Random Politics & Religion #08

Topic banned I believe.

Lordgrim has been temp banned for about a year, but I don't think anyone can claim him to be either liberal or conservative, that's far gone he is.

I miss them 2, ban the banhammer we are all adults here.

Has a liberal ever been banned from any of these p and r threads?

It isn't the best in the world but not bad for a chain pizza place.

So coming to prominence on a racist birther wave, calling Mexicans rapists and drug dealers while proceeding to trash pretty much every major non-white group is liberal?

Trump has a hardon for Putin and anyone who bullies their way across leadership. How he waxes with delight that he could one day suppress media, attack people with no consequence and do as he pleases all while his rabid base of '*** political correctness...so long as it cuts my way' boosts him to new heights of narcissism.

That's rich coming from a guy who cheated on his wife.

Yup. I'm seen as a liberal here and I've been banned quite a few times...

So yeah... What trump policies do you like? You said that you did in a previous post but never stated which policies...

Take this you Feminists.
and this!, THIS too!

sorry, I just love the entire "women and men are the same" BS that's being shoved in our faces by some very stupid people who skipped biology in high school.

So to summarize SCIENCE SAYS as a male, my health improves with the more sexual partners I have, while as a woman, you go batshit crazy, eventually.

Edit/remove this post if you think Science is sexist, feminists!


Ghostbusters sucked by the way.

Obama has a hard on for Ho Chi Mihn, that doesn't make him a communist, now does it?

Obama also respects Mao Zedong. Again, does that make him somebody who would spread communism in this country?

Like Trump, beyond what you think from Liberal Media talking points Trump is not anti gay rights.

So? And somehow, this means what again? My argument is that the Republicans couldn't do a damn thing in the first 2 years of Obama's tenure because they had next to no power to do anything, and yet, it seems like everyone is blaming the Republicans for everything that happened in 2009 and 2010.

I'm sure you are going to argue with me about that too, aren't you? Because, in your version of reality, the Republicans had the supermajority and also passed Obamacare and a bunch of ***since then....

(NaturalNews) One of the world's leading geneticists wants to bring back an extinct human species by cloning it from reconstructed DNA, then implanting the resulting embryo into the womb of a human woman.

"Now I need an adventurous female human," said George Church of Harvard Medical School. "It depends on a hell of a lot of things, but I think it can be done."

Church wants to resurrect Neanderthals, which went extinct 33,000 years ago. Although popular culture has portrayed Neanderthals as stupid, brutish and wild, evidence suggests that they were probably as intelligent as our own species.

Major ethical concerns

Church is one of the originators of the Human Genome Project that mapped the human genetic code. He is also one of the foremost developers of the field of synthetic biology.

He says that he has collected and analyzed enough Neanderthal DNA from bone fragments to create an artificial reconstruction – yes, just like the artificial reconstruction of dinosaur DNA at the center of the plot of Jurassic Park. Church would then inject this DNA into human stem cells, and later inject those stem cells into a fertilized human embryo. Church believes that the stem cells – with Neanderthal DNA – would hijack the DNA of the embryo and lead to the development of a Neanderthal instead of a human.

The embryo would be implanted into a human surrogate to develop in utero.

"It is hard to know where to begin with the ethical and safety concerns," responded Philippa Taylor of the Christian Medical Fellowship.

In an interview with German magazine Der Spiegel, Church sets out his tenuous rationale for the project.

"Neanderthals might think differently than we do. They could even be more intelligent than us," he said.

"When the time comes to deal with an epidemic or getting off the planet, it's conceivable that their way of thinking could be beneficial."

Of course, Church completely ignores or glosses over the massive safety and ethical implications of his genetic tampering. Experts have raised concerns about the possibility of genetic errors producing deformity in the cloned Neanderthals, while others have noted that a 33,000-year extinct species would have no immunity to modern diseases.

Bioethcist Bernard Rollin notes that cloning an extinct human being poses particular ethical challenges. How can Neanderthals consent to being brought back from extinction into a human-dominated world?

"I don't think it's fair to put people... into a circumstance where they are going to be mocked and possibly feared," Rollins said.

Church's plan may actually be illegal, as nearly all countries on earth, including his native United Kingdom, ban human reproductive cloning. Yet, because Church plans to clone Neanderthals and not modern humans, some governments might decide that those laws do not apply.

Mad science rolls on

Church's plan may sound like mad science, but it's part of a growing trend of genetic engineers increasingly setting their sights on the human genome.

In 2015, Chinese scientists became the first to admit that they had performed human "germline modification" – that is, they had modified the DNA of a human embryo.

Modern genetic therapies target only adult cells, giving them limited impact. But modifications to sperm, egg or embryonic cells affect the entire organism and are inherited by future generations.

Experts worldwide have called for a moratorium on human germline modification, citing diverse and significant ethical concerns. But the call has gone unheeded. In February of this year, the United Kingdom's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) gave the Francis Crick Institute permission to perform genetic modification experiments on human embryos.

"The HFEA now has the reputation of being the first regulator in the world to approve this uncertain and dangerous technology," said Anne Scanlan of the nonprofit group LIFE. "It has ignored the warnings of over a hundred scientists worldwide and given permission for a procedure which could have damaging far-reaching implications for human beings."

No, what I'm saying is that the Democrats didn't have supermajority for the first two years either, so they didn't steamroll anything through either.

And now for something completely different


Wonder how much they're offering?

No, what I'm saying is that the Democrats didn't have supermajority for the first two years either, so they didn't steamroll anything through either.

They steamrolled Obamacare through. How many Republicans voted for that again?

Haha wasn't asking in that regard. Meant more like what is the profit motivation they're offering up to the female host.

"Now I need an adventurous female human," said George Church of Harvard Medical School.EVERY DUDE EVER

Argument was that GOP shut down a program that could have prevented the shootings at Dallas and Baton Rouge 7 years ago.

Counterpoint was that Republicans had next to no power to shut down any programs. Especially those that pertain with the executive branch of the federal government.

You are arguing something completely different. When you want to discuss the argument at hand, then by all means, please do so.

Blazed... Eeyeah, no. Don't use InfoWars as an attempted factual source, m'kay? Alex Jones is why LG is so batshit insane even I blocked him.