Wasted Research funds - Prayer over science

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/health/10prayer.html?hp&ex=1097467200&en=b3de3a2c07ddbf8e&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Critics express outrage that the federal government, which has contributed $2.3 million in financing over the last four years for prayer research, would spend taxpayer money to study something they say has nothing to do with science.

THIS is allowed, yet stem cell research is not. There are many diabetics out there waiting for stem cell research that could help them.

I really hope Americans vote in a new government that won't waste so much money on something so useless.

Did any of this kind of subject make it into the debates??

[Anders]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/health/10prayer.html?hp&ex=1097467200&en=b3de3a2c07ddbf8e&ei=5094&partner=homepage



THIS is allowed, yet stem cell research is not. There are many diabetics out there waiting for stem cell research that could help them.

I really hope Americans vote in a new government that won't waste so much money on something so useless.

Did any of this kind of subject make it into the debates??
They debated stem-cell lines in the last debate. The evangelist Bush said that he would put up with the cell lines created before his period, but would not approve any more. I think Kerry said something about that it is important to continue reasearch on the subject.

[Eos of the Eons]

Bush is simply pandering to the people who vote for him and is continuing the ignorance around the studies as being "immoral".

A leader needs to point out the flawed views and why they are flawed and change peoples' minds based on evidence.

Bush is lazy. He'd rather reject something with the same viewpoint as the other ignorant folks who reject it.

Did Kerry point this out? Who wants a lazy leader that would protect the ignorant status quo instead of working in the best interests of the population? Leaders need to be wise and knowledgeable, not lazy and unwilling to embrace change that would be as beneficial as the facts easily point to. A good leader would be able to change peoples' minds through education and still have them like you for being "moral".

Bush has demonstrated that he is not in the least bit interested in truth or facts.

Kerry should have used these points rather tactfully in the debates. I don't have the words, but I'm sure someone would. There are other areas of research that are being stalled because of Bush right?

He makes rash decisions based on fantasy rather than hard facts. Look at the WMDs. He took someone's word over proof that they existed. All the while Korea flaunts their "technology".

Heck, it's the same in Canada. People are more worried about gay marriage than education. The alliance panders to this and makes it the reason people should vote for them. It doesn't help that half of the people in the alliance are chiros. They want to fund research for SCAM instead of putting money into medical research.

Science is a joke to the leaders lately. It's scary.

I'm still trying to understand why this is so. Why are there so many Rousers and Kumars out there? Why is SCAM so widely supported by those who make leadership decisions? Is there too much SCAM education out there and not enough factual education?

SCAM likes to put things in layman's terms in order to get people to agree with what they are saying. Maybe people need more access to knowledge that is factual.

I don't know. Half the time the factual knowledge is rejected as "science". Science is evil.

It's just so frustrating. All these people, so much ignorance. What a waste.

[Eos of the Eons]

Upon further reading, I'd like to maybe change my opinion from Bush being lazy to Bush simply being corrupt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A13606-2004Feb27&notFound=true

I hate believing in people having "agendas", but I'm willing to concede in this case.

[materia3]

There have been some follow-up interviews with Bush team members and proBush talking heads. One of these said there were 4 million evangelical voters in this country which Bush will get and this number of votes could turn the tide for him. Another claimed that 80% of all Americans are pro-life and that at least 30 states would outlaw abortion if the Supremes overturned Roe vrs. Wade. Poor women who live in states where abortion will be made illegal will find their pro-choice option inaccessible to them, those who can often least afford to endure an unwanted pregnancy.

This is the kind of thinking and political pandering that is involved in these decisions. There should be no politics involved in pro-choice or pro-life, it's a personal matter and science, not politics, should rule the roost on stem cell research. But unfortunately that is not the way it is.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Every day Bush gives me the heebie-jeebies to a greater degree than the day before.

~~ Paul

[Art Vandelay]

Eos of the Eons
Bush is simply pandering to the people who vote for him and is continuing the ignorance around the studies as being "immoral".
Are you saying that disagreeing with you on moral issues is "ignorance"?

[wollery]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Critics express outrage that the federal government, which has contributed $2.3 million in financing over the last four years for prayer research, would spend taxpayer money to study something they say has nothing to do with science.Umm, hang on a moment.
The US federal government is funding prayer research?

I may be way off base, but isn't this a 1st ammendment violation?
And if it isn't then shouldn't it be?

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Eos of the Eons

Are you saying that disagreeing with you on moral issues is "ignorance"?
(Aren't strawmen annoying?)
Where did you get that from? I was saying ignorance is a lack of knowledge. He does not know the facts and would rather just paint the whole issue as "immoral" instead of learning anything about the issue. It's easier to get votes that way anyway.

Meanwhile the diabetics and others sit there with dashed hopes once again.

Yes, these are not political issues, but they are unjustly affected by politics.

[Eos of the Eons]

every day of the week, fertilized embryos that will not be implanted in the womb are headed for the garbage. Now, if you believe that life begins the moment that an egg is fertilized, then it would seem to me that there would be an outrage that these unwanted fertilized embryos are being thrown in the garbage.

And yet I do not see, or I'm not aware, that there's ever been legislation introduced to shut down fertility clinics. And that is a contradiction which really puzzles me, because you know, you're really saying that the state is sanctioning murder if that's what you think, that life begins at the moment of fertilization.

We don't see that happening. And what we want to do, scientists want to do is rescue cells that are headed for the garbage and use them to treat 100 million Americans who are suffering right now...

So the human embryonic stem cells could be cultured and then sent right to the site, and they would know that their job is to remyelinate. And then the signals from the brain would go down properly, and I would get recovery of function.



Christopher Reeve, in memory.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/29/reeve.cnna/

How anyone could call that "immoral", I don't know.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Where did you get that from?
If I were to say "Bush is simply pandering to the people who vote for him and is continuing the ignorance around Iraq as having WMD"; don't you think that most people would interpret me as saying that the belief that Iraq has WMD is ignorance?


I was saying ignorance is a lack of knowledge. He does not know the facts and would rather just paint the whole issue as "immoral" instead of learning anything about the issue.You have not presented any evidence that he is ignorant, other than the fact that he has moral qualms. Hence, I got the impression that you consider moral qualms to be ignorant. Moreover, I get the impression that you think that there is some piece of information that, if Bush had, he would not have moral qualms, and which he is DELIBERATELY avoiding learning (which would mean that he kind of already knows about it, because how can one deliberately avoid something of which one is completely ignorant?)

Yes, these are not political issues, but they are unjustly affected by politics.
How can you possibly say that this is not a political issue? You want to get the government involved in stem cell research, but you insist that this is not a political issue?

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
If I were to say "Bush is simply pandering to the people who vote for him and is continuing the ignorance around Iraq as having WMD"; don't you think that most people would interpret me as saying that the belief that Iraq has WMD is ignorance?


You have not presented any evidence that he is ignorant, other than the fact that he has moral qualms. Hence, I got the impression that you consider moral qualms to be ignorant. Moreover, I get the impression that you think that there is some piece of information that, if Bush had, he would not have moral qualms, and which he is DELIBERATELY avoiding learning (which would mean that he kind of already knows about it, because how can one deliberately avoid something of which one is completely ignorant?)


How can you possibly say that this is not a political issue? You want to get the government involved in stem cell research, but you insist that this is not a political issue?

I don't want them involved at ALL. There should be research grants based on the research needed, not on whether or not some politician agrees with it. Lives need to be saved.

You don't think that ignoring the ACTUAL good that can be done over the imagined taboos isn't ignorance? It's the worst kind of ignorance. Ignoring facts because of beliefs. Isn't that what made the dark ages so dark?

Again, your strawmen are simply annoying. The fact is that Bush would rather deny people treatment in order to get votes.

If you disagree with that, then present some facts instead of strawmen.

Show me where he is sooo scientifically knowledgeable. Show me that he doesn't fire people with certain "stands" on issues.

The facts show that he would rather replace people than push forward in research that would revolutionize medical treatments.

Show me your facts. Your strawmen are burning.

It's the same with the WMDs. He went on OPINION instead of FACT. Again, he shows ignorance on extemely important issues. You don't go to war on opinions, you go to war on actual PROOF of WMDs. It's glaringly obvious that these WMDs do not exist in spite of the BELIEF that they did.

Ignorance is the worst kind of leader.

[anonimouse]

I'm treading into water I normally don't tread into, but I'll see if I drown:

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I don't want them involved at ALL. There should be research grants based on the research needed, not on whether or not some politician agrees with it. Lives need to be saved.


Agreed. But keep in mind that Bush didn't ban embryonic stem cell research. He chose not to allow any new embryos to be used for such research, but allowed the existing lines (which should last a goodly long time) to be used for such purposes. If he'd done so, I'd have opposed it. I think his stance - which is reasonably consistent with his personal beliefs without crippling the science - is valid and appropriate.


The fact is that Bush would rather deny people treatment in order to get votes.


I'm not sure that's a fair characterization. Again, if he'd outright banned embryonic stem cell research (as many on the hard right suggest he do) I'd agree with that assessment. But he didn't.


It's the same with the WMDs. He went on OPINION instead of FACT. Again, he shows ignorance on extemely important issues. You don't go to war on opinions, you go to war on actual PROOF of WMDs. It's glaringly obvious that these WMDs do not exist in spite of the BELIEF that they did.

Ignorance is the worst kind of leader.

Here's the thing. If it was just Bush saying "Iraq has WMD's" and the rest of the world saying "no he doesn't", then again, I'd agree Bush was a war mongering loon. But the truth of the matter is that all the available intelligence - the best available information - pointed to Sadaam having them. There wasn't a terrific amount of debate on the subject, both at home or abroad. Sadaam was obstructing the U.N. inspectors' work. There was reasonable information available to assume that Iraq had such weapons - the arguments in the U.S. congress were not whether those weapons existed, it was whether we should go to war at that time we did.

We can argue whether Bush was right to go to war - I personally think Iraq was a threat, but lower on the priority list than some other intiatives. What happened was that Bush believed his advisers, believed the intelligence - and he was proven wrong.

In any event, I think this is getting off topic for one, and off the purpose of this particular board for another. We can take this debate to another board if you'd like. :)

[Eos of the Eons]

I do feel Bush does not put enough practical thought in many life and death decisions. I do feel he rejects factual information too often. I will again point to what I previously posted on that, and what Christopher Reeve stated.

For some reason, the policies in place are stifling research, especially research for helping diabetics. Can anybody show this is not true? Anything I've read is showing that Bush's policies are affecting the advancement of research.


There was reasonable information available to assume that Iraq had such weapons - the arguments in the U.S. congress were not whether those weapons existed, it was whether we should go to war at that time we did.

Why was so much attention paid to the threat of WMDs? Are you saying war was inevitable due to obstructing the U.N. inspectors' work? I would think so, but then why all the hoopla about the "threat" of Saddam?

I do feel war with Saddam at some time was inevitable, but Bush again went about it the wrong way. More attention needed to be put on Saddam's actions rather than the missing/nonexistant WMDs. I feel many Americans think that is the main reason for the war, that threat of WMDS.

Point being, from the articles I linked - Bush is pushing forth an agenda that will only stifle advancement in favor of wasting money on things like "prayer research".

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I don't want them [the government] involved [in stem cell research] at ALL.
So then, you are opposed to all federal funding of stem cell research?

You don't think that ignoring the ACTUAL good that can be done over the imagined taboos isn't ignorance?
No, of course not. Usually, doctors only see HIV+ patients years after infection. Being able to observe a patient the first few hours and days after exposure would be very valuable. Is ignoring the knowledge that could be gained by purposely infecting people with HIV and observing the pathology of the virus from the very beginning "ignorance"?

Ignoring facts because of beliefs.
No, EotE, you are the one with the strawmen. Bush is not ignoring facts because of beliefs. Bush is ignoring possible actions because of beliefs, something that every moral person does.

Isn't that what made the dark ages so dark?

No, what made the dark ages so dark was people accusing others of being evil for having differing opinions. Sound familiar?

Again, your strawmen are simply annoying.
Ah, the empty accusations of logical fallacies. One of the first refuges of those utterly lacking in logical arguments.

If you disagree with that, then present some facts instead of strawmen.
Just as soon as you prove to me that you aren't a child raper.

[exarch]

Originally posted by sodakboy93
... But keep in mind that Bush didn't ban embryonic stem cell research. He chose not to allow any new embryos to be used for such research, but allowed the existing lines (which should last a goodly long time) to be used for such purposes.So I start to wonder:
Would using embrionic stem cells from lines created in a foreign country be allowable?
If not, why not.

How about embrionic stem cell extracted last week from an unused fertilized embryo from a fertility clinic in Europe?

Again, if it's not allowed, why not?

[Eos of the Eons]

Whoa irrational temper tantrum alert.

I posted my evidence. You can argue it with facts instead of strawmen. This thread could easily fit into the cat fight arena.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Anders
They debated stem-cell lines in the last debate. The evangelist Bush said that he would put up with the cell lines created before his period, but would not approve any more. I think Kerry said something about that it is important to continue reasearch on the subject.

And then hilariously (from a certain point of view) said that people like Christopher Reeve "would be able to get up out of their wheelchair and walk again", which must have annoyed a few fundamentalists.

"Only Jesus has the power to do that!"

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
Whoa irrational temper tantrum alert.

I posted my evidence. You can argue it with facts instead of strawmen. This thread could easily fit into the cat fight arena.
You're the one demonizing those that disagree with you. You're the posting insults rather than actually responding to me. And can you name one strawman that I've posted?

[Art Vandelay]

Here's another challenge for you: name one claim that I have made, and a fact that you have posted challenging that claim.

[Eos of the Eons]

I welcome Art to my very short ignore list, unless somebody can show me facts and arguments are used instead strawmen. Nuff of that.

I think even Kerry has addressed the problems that the Bush administration has visited upon science and scientific research. I actually watched the entire last debate, and didn't really see this addressed, except a little here:

Kerry notes that he's a strong Catholic and quotes some scripture. He distinguishes between living according to his faith and forcing his beliefs on others via legislation.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/7715

I wonder why anybody would deny bush does that after I posted the links.

If anybody was too lazy to read the links, I will quote some of the articles.

President Bush yesterday dismissed two members of his handpicked Council on Bioethics -- a scientist and a moral philosopher who had been among the more outspoken advocates for research on human embryo cells.

In their places he appointed three new members, including a doctor who has called for more religion in public life, a political scientist who has spoken out precisely against the research that the dismissed members supported, and another who has written about the immorality of abortion and the "threats of biotechnology."



Arguing "immorality" over facts is ignorance in my opinion. It's just as crazy as starving while a just as hungry cow walks around. Eat the cow, but noooo, somebody believes the cow is sacred, so it is better to starve. That's what I mean by ignorance in this case. The fact is that nothing bad will happen if you eat the cow, but beliefs that something will happen causes people to starve.

Fact-nothing bad will happen because there is no reason for retribution if you eat a cow.

Ignorance-something bad will happen if you eat the cow, cause you are told it is immoral to eat the cow.

This is what I mean by ignorance in this case. Ignoring the facts, for one. Preferring to believe something is immoral over the fact that it really isn't immoral to eat a cow.

Bush shows this when going on about stem cells. The pope's word means more to him than the facts. His getting votes by being "moral" means more to him than the facts.

There is nothing immoral about stem cell research. The pope's word doesn't make it immoral. The cells were destined for the garbage bin. Using them in research is better than trashing them. Bush doesn't think so.

So any strawmen about immorality etc. is rather a moot point. I separate fact from morality. It is immoral to murder somebody for the heck of it. It is not immoral to use cells destined for the trash bin in research.

If this doesn't clear up "my stance", then what more can I say?

[exarch]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
You're the one demonizing those that disagree with you. You're the posting insults rather than actually responding to me. And can you name one strawman that I've posted?Bush isn't ignorant because he disagrees with what we believe is right, he's ignorant because he doesn't have the facts. Well, either that or he purposely distorts them to fit his agenda, in which case he would be corrupt, or at least a liar. But never mind about that, people don't seem to care whether Bush tells them lies ...

Bottom line is, Stem cell research is not killing babies to harvest their cells, they are using clumps of fertilized cells that are destined for the trashcan anyway, and using them for valuable research that may one day, as Matabiri noted, ironically be able to perform some of the medical miracles Jesus himself alledgedly performed according to the bible.

Somehow, I'm reminded of the story about the farmer who's sitting on the roof of his flooded barn, refusing to be rescued by the helicopter passing, because he prayed to god to rescue him and he's waiting for god's hand to pick him up and place him somewhere safe.

That's why atheists are atheists. Somehow, we are able to recognise a miracle when we see one, and we realise they are usually the result of years of work and research by really smart and dedicated people. Attributing this to god, or calling them immoral is an incredible insult to those good people who worked so hard to make it happen, and to science and scientific progress in general.
Those who work to oppose them must truly be the Devil's helpers.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by exarch
That's why atheists are atheists. Somehow, we are able to recognise a miracle when we see one, and we realise they are usually the result of years of work and research by really smart and dedicated people. Attributing this to god, or calling them immoral is an incredible insult to those good people who worked so hard to make it happen, and to science and scientific progress in general.
Those who work to oppose them must truly be the Devil's helpers.

I can't imagine what a slap in the face it is to have somebody's lifelong works called "immoral" all of a sudden.

It's the same kind of thing to hear sCAM call doctors all those horrible names and accuse them of every conspiracy under the sun. Doctors go to school and work their butts off doing real research and getting hands on experience, only to have an uneducated con slander them mercilessly.

These people are finding ways to help others, and that needs to be appreciated. Otherwise we're going to slide backwards and find ourselves in a slump - like with the flu vaccine shortage. The masses are going to pay for these political mistakes.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
I welcome Art to my very short ignore list, unless somebody can show me facts and arguments are used instead strawmen. Nuff of that.
And here we see Eos of the Eons' true nature: if anyone disagrees her, she simply accuses them of strawmen. If they ask her to defend here accusation, she ignores them. And Bush is ignorant?

exarch
Bush isn't ignorant because he disagrees with what we believe is right, he's ignorant because he doesn't have the facts.
If by that you mean that EotE is not presenting opposing beliefs as "ignorance", then I think you are wrong. Now in addition to calling Bush's belief "ignorance", she used that term for Hindu beliefs. Of course, since she refuses to talk with anyone who disagrees with her, we don't have much of a chance of pursuing this, do we?

Attributing this to god, or calling them immoral is an incredible insult to those good people who worked so hard to make it happen, and to science and scientific progress in general.
What I find an incredible insult is calling differing views "ignorance". What I find an incredible insult is referring to differing views as "an incredible insult".

Those who work to oppose them must truly be the Devil's helpers.
This is an absurd misrepresentation of the situation. The government isn't trying to stop this research; it's simply limiting the type that it funds.