Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

[servant]

Re: Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

I take it then Fledgist that you are a strict vegetarian, never take antibiotics (do you have a collection of pet bacteria ?) and only wear clothes and shoes made from synthetic materials.

[mountaingal]

Re: Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

I'm with NYer. I read an article not too long ago in Canada's national newspaper about people (I think it was India), selling their organs for money, and about how this compromised their health.

RC, I think you started this thread tongue in cheek but it appears to have swerved ONTO the straight and narrow. Go figure.

[Fledgist]

Re: Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

Originally posted by servant:
[qb]I take it then Fledgist that you are a strict vegetarian, never take antibiotics (do you have a collection of pet bacteria ?) and only wear clothes and shoes made from synthetic materials.[/qb]

I take it that you've smoked a bit too much weed. I have no problem about going to the doctor, wearing cotton, linen, and wool, and eat meat. If forced by desperation (such as being stuck on a desert island with you), I'd be likely to turn to anthropophagy (though the 'anthropo' part would be doubtful in your case, perhaps I should have said 'cynophagy') in order to survive.

I'm entitled to maintain my life. That entitlement is, morally, no greater than the entitlement of, say, a cockroach or a 'Servant'. That doesn't mean I'm going to practice total Jainism (a religion, by the way, that you have inadvertently insulted). It does mean that I have a deep appreciation of the fact that other living beings have to die in order for me to stay alive.

[britisha]

Re: Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

[Fledgist]:
That doesn't mean I'm going to practice total Jainism (a religion, by the way, that you have inadvertently insulted). It does mean that I have a deep appreciation of the fact that other living beings have to die in order for me to stay alive.

Whazzup with you wit ad hominem attacks, man???" If anything, YOU are the one that is being self-contradictory; have you stopped to realise that?? Here YOU are selectively picking pieces from "religion" (btw which you say you don't believe in) to bolster your arguments. This is deceptious and ridiculous!! Here Jainism is borrowing words like "omnipotent and omniscient"....bwouy mi a tel yu!! Some ppl really confused. Describe for us, according to Janism philosophy what these two words mean, please enlighten the stupid.

snippet from Jainism web page

Jainism believes that universe and all its substances or entities are eternal. It has no beginning or end with respect to time. There is no need of some one to create or manage the affairs of the universe. Universe in run own its own accord by its own cosmic laws. Hence Jainism does not believe in God as a creator, survivor, and destroyer of the universe.

However Jainism does believe in God. When a living being destroys all his karmas, he possesses perfect knowledge, vision, power, and bliss. He becomes omniscient and omnipotent. This living being is a God of Jain religion. Hence Jains do not believe in one God. Gods in Jain religion are innumerable and the number is continuously increasing as more living beings attain liberation. Every living being has a potential to become God of the Jain religion.

[britisha]

Re: Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

...and thanks to "jainism", it confirms what Christianity (first time mi using this word in mi debates) is saying that God is everywhere. That means God is in you too Fledgist, now let me see you dispute that!! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Waiee!!

[Fledgist]

Re: Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

Originally posted by britisha:
[qb][Fledgist]:
That doesn't mean I'm going to practice total Jainism (a religion, by the way, that you have inadvertently insulted). It does mean that I have a deep appreciation of the fact that other living beings have to die in order for me to stay alive.

Whazzup with you wit ad hominem attacks, man???"

{Fledgist: I treat people as they treat me. It's called the golden rule. In any case, an ad hominem attack would be to attack the person rather than the person's argument. I always go after the argument, but if the person is rude to me I am quite prepared to respond in kind.}

If anything, YOU are the one that is being self-contradictory; have you stopped to realise that?? Here YOU are selectively picking pieces from "religion" (btw which you say you don't believe in) to bolster your arguments. This is deceptious and ridiculous!! Here Jainism is borrowing words like "omnipotent and omniscient"....bwouy mi a tel yu!! Some ppl really confused. Describe for us, according to Janism philosophy what these two words mean, please enlighten the stupid.

{Fledgist: My rates for enlightenment start at $40 an hour. The point I was making was that Servant was stating that I must follow the lifestyle of a Jain (which involves making every possible effort to avoid injuring anything that can move). For the rest, see below.}

snippet from Jainism web page

Jainism believes that universe and all its substances or entities are eternal. It has no beginning or end with respect to time. There is no need of some one to create or manage the affairs of the universe. Universe in run own its own accord by its own cosmic laws. Hence Jainism does not believe in God as a creator, survivor, and destroyer of the universe.

However Jainism does believe in God. When a living being destroys all his karmas, he possesses perfect knowledge, vision, power, and bliss. He becomes omniscient and omnipotent. This living being is a God of Jain religion. Hence Jains do not believe in one God. Gods in Jain religion are innumerable and the number is continuously increasing as more living beings attain liberation. Every living being has a potential to become God of the Jain religion.[/qb]

This is a pretty good summary. It must be borne in mind that Jainism is not a 'church' and that, consequently, there is some doctrinal range possible. The respect for life of the Jains, let it be clear, is due to their belief that all animate life possesses souls, and that these souls transmigrate (e.g., you were once, perhaps, an ant, at another time a horse, and now you're a woman; this is all part of your soul's spiritual progression which, if you behave rightly, will eventually lead to your becoming a discrete part of an immanent deity.[/i]}

[Fledgist]

Re: Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

Originally posted by britisha:
[qb]...and thanks to "jainism", it confirms what Christianity (first time mi using this word in mi debates) is saying that God is everywhere. That means God is in you too Fledgist, now let me see you dispute that!! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] Waiee!![/qb]

Certainly.

In the words of the late Tony McNeil:

'Ungod disconnecting.'

[britisha]

Re: Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

My rates for enlightment starts at $40.00 an hour

That's all? Chump change I'd say; I must put in for a raise for ya man!!

[Fledgist]

Re: Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

Originally posted by britisha:
[qb]My rates for enlightment starts at $40.00 an hour

That's all? Chump change I'd say; I must put in for a raise for ya man!![/qb]

That's what my rates *start*. If you think that's too low I can certainly charge you more. (In your case, my rate for millionaires -- $4,000 per hour).

[oren cousins]

Re: Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

TOLERANCE is the art of secretly disagreeing with anyone without openly aggravating anyone. Tolerance is the art of being secretly aggravated by anyone while openly disagreed with by anyone.

Solve this simple cloning equation :

If X =Y, then y= ?
IT"S INEVITABLE MADNESS AT THE CIRCUS
"Is cloning a sort of scientic clowning?"
Asked the parson of the clown.
"Oh no!" said the clown, "I think it is aerobotics"
"You may be right," the acrobat replied.
"I must try it on the trapezee."
"No said the lion tamer, 'you mean the chimpanzee. Let's try it on the lion with the tiger"
"No" said the ventriloquist ,"The process could be damningly semantic and the elephants will object.
" You mean symbiotic or traumatic?" asked the tamer.
"Well, let's keep it in embryo!" said the circus-master.

"What?" exclaimed the parson, "It ain't exactly amoral. Stop the clowning.....oops, I mean the cloning! No,the clowning, It will disrupt eschatology!"
Exclaimed the circus-master. "You mean ecology!"
"Cloning I could use in puppetry," said the ventriloquist.
"I am always looking for new ideas."
"To me,it doesn't matter," said the tumbler,'so long the trampoline keeps running."
"Me too," said the operator. "The Ferris Wheel is very popular,
as well as the Merri-go-round."
"Don't forget the fireworks!" , called the pyrotechnician.
"That's the main attraction!"

"Well," asked the teacher," If X equals Y, why can't y be equal to x?
"To that I am not prepared to answer," said the Invisible Man. "I hate to see my face,
That's why I wear a mask:
but to every action ,there is reaction:
To every choice,there is consequence."

[oren cousins]

Re: Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

TO THE WISE AND PRUDENT
_____________________________________________

Y'u cyawnt 'top a Jamaican pickney w'en ee come awn 'pon explainin' ha 'ow ee did go.

[Dyoll]

Re: Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

Originally posted by Fledgist:
Fledgist: I treat people as they treat me. It's called the golden rule. In any case, an ad hominem attack would be to attack the person rather than the person's argument. I always go after the argument, but if the person is rude to me I am quite prepared to respond in kind.

You have quite an interesting take on the "golden rule" - a unique interpretation, I might add. Well, that's quite a civilized way of living, won't you say? Get down there in the mud, in the pig sty with the pig... yeah, yeah...

Anyway, back to the thread. As an amateur ethicist, I'm thinking: If there are legal safeguards against the 'excesses' of enbryonic stem cell research - preventing misuse and abuse by mad/bad scientists - what is wrong with cloning, whether for therapeutic or reproductive purposes?

[Fledgist]

Re: Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

Originally posted by Dyoll:
[qb]

Originally posted by Fledgist:
Fledgist: I treat people as they treat me. It's called the golden rule. In any case, an ad hominem attack would be to attack the person rather than the person's argument. I always go after the argument, but if the person is rude to me I am quite prepared to respond in kind.

You have quite an interesting take on the "golden rule" - a unique interpretation, I might add. Well, that's quite a civilized way of living, won't you say? Get down there in the mud, in the pig sty with the pig... yeah, yeah...

Anyway, back to the thread. As an amateur ethicist, I'm thinking: If there are legal safeguards against the 'excesses' of enbryonic stem cell research - preventing misuse and abuse by mad/bad scientists - what is wrong with cloning, whether for therapeutic or reproductive purposes?[/qb]

I have no problem with therapeutic cloning. I'm concerned about reproductive cloning, since that has immense possibilities for abuse (for example, a man clones himself and then subjects the clone to an environment as close to his own as possible -- the Boys from Brazil scenario).

[JM1]

Re: Cloning: I'm beginning to side with the religionists

"{Fledgist: There are millions of human clones right now -- they're called identical twins..."

Well yes and no. (1) Twins are of the same age and (2) are never in a position to assume a parent-child relationship. The intrafamilial dynamics of their relationships, which I believe was RC's original concern, are therefore not comparable.