Interesting Stuff Thread

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I simply don't see how what they've put their child through has improved the child's quality of life. I think it was done to improve the parents quality of life, and that for me is where the moral dilemma arises, and certainly there are ethical considerations to allowing these kinds of procedures to gain widespread acceptance in wider society.

It has got to be a case of the parents taking a personal decision in weighing up the odds (and who can judge, except them?). Perhaps it didn't improve the child's quality of life directly, but indirectly through improving the parent's quality of life it is likely to enable them to continue to give their child as good or better a quality of life as they possibly can. If you see the difference.

recedite

I agree that there is usually an overlap between the parent's interests and the child's interests in such cases. The parents may be making sacrifices to their own quality of life, and also to other children in the family.
So whats good for one, is usually good for all.

I've no direct experience of this thankfully, but a couple of years ago I was visiting a HSE house where Downs syndrome adults were living under supervised conditions. Immediately two of them appeared in front of me and one started shaking my hand so vigorously that it hurt. Of course he was only being friendly, but I was a bit shocked at his strength. The supervisor encouraged him to let me go, and explained that his parents would have liked to keep him at home, but they were unable to manage him because he was physically stronger than them. And there had been a few incidents. Downs syndrome is only a mild form of disability compared to what others have described in the last few posts.

kylith

I think that that girls parents made the right choice, which has enabled them to give their daughter a better quality of life than she would otherwise have.

One eyed Jack

Shrap wrote: »

It has got to be a case of the parents taking a personal decision in weighing up the odds (and who can judge, except them?). Perhaps it didn't improve the child's quality of life directly, but indirectly through improving the parent's quality of life it is likely to enable them to continue to give their child as good or better a quality of life as they possibly can. If you see the difference.

Sure I can see the difference alright - obviously enabling the parents to better manage the child's condition indirectly improves the child's quality of life in that respect, and no, I wouldn't judge them for trying to improve their child's life, but what I'm saying is that the way in which they have improved their child's quality of life shouldn't have been available to them.

The procedures shouldn't be available as an option to anyone, and I would argue that from an ethnical perspective with regard to the child's rights, while at the same time understanding the moral dilema it presents for parents.

Shrap

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't judge them for trying to improve their child's life, but what I'm saying is that the way in which they have improved their child's quality of life shouldn't have been available to them.

So who IS to be the judge of whether this option should or should not be available? You say you wouldn't judge them, but you are judging it was wrong that they had this option.

It has helped at least one family to cope with profound disability, so therefore I'm happy it was available to them. The rights and wrongs of changing the child to alleviate the difficulty of the care issues aren't my call, thanks be to fcuk.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sure I can see the difference alright - obviously enabling the parents to better manage the child's condition indirectly improves the child's quality of life in that respect, and no, I wouldn't judge them for trying to improve their child's life, but what I'm saying is that the way in which they have improved their child's quality of life shouldn't have been available to them.

The procedures shouldn't be available as an option to anyone, and I would argue that from an ethnical perspective with regard to the child's rights, while at the same time understanding the moral dilema it presents for parents.

I would disagree. What would be the point of allowing her to menstruate and likely cause her terrible pain (bad period pain can run in families)? Were she to grow to average size it's unlikely that her parents would be able to physically manage her. She would, as her mother said, spend the rest of her life in a bed staring at a ceiling that she can't even see. This way she can be brought outside, she will be able to stay with her family instead of being moved to a hospital or home. She will never have the capacity to understand what she has 'lost'.

Should all physically handicapped people receive this treatment? No, I don't think so. Should it be available to the parents of seriously handicapped children who will never recover to enable their condition to be better managed? Yes, I think so, with medical guidance. Her growth has been stopped, she hasn't had her legs amputated.

One eyed Jack

Shrap wrote: »

So who IS to be the judge of whether this option should or should not be available? You say you wouldn't judge them, but you are judging it was wrong that they had this option.

It has helped at least one family to cope with profound disability, so therefore I'm happy it was available to them. The rights and wrongs of changing the child to alleviate the difficulty of the care issues aren't my call, thanks be to fcuk.

There are all sorts of ethical committees would decide whether these measures should be available (I remember a couple of years back there was the whole issue of human cloning), but at specific country level, I think it would be decided by the courts -

The principal purpose of the treatment was to improve Ashley's quality of life by limiting her growth in size, eliminating menstrual cramps and bleeding, and preventing discomfort from large breasts. The combination of the surgery and the estrogen therapy attracted much public comment and ethical analysis in early 2007, both supportive and condemning. The hospital later admitted that the surgery was illegal and should only have been performed after a court order, a position that is disagreed upon by the attorney of Ashley's family.

In the United Kingdom, the British Medical Association stated, "If a similar case occurred in the UK, we believe it would go to court and whatever decision was ruled would be in the best interests of the child." Dr. Peter Hindmarsh, Professor of Paediatric Endocrinology at Great Ormond Street Hospital was troubled by the treatment decision being taken by a hospital ethics committee. "'I am not sure the ethics committee was the right place to decide,' he said, adding that it was not clear who represented the child's interests when it went before the committee."

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Treatment

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

enabling the parents to better manage the child's condition indirectly improves the child's quality of life in that respect...

The procedures shouldn't be available as an option to anyone, and I would argue that from an ethnical perspective with regard to the child's rights, while at the same time understanding the moral dilema it presents for parents.

Why should it not be available if it could improve the child's quality of life?

robindch

Science locates an explanation for the rude health of Senator Ronan Mullan and Pope Quinn:

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/happy-news-masturbation-actually-has-health-benefits-0

Shrap

robindch wrote: »

Science locates an explanation for the rude health of Senator Ronan Mullan and Pope Quinn:

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/happy-news-masturbation-actually-has-health-benefits-0

Well, thank you for that mental image :mad:

Pherekydes

robindch wrote: »

Science locates an explanation for the rude health of Senator Ronan Mullan and Pope Quinn:

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/happy-news-masturbation-actually-has-health-benefits-0

**** might have health benefits, but I don't think being a wanker has.

looksee

Pherekydes wrote: »

**** might have health benefits, but I don't think being a wanker has.

but if...then who would get the benefits?

Hotblack Desiato

looksee wrote: »

but if...then who would get the benefits?

I hear friends get benefits these days.

Bristolscale7

Five great quotes about heaven:

“It is a curious thing that every creed promises a paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for anyone of civilized taste.” — Evelyn Waugh

“I have read descriptions of Paradise that would make any sensible person stop wanting to go there.” — Montesquieu

“In heaven, all the interesting people are missing.” — Friedrich Nietzsche

“Of the delights of this world man cares most for sexual intercourse, yet he has left it out of his heaven.” — Mark Twain

“I should have no use for a paradise in which I should be deprived of the right to prefer hell.” — Jean Rostand

From: http://www.futilitycloset.com/2016/01/05/faded-glory/

Overheal

From a facebook rabble roost, I thought it was actually a pretty good thought

I have read the Bible. Old & New. I will admit i am not so familar with the Torah, nor have I read the full Koran. I have however studied the history of islam, and can in my own opion state that it is a copycat of Christianity, which of course piggybacked off the Torah, which is based on the old testement. I can only say that the New Testement is far more advanced than either of the others when it comes to God's will. God will as far as I believe wishes all races to live in love ,and peace. Notice i did not mention religion. It is my belief that is religion that tears humanity apart. I do believe in God, however i don't believe God likes all these differant religions. Maybe John Lennon nailed it when he sang about a world without religions. A world living together in peace and harmony.I believe Jesus Christ mission on this earth was to preach this very message. Unfortunitly the world was not ready, so the world crucified Him. The Hope is He overcame death.

Hotblack Desiato

Well then maybe god should smite a few religious leaders then, pour discourager les autres.

looksee

I have read the Bible. Old & New. I will admit i am not so familar with the Torah, nor have I read the full Koran. I have however studied the history of islam, and can in my own opion state that it is a copycat of Christianity, which of course piggybacked off the Torah, which is based on the old testement. I can only say that the New Testement is far more advanced than either of the others when it comes to God's will. God will as far as I believe wishes all races to live in love ,and peace. Notice i did not mention religion. It is my belief that is religion that tears humanity apart. I do believe in God, however i don't believe God likes all these differant religions. Maybe John Lennon nailed it when he sang about a world without religions. A world living together in peace and harmony.I believe Jesus Christ mission on this earth was to preach this very message. Unfortunitly the world was not ready, so the world crucified Him. The Hope is He overcame death.

They were doing great until the last three sentences. What the writer is saying is that they don't approve of religion...except Christianity.

pauldla

Godless Mama of godlessmama.com lists her 'Ten Contradictions Theists Just Can’t Stop Making'

1. Explaining what god is or wants, then saying humans cannot understand god.
2. Claiming that god loves us all, then rationalizing human suffering.
3. Pretending that free will and a divine plan are not mutually exclusive.
4. Behaving hatefully, then saying “god bless.”
5. Declaring god as the source of objective morality, then interpreting scripture.
6. Labeling god as omnipotent, then blaming evil on the devil.
7. Seizing upon minuscule inconsistencies in highly specialized scientific disciplines as a failure of science to explain the universe while accepting supernatural explanations for which there is no evidence.
8. Subscribing to religion, then labeling the religious beliefs of others as “crazy.”
9. Accusing atheists of cherry-picking scripture to make it look bad.
10. Claiming membership in one of thousands of sects of religion as authority for telling non-believers why our interpretation of religion is wrong.

Do any of these ring any bells?

You can read the full article here.

pH

In England, Church of England attendance drops to record low - now 1.4% of population attend an Anglican church on any given Sunday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12095251/Church-of-England-attendance-plunges-to-record-low.html

MrPudding

pH wrote: »

In England, Church of England attendance drops to record low - now 1.4% of population attend an Anglican church on any given Sunday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/12095251/Church-of-England-attendance-plunges-to-record-low.html

Great movie.

MrP

Thargor

Church attendance is dropping at the same rate as broadsheet newspaper circulation, ie customers dying of old age and not being replaced in the slightest, they're doomed.

Hotblack Desiato

MrPudding wrote: »

Great movie.

MrP

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iDfmhZAiUA

pauldla

From UPI:

Research suggests morality can survive without religion

Come one, boys and girls, what's the point of renouncing god'n'stuff if we can't get all immoral? Or could it be that the relationship between religion and morality is not as robust as some would have us believe?

robindch

In November, the Icelandic outpost of the International Humanist and Ethical Union asked over 800 Icelanders a set of 18 questions concerning their beliefs and philosophies. Over 80% of the under-25's said they were atheist or agnostic and the survey failed to locate a single Icelander younger than 25 who believed that god created the earth:

http://sidmennt.is/lifsskodanir/ (Icelandic)
http://iheu.org/creationism-is-dead-in-iceland/

looksee

I like that rite of passage, secular 'communion' idea.

robindch

Is It OK To Spank A Misbehaving Child Once In A While?

Science says "no". The religious may differ.

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/it-ok-spank-misbehaving-child-once-while

KomradeBishop

Interesting look at and critique of modern forms of the New Atheist movement:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/29/new-atheism-worse-than-you-think/

I don't know how much I agree with it all - still reading - but seeing criticism like this, often gives you a good idea of where the ideological lines/limits are drawn on a topic, and where faults may lie.

Some of the things there do seem to hold true - I have seen ways in which the modern Atheist movement, despite its emphasis on science and rationality, can be co-opted into supporting current political/economic powers - de-emphasizing the aspects of Atheism, which don't focus solely on social issues - and how this is counter to what Atheism used to be like.

KomradeBishop

Really great point in above article - where it touches on the modern Atheist movement mostly ignoring issues of economic justice:

Second, few people have noticed it, but there is a massive logical contradiction at the heart of the worldview of many New Atheists and other so-called freethinkers. Convinced that nothing is doing more to slow down human progress than religious belief, they tell us over and over again that they want to rid the world of religion, or at least vastly diminish its influence. But, for the most part, they completely ignore the most effective strategy for accomplishing that goal, namely, increasing the percentage of people who don’t have to cope with the traumas and anxieties that come with economic deprivation.

As professors Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, the leading scholarly promoters of the Existential Security Hypothesis (ESH), have convincingly demonstrated “transcendent religion is usually weakened by a sense of existential security—that is, the feeling that survival is secure enough that it can be taken for granted” while religiosity is strengthened by “feelings of vulnerability to physical, societal and personal risks.” The decline of religion, they point out “has occurred most clearly among the most prosperous social sectors living in affluent and secure post‐industrial nations.” The “driver” of secularization, then, is socioeconomic security—the result of sustainable development, reduced economic inequality, and an adequate social safety net.

looksee

I had a look at it, but there was a strong element of tl:dr about it. I really can't see why atheism has to be turned into Atheism. There is a lot of whataboutery in it. He says something about a myth that atheism is simply non-belief in the existence of any god (please don't nit pick about that definition, I mean the 'how can you believe in something that does not exist' version). But for theism there would not be atheism, why keep trying to turn atheism into a belief system?

There are people who are atheists and also have views on economics and social structures etc, why lump it all into atheism, why not discuss economists who happen to be atheists. Or people who hold these two views and find a correlation between them. It does not mean that there is actually a connection.

It is quite rational to say that religious beliefs affect society - to an unreasonable extent frequently - but you would really have to twist things around to show that not having religious beliefs has a similar effect.

looksee

duplicate

KomradeBishop

Ya agreed - it is extremely long - but parts of it are very interesting. He is talking about Atheism as a political/social movement, with a distinct competing set of (still developing) ideologies built around it - so there is a 'belief system' there, in the sense of a set of ideological principals that tend to go with Atheism.

looksee

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya agreed - it is extremely long - but parts of it are very interesting. He is talking about Atheism as a political/social movement, with a distinct competing set of (still developing) ideologies built around it - so there is a 'belief system' there, in the sense of a set of ideological principals that tend to go with Atheism.

And what I don't understand is why atheism or even Atheism should be a political/social movement. Atheism is essentially a negative situation, how can you attach political and social ideologies to that?

There may well be some ideological principals that 'tend' to go with Atheism, but why should I, when describing myself as an atheist have to then explain that is all I am and I don't necessarily subscribe to all the additional notions that have been attached by other people.

KomradeBishop

It's like the way feminism, defined as a word, is simply about equality between the sexes - but in practice, it's a very diverse movement.

You don't have to identify with a particular political strain of the Atheist movement - same way feminists don't have to pin their colours to the mast, when it comes to all the different branches of feminist ideology (neither are they mandated to publicly disassociate from them) - those political strains still exist though, and do guide a significant portion of the movement, ideologically.

One eyed Jack

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Really great point in above article - where it touches on the modern Atheist movement mostly ignoring issues of economic justice:

Second, few people have noticed it, but there is a massive logical contradiction at the heart of the worldview of many New Atheists and other so-called freethinkers. Convinced that nothing is doing more to slow down human progress than religious belief, they tell us over and over again that they want to rid the world of religion, or at least vastly diminish its influence. But, for the most part, they completely ignore the most effective strategy for accomplishing that goal, namely, increasing the percentage of people who don’t have to cope with the traumas and anxieties that come with economic deprivation.

As professors Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart, the leading scholarly promoters of the Existential Security Hypothesis (ESH), have convincingly demonstrated “transcendent religion is usually weakened by a sense of existential security—that is, the feeling that survival is secure enough that it can be taken for granted” while religiosity is strengthened by “feelings of vulnerability to physical, societal and personal risks.” The decline of religion, they point out “has occurred most clearly among the most prosperous social sectors living in affluent and secure post‐industrial nations.” The “driver” of secularization, then, is socioeconomic security—the result of sustainable development, reduced economic inequality, and an adequate social safety net.

It's lengthy alright, but well worth a read (just spent the last few hours doing so). It goes into much greater detail about the problems facing the New Atheist movement than I did a few days ago, and it's a factor that it seems they continue to ignore, which is stalling the progress of atheism. It's not religion that is in conflict with the promotion of atheism, it's socioeconomics -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And therein lies the problem - how many enlightened societies are you aware of? I'm not aware of too many apart from a few first world European countries. There's a reason i said globally, because religion isn't in crisis globally. If anything, it's expanding, because 84% of the world still lives in ignorance and poverty, and I don't see enlightened intellectuals too willing to address that glaring disparity any time soon. Sure they'll point it out and say "What kind of a God would allow for this to happen?", but that's about the extent of their altruism, and then they'll complain about the religious organisations exploiting the ignorant and impoverished while there was nothing preventing them from organising themselves to do something about it.

I truly despair sometimes for all that intellect and enlightenment going to waste.

silverharp

looksee wrote: »

And what I don't understand is why atheism or even Atheism should be a political/social movement. Atheism is essentially a negative situation, how can you attach political and social ideologies to that?

There may well be some ideological principals that 'tend' to go with Atheism, but why should I, when describing myself as an atheist have to then explain that is all I am and I don't necessarily subscribe to all the additional notions that have been attached by other people.

What I find amusing is that an atheist that will bring the full rigour of science and history etc together to try to disprove the authority of religion will park it when their pet ideology is in play :pac:

expectationlost

Wogan the atheist ‘has his place in heaven’ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/irishnews/article4679481.ece

Father Brian D’Arcy, who was a regular contributer to Wake up to Wogan on BBC Radio 2 for 20 years, said yesterday that he made his final goodbyes to his friend of more than four decades on Thursday.
“He was quite ill at that stage and I knew it wasn’t long,” he said. “We prepared for the worst, and thank God Terry got out of his suffering.”
Despite Wogan’s professed atheism, the priest said his BBC colleague was “certainly the most spiritual, faith-filled man in the world. He was filled with love, he was filled with charity, he helped so many people in a quiet way.”
He said if there was “no room in heaven for Terry Wogan . . . well then the God I’ve been preaching is way off”.

even in death the church wants to possess you

looksee

Well now, I would not have read it like that, nor given the article the title that the Times did (I can only see the quoted section). I do not see that that is what Brian D'Arcy said, and I feel that his comments were respectful and indeed not reflecting 'the church's' stand at all. Terry Wogan would probably have laughed at the idea of being spiritual and faith-filled, but in the context of what Brian D'Arcy was trying to say it was understandable.

Pherekydes

looksee wrote: »

Terry Wogan would probably have laughed at the idea of being spiritual and faith-filled, but in the context of what Brian D'Arcy was trying to say it was understandable.

So not that respectful, then.

I heard him on Liveline today and the Terry Wogan he described is totally at odds with the Terry Wogan as described by Terry Wogan on The Meaning of Life last night.

Good Christians: they never tire of misrepresenting atheists.

Hotblack Desiato

looksee wrote: »

Terry Wogan would probably have laughed at the idea of being spiritual and faith-filled, but in the context of what Brian D'Arcy was trying to say it was understandable.

Understandable for a gobshite compelled to make everything fit his preconceived, fixed ideas about the world, yeah.

One eyed Jack

"HFEA approval for new “gene editing” techniques

01 February 2016

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has approved a research application from the Francis Crick Institute to use new "gene editing" techniques on human embryos.

The aim of the research, led by Dr Kathy Niakan, a group leader at the Crick, is to understand the genes human embryos need to develop successfully.

The work carried out at the Crick will be for research purposes and will look at the first seven days of a fertilised egg's development (from a single cell to around 250 cells).

The knowledge acquired from the research will be important for understanding how a healthy human embryo develops.

This knowledge may improve embryo development after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and might provide better clinical treatments for infertility, using conventional medical methods..."


Source: https://www.crick.ac.uk/news/science-news/2016/02/01/hfea-decision/

robindch

The good folks in NASA release thousands of fantastic high-definition photos of the Apollo missions:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/

recedite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

..the Francis Crick Institute to use new "gene editing" techniques on human embryos.

I see this relatively new institute now has a fancy new facility in London, so they are obviously positioning themselves to become a pioneering world leader in gene therapies. Which will probably lead on to genetic enhancement technologies. I suppose there'll be plenty of money to be made in both areas, in the not so distant future.

silverharp

this is a surprise, havnt listened to it yet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd_XaZqda1k

looksee

Listened to half of it, will listen to the rest later. I skipped the 8 minutes of football at the beginning, but after that I found it very interesting.

Kivaro

Asteroid to make March flyby as close as 11,000 miles from Earth:
http://stgist.com/2016/02/a-large-asteroid-could-hurtle-close-to-earth-in-march-nasa-says-it-wont-hit-6704

But don't worry; scientists aren’t really sure what trajectory the asteroid is going to take when it does make its flyby in March. :eek:

And don't worry even more; because if it misses in March, it will be back again in 2017. :eek::eek:

Hotblack Desiato

It's OK, I have insurance.

Kivaro

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's OK, I have insurance.

Do you think this is why FG just announced that they are now abolishing the USC tax?

looksee

On Tuesday, NASA published a statement saying that, based on available data, the 2013 TX68 could fly past our planet as far out as 14 million kilometers to as close as 17,000 kilometers, but the space agency clarified that it won’t hit Earth.

Why is 14 m kilometers 'as far out as' and 17 m kilometers 'as close as'? Shouldn't that be the other way round, or is this some esoteric astronomical way of looking at this that I am not familiar with?

Pherekydes

looksee wrote: »

Why is 14 m kilometers 'as far out as' and 17 m kilometers 'as close as'? Shouldn't that be the other way round, or is this some esoteric astronomical way of looking at this that I am not familiar with?

I read it as 14 million and 17 thousand.

looksee

Pherekydes wrote: »

I read it as 14 million and 17 thousand.