The joke is on all of us is the problem.
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
Congress won't vote to go to war with a nuclear power. If only because the Republicans don't want "involved in the nuclear annihilation of millions of Koreans" as an addendum to the commercials against them come election time.
Then again, that's assuming Trump country has enough empathy to care about the kind of thing. I'm betting they don't.
Well, they just don't appreciate those coupons for Trump Steaks.
Artificial Wombs: Artificial womb for premature babies successful in animal trials
They've done successful animal trials starting at an (equivalent) of 23 weeks. It's really dramatic in the article seeing the "red-looking" immature lamb versus the close-to-full-term "after" photograph. To be clear, this only works once they're already at a certain point in development, not from "zero" like in Brave New World (which the article mentions). It's a pretty good article about why this works (the lungs can't bring in oxygen correctly at that point in development, so the umbilical cord is used), and the limitations of the technique. The lambs that were born appear to still be "normal" after a year. This is important because of the few survivors of that early, they usually have significant physical and mental problems through their lives, whereas the animals don't seem to have these problems.
They think it's ready for human trials in about 3 years.
This is in the political forum because it could quickly move into very charged discussions about other things. But on it's own, it's still cool science.
They've done successful animal trials starting at an (equivalent) of 23 weeks. It's really dramatic in the article seeing the "red-looking" immature lamb versus the close-to-full-term "after" photograph. To be clear, this only works once they're already at a certain point in development, not from "zero" like in Brave New World (which the article mentions). It's a pretty good article about why this works (the lungs can't bring in oxygen correctly at that point in development, so the umbilical cord is used), and the limitations of the technique. The lambs that were born appear to still be "normal" after a year. This is important because of the few survivors of that early, they usually have significant physical and mental problems through their lives, whereas the animals don't seem to have these problems.
They think it's ready for human trials in about 3 years.
This is in the political forum because it could quickly move into very charged discussions about other things. But on it's own, it's still cool science.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, 23 weeks actually lines up pretty closely with current law regarding the "other things" discussion....
I mean, I did that in college, as a lab, so I was surprised that people thought it was new.
Probably because that was my college major, whereas you probably just took it to fulfill a random req.
Necronic
Staff member
I thought I had seen that egg experiment before.
Also, I'm thinking more on my transhumanism. I think that might be why I am so open/etc to transgender rights. If I'm being honest maybe it's not so much a matter of being supportive of complex gender identity claims, but that I'm ok with people "grinding" themselves to whatever they want and everyone else needs to just get on the train or get out of the way.
I may actually be the slippery slope that everyone says is just a hypothetical strawman. I am totally ok with people becoming robotic half satyrs of that's what's on their menu.
Also, I'm thinking more on my transhumanism. I think that might be why I am so open/etc to transgender rights. If I'm being honest maybe it's not so much a matter of being supportive of complex gender identity claims, but that I'm ok with people "grinding" themselves to whatever they want and everyone else needs to just get on the train or get out of the way.
I may actually be the slippery slope that everyone says is just a hypothetical strawman. I am totally ok with people becoming robotic half satyrs of that's what's on their menu.
Dave
Staff member
No, no I don't think his points are valid at all. He talks about how it's better to let parents control what their kids learn and that's just absolute bullshit and the reason we have anti-intellectualism seeping the nation and a fucking moron like Trump in the White House.
The fact that you think this is a good piece floors me.
Oh shut the fuck up, you fucking moron. Yeah, that's what we need - stupid people making more stupid people and removing all protections AGAINST stupid people from our society.
The fact that you think this is a good piece floors me.
The guy has a serious misunderstanding of science.
Science doesn't care if it makes you uncomfortable or hurts your feelings. Science is observation of the world around you. I had this argument with someone regarding the reclassification of Pluto. The discovery of the Kuiper Belt forced a re-examination of Pluto, and while there's many factors to consider in the reclassification, "but people will feel sad if Pluto is reclassified" should not ever be one of them. And since climate change is a major area of actual scientific research these days, it makes no sense to leave it out of science classes, even if it does hurt the feelings (or the agendas) of the deniers to include it. Leaving it out isn't going to change the facts that there is data for climate change and many researchers are studying the possible causes and mechanisms of it.
Anti-science attitudes are bizarre. As if not teaching scientific facts and theories will make the actual physical world change to fit their non-scientific worldview. Like, it's annoying that my pen keeps rolling off the desk. I know! They need to stop teaching about gravity in science classes! Then my pens will stay put. Damn elitist scientists keep making me lose my pens...
Who determines who "stupid people" are? Eventually, you'll be lumped into that group Dave (and so will I, and so will everybody else at some point). That's the danger. The attitude of "Oh this thing forcing other people to do/think/believe like me is OK because I agree with it" is really really really f'n dangerous. This is similar to the "using executive orders to enforce things outside of actual laws is OK because I agree with the orders" being bad being pointed out by @GasBandit a number of times years ago, and then Trump got in and there's a lot of whining about HIS orders, with them being similar in scope to Obama's. Similar thing, different implementation.
Just because you agree with it now doesn't mean it can't be abused later. The point of saying "ya, parents should be the main determinant of what is good for their own children" is NOT a bad thing. But when you start expanding the definition of "abuse" to include "not taught about issues X, Y, Z in the way the government wants them to be" then you are in very shaky territory IMO.
I think there's problems with this piece, but the part I quoted is the crux of it, and makes it an OK piece worthy of discussion..
Dave
Staff member
You really don't understand what I mean by stupid people making more stupid people? Parents who want to teach their kids anti-science, religious-based, and opinion instead of actual real facts and science. Those stupid people who this guys says has the rights to fuck up their kids and raise them to be more ignorant fucks. It wasn't that hard to figure out.
A science and FACT BASED curriculum should be mandatory whether it's a religious school or public. NON-FACTS do not have a place in education that deals with science or mathematics, etc. Creative writing, social sciences, and subjects like that are completely fine with a more subjective and reasoned approach, but we're talking SCIENCE and FACTS here. Fuck that guy and his bullshit article. Giving them the benefit of the doubt is part of the problem.
And it's NOT worthy of discussion. It's like saying that climate deniers should be allowed to voice their opinions (as opposed to facts) on news shows. That's utter bullshit. We should not be giving these morons a voice. They should be castigated in public and laughed at, not allowed to spout their crap.
A science and FACT BASED curriculum should be mandatory whether it's a religious school or public. NON-FACTS do not have a place in education that deals with science or mathematics, etc. Creative writing, social sciences, and subjects like that are completely fine with a more subjective and reasoned approach, but we're talking SCIENCE and FACTS here. Fuck that guy and his bullshit article. Giving them the benefit of the doubt is part of the problem.
And it's NOT worthy of discussion. It's like saying that climate deniers should be allowed to voice their opinions (as opposed to facts) on news shows. That's utter bullshit. We should not be giving these morons a voice. They should be castigated in public and laughed at, not allowed to spout their crap.
If I may step in for a second to just say I've gone and done it. I went to the county courthouse and officially renounced my party affiliation. A Democrat no more.
And as it relates to the present discussion, the West Virginia Democratic Party was just as full of climate change deniers as the GOP. The 2014 midterm election was just a contest on who could scream "WAR ON COAL!!" the loudest.
Fuck that and fuck them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
And as it relates to the present discussion, the West Virginia Democratic Party was just as full of climate change deniers as the GOP. The 2014 midterm election was just a contest on who could scream "WAR ON COAL!!" the loudest.
Fuck that and fuck them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Read this: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/17/the-good-the-bad-and-the-null-hypothesis/
Not "morons" at all.
And you calling people holding such views "morons" is not that different than you calling those who follow their version of God "stupid" either. So no, I'm not deliberately mis-understanding you at all. And you're talking about suppressing free speech as well as that parents shouldn't have the (near final) say on what their children are educated with, but bureaucrats should. Wait until such bureaucrats do NOT believe as you do, and then see if you agree with me that they shouldn't have such power.
That you don't think think this is radical, is pretty radical in itself IMO.
Dave
Staff member
I'm also back on the Independent bandwagon. The DNC not only screwed up horribly in the last election by actively working against the interests of their constituents and breaking their own covenants by backing a specific candidate while hamstringing another but by learning NOTHING in the process.
Dave
Staff member
If they want to teach their children that science and facts are not true and that their opinion has more weight then fuck them. You can be religious and still acknowledge that science facts are facts - look at the catholic church and evolution. But in today's society it's either/or to these religious nutbags. So fuck them. If this is their stance then they are willfully ignorant morons and should not be teaching kids anything.
Again, we are talking about the guidance of SCHOOL curriculum, not teaching at home. But yeah, science and facts >>>>>>>>>> religious belief when teaching kids things in school and anyone who is against that is a moron.
Dave
Staff member
When you have a president who disavows proven science while actively working to dismantling everything scientific, these anti-science apologists just piss me off more and more. We should be pointing and laughing, not giving them a pulpit.[DOUBLEPOST=1493306623,1493306543][/DOUBLEPOST]Oh, and quit linking me shit from an anti-science website like they've suddenly gained respectability.
Did you even READ the article I posted above? If it's just too long, then just read the last two pages or so, which shouldn't take long. Start at "When we drill wells" and go from there.
Dave
Staff member
You want me to start posting articles PROVING climate change? I'll bet my list would be longer than your one site.[DOUBLEPOST=1493307028,1493306770][/DOUBLEPOST]And who's the author of that wonderful article? Hmmm. David Middleton. Wonder what he does for a living?
Oh yeah, he works for the oil industry. "Dave Middleton. BS in Earth Science (Geology concentration) a geoscientist in the oil industry"
No conflict of interest here. Nope. None.
Oh yeah, he works for the oil industry. "Dave Middleton. BS in Earth Science (Geology concentration) a geoscientist in the oil industry"
No conflict of interest here. Nope. None.