. The government has the duty to care for all of its citizens, and should play an important role in developing the technology that would enable them to improve their care.

And of course, without the government aiding research and later practical applications, only the upper classes would be able to access the care.
User avatar #9009 to #9008 - jokeface (09/18/2012) [-]
What do you mean by an "impossible free market"?
User avatar #9011 to #9009 - oxan (09/18/2012) [-]
I mean that there's no such thing.

You can either have regulations, which isn't what most market libertarians want. They want total deregulation. So, the alternative of entire deregulation is the only 'free' market. But, of course, without regulation, monopolies will arise almost overnight. And with monopolies, the market is no longer free, is it?
User avatar #9014 to #9011 - jokeface (09/18/2012) [-]
This is true. But even with regulations, it can still be considered free to some extent. It's not like communism. The people are still in control.
User avatar #9015 to #9014 - oxan (09/18/2012) [-]
Lol, no. We, the people, are not in control. Capitalism oppressive. The United States, in particular, is no more a democracy as it is a plutocracy.

In communism, in some ideologies, the people are in control. Local soviets are the most important part of a communist system. Stalin, however, reduced their power, centralising the state further. I mention Stalin as he's usually associated with communism and Stalinism is usually understood as communism.
User avatar #9016 to #9015 - jokeface (09/18/2012) [-]
Okay first of all, communism only works under very specific conditions, and if any single thing goes wrong (like if, say, the people decide they don't enjoy being mindless drones), the entire system collapses. Capitalism, as clumsy as it can be, is still a much more stable system by comparison.

Second of all, how can you say we're not in control? I'd expand on that question but I'm so taken aback by it that I need more information.
User avatar #9017 to #9016 - oxan (09/18/2012) [-]
Again, you're basing this entirely on Stalinism and the Stalinist period of the USSR.

Capitalism is an unstable system. See the various economic crisis right now.

Are you aware of what a plutocracy is?
#9055 to #9017 - anonymous (09/19/2012) [-]
Capitalism isn't failing by any fault of its own. The people just forgot how the hell to operate it. The populace has become lazy and stupid, which is exactly what allowed corruption to overrun this system. Such a thing can ruin any system.

"Don't blame the vehicle if the driver sucks."
User avatar #9032 to #9017 - jokeface (09/18/2012) [-]
I've never heard that term, no.
User avatar #9084 to #9032 - oxan (09/20/2012) [-]
Essentially, a plutocracy is a rule by the wealthy. Much like an aristocracy, yet an aristocracy was meant to be comprised of an actual elite, not just a bunch of people with lots of money and assets.

Anyway, even major corporations in America believe that the country is a plutocracy. Of course, you have 'democratic' process and the like, but propaganda can easily sway the opinion of even most the stubborn voter, if done correctly. But you need money, you see.

Almost every war since the Second World War can be attributed to corporate interest, masked by the idea of freedom.

#8966 to #8887 - sleepingriver (09/17/2012) [-]
Government should not subsidize the research of stem cells. Allow for private groups/citizens to research the science.
User avatar #8968 to #8966 - jokeface (09/17/2012) [-]
Why? Give reasoning.
User avatar #8987 to #8968 - pokemonstheshiz (09/18/2012) [-]
Because the free market should decide what to study and what not to study. It's more efficient, and wastes much less money.
On the moral side, doing stem cell research would be taking a particular side on a philosophical/religious issue. Allowing people to choose whether or not to support a company that does stem cell research would be a more accurate representation of people's views, and it would leave the government unbiased towards stem cells.
Also, say we outlawed it completely. It would still come up all the time, would be debated constantly. If they just allowed the free market to function how it wants regarding stem cells, the people are continuously making that choice with no need for it to enter the political field. Any debate would be between the people themselves.
User avatar #8989 to #8987 - jokeface (09/18/2012) [-]
Your opinion makes sense from a sociopolitical standpoint, but I have to ask what you mean by philosophical/religious issues? The stipulation in my premise was that the cells would come from umbilical cords, not embryos.
User avatar #8990 to #8989 - pokemonstheshiz (09/18/2012) [-]
But this way we can let society decide if the cells from embryos are okay, which is a religious issue. And as I said before, it the collective opinion changes, it won't take several years and wasted government time.

Regarding umbilical stem cells, the free market is much better at science and money when it comes to things that can easily be researched with small funds. The only science that cannot be done in the free market are non profitable things such as NASA.
User avatar #8993 to #8990 - jokeface (09/18/2012) [-]
Well NASA is only non-profitable until they find something up there worth selling. But I get your point. And like I said, I understand where you're coming from for the most part, but it's the moral implications I don't understand. There's no religious or philosophical reason not to study it. Even if embryonic stem cells become socially acceptable, they're not as effective as umbilical or adult stem cells, and thus would probably end up costing more money because of more failures/rejections. So it becomes less of a moral issue and more of a convenience one. And with that being common knowledge, why would anyone, even non-religious people, support the use of embryonic cells? It doesn't make sense.
User avatar #8994 to #8993 - pokemonstheshiz (09/18/2012) [-]
NASA isn't going to be profitable, because they are just gathering data in a way that we can't. Even if they found the best substance ever on a planet, the cost of transporting it would outweigh the benefit. I don't know enough about stem cells to say why anyone would use embryonic, but that's the beauty of the free market. Whatever costs less and provides better results will be the choice of those industries. If they chose embryonic for some reason, if the public doesn't back them up they have to change or go bankrupt. And the best part is that research companies work for other companies. They're not selling something, they can't dupe the public into thinking it's the best with colorful ads and whatnot. The companies they work for will want the cheapest and most accurate results to use, and if what you say is true then it will be umbilical or adult stem cells.
It throws the government out of the way, morality into the hands of the people, and efficiency and accuracy to science and industry.
But to answer your question as to why anyone would support embryonic cells, most people don't really have the slightest idea how that actually works or which ones work best. They say they are okay with embryonic because that's the one that's controversial, so that's the one they know of.
User avatar #9010 to #8994 - oxan (09/18/2012) [-]
To talk about the freemarket:

>if the public doesn't back them up they have to change or go bankrupt

Yeah, no. That's what advertising is for. A good propagandist, as they used to be called, would sell you the product indirectly. For example, using an example from the author of the book Propaganda (who was a member of the US Government's propaganda ministry during WW1, and would later become a renowned propagandist for the private sector): you sell the idea that people /need/ a music room, as opposed to selling them a piano directly.

People don't decide what they want. Most of us are not that smart. The free market will only enable bigger companies to form monopolies of the market, by forcing the idea that their products is what you need to fulfill your dreams, when it's usually not.

>want the cheapest

I know I'm taking this a little out of context, but it raises another point about the free market. Companies will cut costs everywhere they can, even if it puts their workers and consumers at risk, so long as they maximise profits.
User avatar #9021 to #9010 - pokemonstheshiz (09/18/2012) [-]
But my point was that companies that do research would work for other companies, which would be much more difficult to dupe.
And monopolies and consumer risk are the reasons we do need government regulation on the free market, true capitalism can't work in such a huge country.
User avatar #8995 to #8994 - jokeface (09/18/2012) [-]
I was actually only joking about the NASA thing. But yea I get what you're saying about getting the government out of the way. It makes sense. Thank you for providing an intelligent contribution.
User avatar #8996 to #8995 - pokemonstheshiz (09/18/2012) [-]
Well that's what a politics board should be for
User avatar #8997 to #8996 - jokeface (09/18/2012) [-]
Agreed. Although to be honest I'm a little burnt out from debating with this one guy on another page. He and I have been talking for 3 days about the possibility of God existing, and it got so in-depth that by the end of it we were no longer discussing God but rather using God as the subject of a broader debate regarding what defines something as real or not. It gave me a headache.
User avatar #8948 to #8887 - Patheos (09/17/2012) [-]
Support it all the way, I really think it could enhance medical science so much more. Just don't like, decapitate a baby to get it.
#8938 to #8887 - johnshepherd (09/16/2012) [-]
I say yes to stem cells, providing they are taken without taking the life of an embryo. hey can easily be obtained from the body of an adult, meaning that for re-grown organs, they are actually preferable.
User avatar #8922 to #8887 - laky (09/16/2012) [-]
im for it, but kind of wanna hear someone's opinion who is against it
User avatar #8927 to #8922 - jokeface (09/16/2012) [-]
Indeed. Now that we know it can be done without embryos there's really no reason not to.
#8917 to #8887 - Mentoman (09/16/2012) [-]
Embryonic stem cells are basically the new "faux-science", like radiation was in the 50s. Adult Stem cells have been proven to be far more effective.
 Friends (0)