Product of the Cosmos Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 "This is your direct quote this in its elf shows you know little of selective breeding. By combing the DNA of the 2 animals you most assuradely make a concious effort to engineer a genetic masterpiece, even if it is in your own eyes." read my response to miths prior quote. "See thats where I get confused. You freely admit it could happen in time anyway yet because we speed the process up that is bad. Quite frankly no I don't see the difference because I don't split hairs genetic manipulation is gentetic manipulation no matter how you perform the task." If we do not re-encode the DNA and it accepts it is acceptable to me. We can fiddle with re-coding the DNA, but don't let it out for the masses to consume. "So the wright brothers should have never developed a plane, Henry Ford should have scrapped his idea for an automobile because they had no prior knowledge of the ramifications? Revolutionary inventions usually come from the previously unexplored areas of science and technology. Is this something that is lost on you?" The wright brothers didnt risk Armageddon by releasing re-coded tampered with hybrid DNA made by infantile genetic architects. They made a plane. I applaud them. But releasing re-coded DNA into the populous is lunacy IMO. You have barely a concept of my philosophy for this as I explained numerous times, so to me you seem very dumb. Maybe I was nieve in my explanation for this isnt my job. But nonetheless, you still dont understand what Im saying. Funny, one post in the thread Im being called illogical for having 'creative thought' at worst, and knowing some big breakthroughs to come at best. Then another post Im being attacked by someone saying my philosophy lacks the vision for gain in the future! LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakoth Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 If we do not re-encode the DNA and it accepts it is acceptable to me. We can fiddle with re-coding the DNA, but don't let it out for the masses to consume. You do relise that most of the genetic manipulation goes to the areas of higher yeilds, drought resistance, shorter growing times, and chemical resistance right? All things that occure naturally in plant life. The wright brothers didnt risk Armageddon Really was it not their invention that delivered the first Atomic weapons to their targets? So in reallity their invention truely did risk armageddon as it was the direct means of transportation of a science that could truly destroy the world. You have barely a concept of my philosophy for this as I explained numerous times, so to me you seem very dumb. The trait of a truely enlightend man when all else fails call some one a name or attack their intelligence. Funny, one post in the thread Im being called illogical for having 'creative thought' at worst, and knowing some big breakthroughs to come at best. Then another post Im being attacked by someone saying my philosophy lacks the vision for gain in the future! LOL! Actually all this dumb person is doing is pointing out your hypocrisy and contradictions. Your quote But I strongly do not agree with consuming genetically screwed with food. I do not think we know enough about genetics to alter it like that an enter it into society. At least have these corporations tell people when they are eating genetically modified food. My quotes. Mith Taks since you seem more versed in science than me answer me this because it is something I don't understand. What is the big deal about GM plants? Has science evolved enough that we get t he results we want every time yes. Haven't we been Genetically moddify plants and animals through selective breeding since te domestication of animals, and the implimentation of farming? Thats kinda what I was getting at White. They are different means to the same end. While the one cuts out a lot of time the other has been shown to be just as effective. Your quotes after you had been proven lacking in the history of genetic manipilation. And secondly, if we put 2 animals in the same cage, and they breed, that is, IMO, very different then going in and messing with the DNA ourselves. Sure we were a part of the breeding, but the DNA and things we do not know of intertwine like they would have eventually in a matter of time anyway. Scientific DNA modification is very different to me compared to 'helped out' natural way of fusing DNA. Do you not see the difference between something that would happen naturally with time anyway, and genetic alteration? Your quote after I pushed the fact you don't quite understand what you are talking about. Once agian. you talk like you consciously engineered this masterpiece of a universe(multiverse). Imagine all the variables from billions of years of evolution for one. My rebutal. This is your direct quote this in its elf shows you know little of selective breeding. By combing the DNA of the 2 animals you most assuradely make a concious effort to engineer a genetic masterpiece, even if it is in your own eyes. All I am saying is you can no more prove genetic manipulation is a pandoras box than we can prove it isn't. Why? Quite simple no one can predict the future. While you resort to calling people dumb, foolish, and unwise we give you centuries of genetic manipulation that has not proven harmful to the human race. Just because you do not choose to see it as genetic manipulation does not mean it isn't. While selective breeding was crude it was effective, we just learned a way to do it faster and more reliably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Product of the Cosmos Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 "You do relise that most of the genetic manipulation goes to the areas of higher yeilds, drought resistance, shorter growing times, and chemical resistance right? All things that occure naturally in plant life." And how is this relevant to my arguement? "Really was it not their invention that delivered the first Atomic weapons to their targets? So in reallity their invention truely did risk armageddon as it was the direct means of transportation of a science that could truly destroy the world." lol. You take things completely out of context. In no way does my arguement contradict what you just said in philosophy. And you continue to show you have no idea of my philosophy on this. Maybe we wouldn't have invented buttons O_O. LOL. Ya right... More so with your lacking comparison, I'll give you a more accurate one. What if the Wright brothers when thinking oft heir idea gave every single person on the planet a plane that they didnt know worked right? That would be a much bigger risk.. They took the route of isolated experimentation. Which is logical, just like my view of not introducing genetically re-coded DNA things to the populous to consume. "The trait of a truely enlightend man when all else fails call some one a name or attack their intelligence." You continue to take what I say out of context. At least mith argues what I say, and doesn't Micheal Moorify my words. I said you seem dumb to me because you continue to not understand what I'm saying by bringing up ridiculous examples of something you think is relevant in contradiction to what I say, which it is not. Also, what you conveniently left out my statement afterwards that said it was possible that it was I being nieve with my descriptions. "Actually all this dumb person is doing is pointing out your hypocrisy and contradictions." Your sarcasm is not something of virtue IMO. And I do not contradict myself or modern Science. As I did not say you were dumb. In this very thread I say things are more then they seem, I give you reasons why you seem dumb to me, followed by a possible fault on my side. But obviously you cannot see that clearly. "Your quotes after you had been proven lacking in the history of genetic manipilation." I provided my opinion on genetic subjects(which have not much to do with my 'contamination' of modern Science', more so just my opinion on the matter), and your continuously trying to find something wrong in them, you take them way out of context. And show you don't even understand what I'm saying time and time agian. "All I am saying is you can no more prove genetic manipulation is a pandoras box than we can prove it isn't. Why? Quite simple no one can predict the future." Yep, no1 can say anything definitively with concrete evidence shown at this time.. But don't you think life is something we should be somewhat cautious with? I think the cautious side, is more intelligent then the presumtuous side when it comes to messing with what we are. Simply because we do not fully understand what we are. Although I would argue some can predict the future. I have predicted some of the biggest events in mankinds history in this thread. And I'd bet my life they will happen. This may not be a paranormal prediction. Just like as I predict the Eagles and Chiefs will be in the super bowl this year at this moment. I may be right just using simple logic, but in a much harder to predict future. Many people have predicted the future. Whether it was a vision/paranormal way, or just logic. So your wrong, people can predict the future. But I believe I agree with your thought package there in that nobody truly knows right now with concrete evidence. What I think a more accurate text translation of your thought package is at this time is not 'no one can predict the future', but more 'we are not advanced enough to prove such things'. "While you resort to calling people dumb, foolish, and unwise we give you centuries of genetic manipulation that has not proven harmful to the human race." How many more times must I say this before you read it, or understand it, either one your lacking in. I don't have a problem with things we simply 'help fuse' by seeing if they will mend genetically with some help by us. If they are close enough and mathematically agreeable genetically this is a sign IMO. This sign is they are DNA compatible, enough within the net of things that are not so unnatural when done. What I am agianst is re-coding, OURSELVES, the DNA within something and releasing it to the public for consumption. And no, we have not done this for many centuries if you buy into the commonly accepted 'history' of our race. Do you understand yet? Im tired of you argueing the same thing over and over, when I'm not even agianst it. lol. You just fail to understand my statement. Once agian, I go back to my statement, this makes you seem very dumb to me. Things, of course, are not always what they seem. And I may not be compitant in using actual Scientific terms. I am but giving you my point of view so you can understand my response better. But nonetheless, I have explained this like 3-5 times, and you still argue it, when I have said I'm fine with it. lol. Your turning this more and more into a personal character battle when it has only occasionally taken that effect so far. Arguing less and less the debate, and more and more me. Me and mith while occsionally taking a harsh view on each others view, we mostly stick to the facts debated... Hey mith, question. Since your seemingly well placed in the Scientific community. Have they found a damn definition for the word planet yet!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakoth Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Ok well lets back up here a second maybe I did take that to personally. To be honest though there is no difference when you say you seem dumb, and you are dumb. It is your opinion though. Secondly I understand exactly what you are saying, but is so often the case some one takes to broad an arguement to argue over. But I strongly do not agree with consuming genetically screwed with food. I do not think we know enough about genetics to alter it like that an enter it into society. At least have these corporations tell people when they are eating genetically modified food. This was to braod an arguement and showed you knew little of farming and the farming industry. As I said farmes and the farming industry have genetically manipulated plants and animals for centuries. So there is not one piece of meat, vegetable, canned good, or even milk that has not come from something genetically modified. As I said it is a crude way but still genetic modification. When confronted with this fact you then tried to defend your stance by simply saying you don't consider that genetic manipulation. And secondly, if we put 2 animals in the same cage, and they breed, that is, IMO, very different then going in and messing with the DNA ourselves. Sure we were a part of the breeding, but the DNA and things we do not know of intertwine like they would have eventually in a matter of time anyway. Scientific DNA modification is very different to me compared to 'helped out' natural way of fusing DNA Once agian. you talk like you consciously engineered this masterpiece of a universe(multiverse). Imagine all the variables from billions of years of evolution for one. What your better argument would have been and one I would not have argued with you on is I don't like genetic modification through gene splicing. The reason you would have gotten no argument from me is I know little about gene splicing. Also when I said this it was in reference to what white had said. You do relise that most of the genetic manipulation goes to the areas of higher yeilds, drought resistance, shorter growing times, and chemical resistance right? All things that occure naturally in plant life. This was a response White had given me earlier in the thread. For example: in Ethiopia, there's a harsh strain of weed which competes with wheat crops for nutrients, releasing a toxin into the soil making the wheat crops wither and die. However, corn crops are immune to this toxin. Unfortunately, Ethiopia's weather doesn't allow corn to grow. So we identify the genetic trait in corn that resists the toxin, extract this portion of the gene, graft it to the DNA chain of some harmless virus carrier, and infect the wheat crops with the carrier virus. The virus attacks the wheat cells, and injects the grafted DNA into the wheat DNA. One generation later, the wheat becomes immune to the toxin and productivity rises. I figured if you had read this you would understand the majority of genetic scientists have not introduced unnatural traits into these plants. Is it from a seperate plant yes, unnatural no. The last to things I want to adress are things you said and then took back. When you post after some one about some thing in their post wether you mean it or not you are talking about them. You quite simply make an implication. If you don't like sport hunting you are entitled to that opinion, but if you think hunting isn't highly regulated you are wrong there also. As for seeming dumb well I freely admit I went to public school my whole life and only had 2 semesters of college at a community college. While I don't claim to be the smartest person I am far from the dumbest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Product of the Cosmos Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 "This was to braod an arguement and showed you knew little of farming and the farming industry. As I said farmes and the farming industry have genetically manipulated plants and animals for centuries. So there is not one piece of meat, vegetable, canned good, or even milk that has not come from something genetically modified. As I said it is a crude way but still genetic modification. When confronted with this fact you then tried to defend your stance by simply saying you don't consider that genetic manipulation." The definition of the word is used in both context of 1. changing something, 2. devious or shrewd management. I obviously was not using the word in the same way you were. Why am I still having to explain this? Do you not understand yet? And when did this world start to conform to my opinions in every way? Me having an opinion for something means it has to be done, or I don't know about the subject? *sigh* Wheres mith? I miss a good debate.... BTW, quoting one thing from a previous post, then a quote from a page or two before it taking out of context what I was reffering to. Then replying with your argument is rather ridiculous IMO. "The last to things I want to adress are things you said and then took back. When you post after some one about some thing in their post wether you mean it or not you are talking about them. You quite simply make an implication." I didn't say it and take it back, it was your perception that was misled then informed of the truth. As you say, there is importance in something directly above the text, and it just so happens that directly above the text 'hunting for sport' I said we have somewhat shredded a sacred connection with animals. You bringing up the topic of hunting influenced it being there in a way, but as the comment was not directed at you since I didn't know(and still don't) what type of hunting you have done you are jumping to conclusions. "If you don't like sport hunting you are entitled to that opinion, but if you think hunting isn't highly regulated you are wrong there also." If(underlined for possible future prevention of a mis-interpretation and retarded rebuttal) you think a law on paper stops poachers and illegal hunters your quite faithful. But unfortunatly wrong. The locals in Wyoming kill everything they see, bears, wolves, critters, birds, deer, fish, anything quite commonly. As well as many other states Ive been to. Yes there are laws, and yes some people get busted. But just because it's regulated doesn't mean it's not happening. Also, you haven't taken into consideration(like usual) the thing your arguing. My point about the animals bond with us, it dates back more then 5-30 years or so. Are you aware how bad we slaughtered this countries people, and animals when white people got here? heh, I can tell you, they were not being regulated at all. If you comprehend, and respond to one of my statements, without me explaining myself 2-5 times I would be amazed by your progress after the previous few posts you have shown. "What your better argument would have been and one I would not have argued with you on is I don't like genetic modification through gene splicing. The reason you would have gotten no argument from me is I know little about gene splicing." Gene spicing: any alteration of genetic material. So, no, it would have not been a better argument, other then you would not be trying to debate me in an extremely non-fastidious way. So maybe all in all it would have been better. lol. I have explained myself clearly numerous times. By now were just spamming the topic with crap it seems............. lol. Want to stop yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakoth Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 The definition of the word is used in both context of 1. changing something, 2. devious or shrewd management. I obviously was not using the word in the same way you were. Why am I still having to explain this? Do you not understand yet? Then by all means enlighten me. Which way where you using the word, and how do either of the definitions you gave not pertain to selective breeding? Your opions are no more important than anyone elses, yet it is normally people like you who are the most vocal. I am not trying to say everything that comes out of your mouth is wrong. What I am trying to say is you have strong opions based completely on what you think is right and wrong. I have shown in previous posts you don't fully comprehend the fact that genetic manipulation has happened through out human history on both plants and animals. Your whole argument was that you don't consider selective breeding as genetic manipulation. Well fine then what is it? Oh and you can not use it is a natural breeding process as even White knows artificial ensemenation happens frequently. Hardly a natural process. As you say, there is importance in something directly above the text, and it just so happens that directly above the text 'hunting for sport' I said we have somewhat shredded a sacred connection with animals. You bringing up the topic of hunting influenced it being there in a way, but as the comment was not directed at you since I didn't know(and still don't) what type of hunting you have done you are jumping to conclusions. Only partially correct because I brought it up in my post you saying what you did implied I am one of those people, wether you meant to or not it still happened. If(underlined for possible future prevention of a mis-interpretation and retarded rebuttal) you think a law on paper stops poachers and illegal hunters your quite faithful. But unfortunatly wrong. The locals in Wyoming kill everything they see, bears, wolves, critters, birds, deer, fish, anything quite commonly. As well as many other states Ive been to. Yes there are laws, and yes some people get busted. But just because it's regulated doesn't mean it's not happening. Also, you haven't taken into consideration(like usual) the thing your arguing. Yes there are laws, and yes some people get busted. But just because it's regulated doesn't mean it's not happening. Also, you haven't taken into consideration(like usual) the thing your arguing There are a few problems with your argument. First problem and you stated it yourself they are law breakers. A ban on hunting will change nothing if they are inclined to break the law now it will be just as easy for them if another law is passed. The second is it is hard to preach conservation to someone who is afraid his lively hood is affected by said animals. My point about the animals bond with us, it dates back more then 5-30 years or so. Are you aware how bad we slaughtered this countries people, and animals when white people got here? heh, I can tell you, they were not being regulated at all. If you comprehend, and respond to one of my statements, without me explaining myself 2-5 times I would be amazed by your progress after the previous few posts you have shown. While I understand what you are saying our bond with animals goes back a longer time than that. While it might not have been put to writing or an actual hypothises been made our bond with animals goes back at least to the frist domesticated animals. Why would we have wanted some of them as pets unless we felt some bond between us and them. Secondly I and our law makers understand that which is why laws and regulations where past. Thirdly please do not mix the killing of humans and animals. While both atrosities where terrible I would choose human life over an animal life an day of the weak, but that is just me. Wheres mith? I miss a good debate.... If you comprehend, and respond to one of my statements, without me explaining myself 2-5 times I would be amazed by your progress after the previous few posts you have shown. underlined for possible future prevention of a mis-interpretation and retarded rebuttal You see this is what I am talking about. A truly enlightened individual would never resort to personal attacks such as these. With each of these statements while not coming right out and saying it you give the implication I am dumb. I never once said you were dumb or lacking intelegence things I did say are you are hypicriticle and don;t quite understand everything about the subjects you talk about. There is another problem I have debating with you, and it is the fact you don't try to make it easier for us simple folk to understand your arguement. Instead of telling me I missunderstood what you said and leave it at that why not try to explain it again in a more simplified way. Unfortunately the way you do it you come off as nothing more than a pompous ass. See because I never claimed or made the implication through things I have said that I am enlightened I can get away with that last comment with out being a hypocrite. P.S. If you want to take this to PMs be my guest I love getting mail. I really hope you do to because I would like to finally see what you consider selective breeding if not genetic manipulation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taks Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 snip... so to me you seem very dumb. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> that's the definition of a character attack, PoTC... so is the PoTC calling the kettle black? (hehe, punny). tsk, tsk. taks comrade taks... just because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phosphor Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 This thread seems to have run it's course. Descending into bickering and pointing out of character flaws looks to be the dominant arguement rather than anything scientific. If anyone wants to salvage any of the good points brought up here and start new discussions, that's fine, but I think this particular thread is past the point of salvation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts