Raider5678

Or you can do it like China. If she's a girl, choose to abort her, if he's a boy, let him live. Wait. Wrong terminology. If IT is a female, choose to abort it. If IT is a male, let it live. Then we won't have those ethical concerns about being able to select the gender of a child through genetic engineering.

We should bring back monthly debates, I personally feel like that'd be a lot of fun.

I'm not gonna count if that's what you're implying.

This is a science forum. Please provide evidence we did this today and not a few weeks/months ago. The peer review process by iNow has sparked this question, so you must now provide answers to prove your claim. (I'm kidding)

No, but we can certainly use common sense to figure out genetic modification can cause problems, and the chance of internal combustion engines to end the world is lower.

They already appear to be an entirely different race sometimes......

Internal combustion engines can't really be associated with genetic engineering. That's a far cry to say they both carry the same amount of risk. It's like saying that we shouldn't fear nuclear weapons because tulips could evolve to kill everyone on earth as well. Sure, they both carry risk, however you can't really say that it's an equal risk. That's one of the things I have against genetic engineering. If only the rich can afford it, they very well could become an entirely different race.

The biggest problem for me comes when we begin genetically engineering humans without a need for it. I.E. super strength, genius intelligence, etc. Things like that. One, we can't ask the baby if that's what it would want in life. More then likely, if the parents get the child genetically engineered, it's because of something that parents want the child to be. Two, it opens up a whole new ballpark for the government to start making superhuman soldiers. Three, it'll most certainly create a separation between the rich and the poor. The rich being able to afford it, will simply make their children insanely good. You think the poor have disadvantages now, wait until simply being rich means you're genetically predisposed to be better. Four, unintended consequences of messing around with genetics are real. They can happen. If it's necessary to cure a disease or something, then it's a cost/benefit analysis. For fun, it's not. I have no problem with genetically engineering people for doing good. Genetically engineering them without a specific reason is something I think we should carefully consider.

I don't think Obama should have shut it down. It would have been essentially the same thing Trump is doing as of now, but with different motives. However, the left believe all the investigations into Hilliary were for political gain with no evidence and the investigations into Trump are all well founded with evidence. The right believes the exact opposite: the investigations into Hilliary were well founded and the investigations into Trump are all for political gain.

What you see as unrealistic I see as apparent with this: I'd say your overall opinion of him is that he's a good man.

Either you have a positive opinion of him or a negative opinion of him. You can like certain things and dislike others, however, they always lead to either a positive or negative opinion of someone. Depends if the good outweighs the bad typically.

Ah, so both sides don't like him. Including you?

I don't need to put words in his mouth. He can say them himself. Phi, if you feel that at the time when you made that statement that you didn't intend to imply that Putin and Comey both purposefully interfered with the election, then say so. However, the way I read it, due to Comey and Putin being looped together, it was implying they were both guilty of similar actions. Maybe not the same, but similar. I'm also curious if Swansnot is gonna get involved in this topic. He complained about Comey quite a bit. That's hilarious. I can just see you doing it at the computer while you typed it.

No, I am not. However, it's very clear that it's associated what Comey did to what Putin did: Purposefully meddling in the elections.

(Not sure how to quote. However, luckily, the search function makes it easy for you to fact check this) Clinton won the popular vote, and may have won cleanly without Comey and Putin's interference. While I don't condone the violence, I approve the fact that Americans are protesting something that matters, rather than just sitting back and taking it in the keister yet again. - Phi November 10th, 2016.

Perhaps. However, this statement might as well sum it up: 10 positive adjectives. I'd say that means liberals have a fairly high opinion of him, and not just his This isn't an attempt to blow off the discussion. I simply commented I distinctly remember when several members on this forum were accusing Comey of PURPOSEFULLY lying and plotting with Trump to undermine Hilliary. Call it hand-waiving(waving) and whataboutism. However, I am being honest. It is something I see and decided to comment on even though I knew you guys would deny it. If you step back with an objective view, surely you can see what I was saying. You(yes, you Phi. You've helped me widen my view several times, let me help you widen yours.) have seemingly gone from believing that Comey was plotting with Trump, to no longer even be able to recall a single instance of Comey having done something untruthful. Hence the statement "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." And I am willing to stand by this belief: The only reason Comey is not seen as a lying crook to you anymore is that he no longer supports Trump. I like Comey. I fully support the guy. I respect him 10x more then I will ever respect Trump. However, without a shadow of a doubt, I know the only reason that you guys have started respecting him as well is that he no longer supports Trump. I am one of them. IMO it has a lot to do with his politics as well.

They are. It's cause and effect. Let's assume the future is already determined. Your free-will is what determined the future, the future didn't determine your free-will.

This whole thing reminds me of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Just after the election people on this forum were slamming Comey for leaking things about Hilliary and her emails, blaming him for being one of the reasons Trump won, and going on and on about how he was partisanly motivated when he released the emails because he knew it would hurt Hillary. Now it appears he's an angel sent from God himself to fight the big orange monster in the white house.

I'm not sure either, however I believe you've taken this statement out of context. He was referring to the air strikes, not Syria.

For some reason I get the feeling the U.S.A. definitely has a team of assassins, they just aren't using them. Fair enough.

Perhaps this could work. Scaring him might do the trick. However, when you begin targeting world leaders, things get complicated. Because it's like the ultimate unspoken rule of modern global warfare: Don't target the leader unless you're willing to go all in. If you do kill him with missiles on accident(Launching billion dollar explosives at targets does that sometimes), then it's not as easy to say "This was definitely not a declaration of war" because it basically is. Perhaps, but it might become another China/North Korea thing. To the world: "We don't support North Korea." To North Korea: "Here, have some oil."

What would you propose we do then? If your position is "I'm going to complain how we're doing things, even though I have absolutely no idea what else we could do" then you have no place to complain. I don't care about your feelings on how you don't like something if you have no other solution. If we use democracy, nothing get's done. We attempted that. If you look at history, they tried this to try and stop world war 2. Tens of millions of people died at the hands of Nazi's because we wanted to avoid war. We didn't want to see another massive conflict that killed millions. So we tried. We tried to sanction them, we tried diplomacy, we tried expressing our contempt for the things they were doing, and the result was that the regimes didn't care. If you don't believe me then look up the world diplomacy at that time and the foreign policy. At some point, we have to get involved. People are quick to point out how terrible war is, and I agree. It sucks. People die. People suffer. Not just soldiers, but families of soldiers, the citizens in the territory, families of those who die, and more. But Assad isn't some rude politician. He's a dictator, who actively kills his own people. He actively tortures them in horrific ways for speaking out against him. Then, when those people are fed up with him, they rebel. And they would have won if Russia had not gotten involved. You're complaining about our tolerance for human suffering when you yourself are MORE THEN WILLING to let the 18 million people in Syria suffer and die under Assad. When they clearly wanted freedom only to be invaded by a foreign power, not to get rid of their government, but to restore it back to a ruthless dictatorship. You can complain all you like. Go ahead. However unless you have a better idea, and provide it, there is absolutely no way you should expect us to take you seriously. The military advises on what course of action they think we should take. And, contrary to popular belief, it isn't always some old white dude smoking a cigar saying "Nuke the shit out of em."

It very well could be a real thing.......if you remove some aspects of it. First aspect you have to remove is being dead. Zombies would actually be living people, acting weirdly due to a disease, like rabies. Once a person is dead, they can be revived, however, it's not because of a disease typically. Second, you have to remove the aspect of their bodies falling apart, missing legs, etc. Again, they'd most likely be dead then. So, zombies would essentially people with a weird brain disease that makes them act oddly. So, let's contribute some traits to "zombies" in real life. 1. They no longer have the capability of rational thought. 2. They are aggressive, scratching and biting people(saliva allowing the transfer of the disease). It's actually possible something like this could show up and unlease zombies across the world. Right? Wrong. Biggest flaw with zombies is that they'd be easy to kill. Maybe not for civilians, but bring in a few soldiers and they're good as dead. If you had to hide from them, just grab some food and water and stay locked up in your house for a few days. They'll almost all be universally dead by that point, because diseases don't take away the need for water. Something I doubt zombies will be looking out for.

Today I learned that most missiles are actually solid fuel rather than liquid fuel, due to their ability to remain usable for decades without having to worry about the corrosive effects of liquid fuel.

Maybe. I treat them differently, yes. I don't mean to hurt anyone, and I certainly don't mean to say someone is better than another simply because of their gender. More then anything I want to help them, and sometimes that means realizing that you can't treat them the same way all the time.