DOTD - Debate of The Day #52

Post by 168916

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by gamerunknown

There were times where I'd been far ahead of the class and other times where I'd been off sick and struggled to catch up. Both of those times I desperately wanted supplemental education, at my own pace, which wasn't available at the time.

The issue with online education, as I see it, is standardised testing and cheating. Perhaps there could be able 10~ contact hours a week to ensure a mandatory minimum and the rest could be up to the student (sceptical me assumed they'd do all the studying immediately prior to the contact hours).

Post by 557473

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by FatalHeaven

#18: Cloneing. For or Against. Why?

Post by MyTie

For - It may assist with food production.

Post by Atik

For

I don't see a reason to be against it. The cloned creature will begin life as a baby and grow as a complete individual. Can't understand why it offends some people.

Edit: And MyTie makes a good point. Cloning plant and animal life we consume might help lessesn our damage to the planet.

Post by Squishalot

For - It may assist with food production.

I'm actually surprised at your view on this. The mainstream Christian view is that cloning = 'playing God' and doing things which are abnormal and abhorrent. There isn't anything about cloning that you object to? Or is it just that the benefit outweighs the moral cost?

I don't see a reason to be against it. The cloned creature will begin life as a baby and grow as a complete individual. Can't understand why it offends some people.

The use of DNA in criminal investigations would suggest that there can be some reasons why cloning may be dangerous, given our current investigative techniques.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##

Post by MyTie

Edit: Any MyTie makes a good point. Cloning plant and animal life we consume might help lessesn our damage to the planet.

Whoa whoa. Don't try to tack an environmental slant on my viewpoint. I never make any argument that we should do anything "because of the environment", because that line of argument has crippled the US economy, both nationally, and locally where I live. I despise that line of thinking.

The reason I think helping with food production is helpful is, exactly like I said, it helps produce food. Producing food more economically will assist the markets, and possibly help alleviate starvation in parts of the world. That makes a whole lot more sense to me than "the environment".For - It may assist with food production.

I'm actually surprised at your view on this. The mainstream Christian view is that cloning = 'playing God' and doing things which are abnormal and abhorrent. There isn't anything about cloning that you object to? Or is it just that the benefit outweighs the moral cost?

I don't subscribe to the "mainstream Christian" view, on... well... anything that I'm aware of. I don't find it very Christianly. Have you been to the homosexual marriage thread?

Anyway, God gave humans dominion over the animals. If we want to clone them, then that's up to us. They belong to us.

Post by Atik

Post by Adamsm

Depends on what is being cloned:

For: The revival of extinct species, increase of food and that's about it.

Against: Cloning humans for any reason.

Post by Levarus

Post by Squishalot

The use of DNA in criminal investigations would suggest that there can be some reasons why cloning may be dangerous, given our current investigative techniques.

Isn't DNA testing already pretty inaccurate as it is and can still land you with hundreds of subjects?

I believe it depends on the number of matching points - the points you match up, the more accurate the test will be. Although this article attacks the use of DNA, it highlights fairly clearly what the issue is.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/accuracy-dna-matches-definitively-identify-suspects-questioned

Anyway, God gave humans dominion over the animals. If we want to clone them, then that's up to us. They belong to us.

So that's where you'd draw the line - cloning animals? Not humans?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##

Post by MyTie

And MyTie, I'm using your statement to assist in my own point. Whether that is what you intended for it is in no way my problem. :P

Atik makes a good point. Helping the environment is good, so we should destroy all human life.

So that's where you'd draw the line - cloning animals? Not humans?Since cloning humans isn't possible, let's not bother discussing it.

Post by Atik

Eh the way I see it, it really wouldn't be much more complex than other criminal cases involving DNA testing that leads to multiple subjects.

I mean, I can make the same arguement about twins.

We should stop letting twins exist, because if one twins commits a crime, the DNA testing gets all flubbed up...

But, it comes down to real investigation. And the fact that clones will be of different ages makes it even easier, as witness descriptions will usually point you towards which age clone your going after, or in some cases (Say, one is 20 and the other is 5) it might just end up obvious.

EDIT: MyTie, cloning humans is COMPLETELY possible. It's no different than artificial insemination (sp) or cloning sheep or cows or anything....

Post by 557473

This post was from a user who has deleted their account.

Post by Squishalot

Since cloning humans isn't possible, let's not bother discussing it.

It's extremely unreliable at the moment, but I'd hardly call it impossible. We're creating organs from stem cells - I would warrant that the only reason we haven't cloned a human yet is due to moral / ethical / legal grounds, rather than a scientific inability to do so.

Post by Atik

For - Cloning humans would result in an increased demand for food, and more people on this damn planet, and I'm sure robotics would be much more efficient for the military rather than raising clones, but you could clone geniuses, and by geniuses, I mean people like Albert Einstein or other such intellectuals. That would greatly help increase the growth of humanity.

Just gotta say Lev.

Cloning Albert won't give you a new genius to discover great things. He will lead a completely different life and end up as a different individual.

Hell, he might end up as a newscaster for all you know.

Post by MyTie

EDIT: MyTie, cloning humans is COMPLETELY possible. It's no different than artificial insemination (sp) or cloning sheep or cows or anything....

I'm confused. Are we talking about this or this?Since cloning humans isn't possible, let's not bother discussing it.

It's extremely unreliable at the moment, but I'd hardly call it impossible. We're creating organs from stem cells - I would warrant that the only reason we haven't cloned a human yet is due to moral / ethical / legal grounds, rather than a scientific inability to do so.

Last I heard we could clone sheep, but not very well, and only because the structure was easily clone-able. Do you have any literature?

Post by Levarus

Post by Atik

EDIT: MyTie, cloning humans is COMPLETELY possible. It's no different than artificial insemination (sp) or cloning sheep or cows or anything....

I'm confused. Are we talking about this or this?

Honestly? If we're looking at it from a standpoint of morals and ethics of creating human life?

I don't see a difference.

Edit: Lev, you don't get it. They very well might. They might grow up in a life that fails to flourish their IQ. They might grow up in a life that leads to them giding their intellect. Or, hell, they might just grow up as a kid who wants to be a damn newscaster.

DOTD - Debate of The Day #52

Post Reply