Shotgun
-
Content
8,899 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by Shotgun
-
I think that there is more involved in rebuilding New Orleans than just rebuilding family homes or giving cash to residents.
-
I think the "aversion" part of "phobe" is more common when one is called a homophobe, which would imply a strong disapproval, and that would be correct usage of the term. I'm sure it is occasionally used incorrectly, but not to the point of being "corrupted." "Yes." And sorry to get off-topic of the thread; it just bugs me when people think that homophobia has to mean fear of homosexuals. "Phobia" does not always equate to "fear."
-
How is the use of "phobe" corrupted? It means someone who is afraid of or averse to something, so "homophobe" is a legitimate word to describe someone who is afraid of or averse to homosexuality.
-
That's pretty much how I feel about it. There are already a lot of things to be concerned about in the meat/dairy industry besides cloning. I do eat meat and dairy though, and I'll admit I haven't made much effort to check it's source, but it's something that's been nagging at me for a while now.
-
Yep, as long as your name isn't Jack Kevorkian, you can legally assist people with suicide... and even make a profit from it. Now if these companies would just come up with a quicker method... Oh wait, that would mean less profit for them, so of course they wouldn't want to do that.
-
How will you know if you're eating GM/cloned produce?
-
I doubt that any candidate would admit to being an atheist, since that would likely cost them the election. But anyhow, I'm pretty sure there are many scientists who are not atheists, so I'm not sure what you meant by that. Mike Gravel is a Unitarian, and therefore I think the only Dem/Rep candidate that doesn't claim to be a Christian of some sort.(?) But he's pretty much out of the race now, so he doesn't count anyway.
-
It doesn't look like that will be happening, so anyone who wants to stay away from these foods will have to buy products that are labeled as NOT being GM/cloned (and likely pay more for those products, as has already been mentioned).
-
It sounds like the current intention is to clone some of the best animals and then use them as breeding stock, as they already do with in-vitro fertilization. So the meat would most likely come from offspring of cloned animals rather than from the cloned animals themselves.
-
The article says that labels will not be required, just as they are not required for genetically-modified foods. However, that won't prevent companies who don't use these technologies from labeling their foods as such. I saw this guy speak at a seminar a couple of years ago. He's an interesting guy, and quite passionate about human reproductive cloning.
-
So do we have complete control over our bodies right now? Can I have it put in my will that I want my torso to be preserved and mounted on my wall next to the longhorn skull, so that Rich can continue to enjoy my beauty? Seriously, are we currently that free to choose what happens to our dead bodies?
-
Not in so many words anyway. Hmm... Microsurgical vasectomy reversals seem kinda personal. And for an alcoholic trying to quit drinking, a Budweiser ad would be pretty personal too.
-
Don't forget microsurgical vasectomy reversals and Budweiser too.
-
An interesting thing to note is that most if not all crackheads also drink alcohol or smoke tobacco. I wonder if ever a mother existed who smoked crack during pregnancy but otherwise had regular prenatal care. I think that's one of the problems with doing any kind of research on humans; there are way too many variables to control for, and you can't exactly keep them caged like rats. However, I believe there is a general consensus that heavy crack use is harmful to the user, so it would make sense to think that it would be harmful to a fetus who is still dependent on the user for life support.
-
I think that the human brain likes to be obsessive about something, but we're wired to choose different things... Some of us choose drugs and alcohol, some of us choose sex, some choose skydiving or other adrenaline-producing activities, and some choose fancy dogs and dog accessories. Ok, yeah, it's probably teetering on a pathological condition, but at least it's a fairly harmless one.
-
It is my understanding that the "crack baby" thing was exaggerated for the "war on drugs," but I don't believe it is a myth that crack use during pregnancy will harm an unborn child. And from what I have read, alcohol abuse is more damaging to an unborn child than most other hard drugs. So yes, fetal alcohol syndrome is a serious concern as well.
-
They are different situations, and not just from a "feeling" perspective. The doctor has a professional obligation to try to save all six patients, which likely means that the five will die. The subway worker has no obligations to any of the other people involved (at least not as stated in your description), so there is no "correct" answer in his situation, and thus his is the only real dilemma of the two scenarios.
-
Well, with a law like this, your tax dollars will probably be paying for not only someone's drug habit, but the drug tests too, and the Zydot that fools the drug tests. Anyhow, the bigger problem in this story seems to be that a woman was using drugs while pregnant, not that she was using drugs while on welfare. A drug test probably wouldn't have prevented her from using drugs during her entire pregnancy, though it might have made a small difference.
-
Welcome to the Jungle I Love Rock and Roll Rapture Edit: Oh, and The Tide is High. I forgot how funny that video is.
-
Now I'm wondering what story JP will come up with to explain to Amy why he needs all of your bondage gear to save a friend from imminent death.
-
Speaking of Adam Ant... Strip was my favorite video of his.
-
Interesting... I don't feel that way about it. The first scenario is more disturbing to me because no matter which choice I made, I'd feel guilty that anyone died, and I'd feel at least partially responsible. But if I was a doctor in the other case, the decision would be clear to me, and I wouldn't feel like it was my fault if the other five died (assuming I had done everything possible, short of killing another person, to save them).
-
INXS - The One Thing (I like the messy dining table.) Ian Astbury in leather pants
-
The two scenarios are different. The doctor knows that the one man will die if his organs are used to save the others, and the doctor would effectively be committing murder. In the subway scenario, there is no way to know if the people down the tracks will die, no matter which option you choose. You may be held legally responsible if you flip the switch and one man dies, but it probably wouldn't be considered murder.
-
If you haven't opted out (and assuming that you have been made aware that you will be a donor unless you opt out), then you have basically given your permission. I think this is a better way to do things than the current way. I think a lot of people wouldn't mind to be donors, but they don't care enough to make the effort.