Almost there baby!

[Tramspotter]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

If I read your tea leaves correctly you seem to imply that science needs some limits - yet you otherwise seem to be rather libertarian in other thought. Is that correct? If so, how do you reconcile the two?

It seems to me that science and progress move forward despite our efforts to contain it - all hail the neuton bomb etc.

Limiting unaccountable public funding seems reasonable to me apparently not others... who went completely simian excrement regarding that stance.

Transparency/accountability for absolute recklessness in the private sector.
(but by who's yardstick is the rub) careless enough to release a plague or show off your abomination as a work of beautiful craftsmanship you risk being hunted down by the pich-fork wielding villagers.

Yes good example, thank the FSM that nuclear weapons are no longer a threat. And that nuclear power now safely supplies all our electrical needs.

[BarTopDancer]

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Tramspotter

Yes good example, thank the FSM that nuclear weapons are no longer a threat. And that nuclear power now safely supplies all our electrical needs.

Ok, wait, stop! Right there! WTF does that mean? Ok, at least I understand that the first sentence is a joke, in light of the recent world issues regarding who has nukes and who's trying to get them. But what about the next sentence? Are you trying to say that we should not have pursued nuclear capabilities at all? Are you saying that nuclear power is not a safe choice for power? Do you really discount all the good that nuclear studies have done? All the knowledge we've gained? You'd really say "we should not have learned that, it was dangerous knowledge?"

Really?

[Tramspotter]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

Ok, wait, stop! Right there! WTF does that mean? Ok, at least I understand that the first sentence is a joke, in light of the recent world issues regarding who has nukes and who's trying to get them. But what about the next sentence? Are you trying to say that we should not have pursued nuclear capabilities at all? Are you saying that nuclear power is not a safe choice for power? Do you really discount all the good that nuclear studies have done? All the knowledge we've gained? You'd really say "we should not have learned that, it was dangerous knowledge?"

Really?

Not at all.

Why don't we have coast to coast nuclear now that the tech is damn near meltdown proof and far more efficient?

Let me help out by being as clear as possible while still trying to maintain my individual style:

I think it might have something to do with an extreme and nonsensical regulatory burden authored by competing energy interests and some militant, vegan, petrouli soaked, yet still foul smelling, professional protesters, loitering about a heavily bumper-stickered and slogan painted VW van that I saw on the Venice boardwalk the other day.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Tramspotter

Not at all.

Why don't we have coast to coast nuclear now that the tech is damn near meltdown proof and far more efficient?

Let me help out by being as clear as possible while still trying to maintain my individual style:

I think it might have something to do with an extreme and nonsensical regulatory burden authored by competing energy interests and some militant, vegan, petrouli soaked, yet still foul smelling, professional protesters, loitering about a heavily bumper-stickered and slogan painted VW van that I saw on the Venice boardwalk the other day.

So you're complaining about the regulatory burdens put on nuclear power but you want to put regulatory burdens on biotechnology?

I'm so confused.

[Kevy Baby]

This is like watching a train wreck

[Tramspotter]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

So you're complaining about the regulatory burdens put on nuclear power but you want to put regulatory burdens on biotechnology?

I'm so confused.

No is offering it up as a reason that efficient modern Nuclear power plants are not built that far off.

And I am certainly complaining about damn hippies and others who protest nuclear energy.

And said nothing of regulatory burdens on biotech.

I just opposed government funding of anything that raises significant ethical issues and bemoan the scientific community's seeming lack of restraint and curent push to have a better shocking sideshow sudo advancements for more funding rather than starting out addressing concerns and showing the controls in place. The current course certainly eventually will produce something so egregious that the public clamor for regulations and a overreaching clamp down of useful and ethically reasonable progress.

The unabashed hardon I have seen amongst many LOT'ers for unrestrained and perhaps medically & ethically sketchy research concerns my sensibility's more than a bible thumpers moral objections to the same. Holding humans above animals I hope in most of our ethical road maps (although there are I'm sure some animal rights folks here who don't) is only the start of that bag of worms...

[blueerica]

TS - I think you're failing to see that there is actually a fairly balanced mix of those in this thread who are for and against it. For many here, the concept that a goat is part human is alarming, at least on some level. Some see it for a medical benefit, others see it for some strange sort of sci-fi moment for the here and now - something to be perhaps worried about.

I think the big issue, at least from how I see it, is that looks like you came in here looking for a fight - when there wasn't as much of one to be had. If you read many of the posts, it's not like so many people are against you - they're sort of against the way you've approached this very important debate on man, technology and belief. You came in with guns, and seem surprised that people are turned off by it. This is a serious issue, worthy of a serious tone, not the tone with which you've diminished this argument with - you're starting a flame war. Have anyone from the outside read your first post - read it out loud for yourself - and perhaps you'll see what I'm seeing.

Frankly, while I'm not in disagreement with you, your choice of jargon turns me off. Speak plainly - by the way you're going at it now you're just losing support from those who might otherwise support your views.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Personally, I agree wholeheartedly with your position on nuclear energy. I just have some problems, like others, with the presentation of those positions. Give people a chance to express their opinions and you might learn what those opinions are. It seems more productive than to just try to get a rise out of everyone.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Tramspotter

The unabashed hardon

Is there any other kind?