The Organisation Forums

Oh? For thousands of years children were sent out to work in fields when they were capable and beat if they looked at their parents the wrong way, love has nothing to do with whether you are someones real offspring after all adoptions are common and if anything the percentage of mutual love in adoptions is higher than normal parent-children relationships.

Untrue. The stereotypes in society set the way in which children were treated. The father taught them discipline, but that was because that was the way society had taught them to show love.

As for adoptions, the parents are routinely checked up on to see if they are good parents. If these checks didn't happen, we could see abuse everywhere. In addition, hateful people don't tend to adopt children, and thus would not like clones, though they would probably value their own offspring.

From someone who complained earlier about me not explaining you sure seem to not give any reasons why people would love their children but not clones. Making a child is making a child either way, but as long as religion reigns supreme I suppose clones will be looked down upon but when and if religion is overthrown it may or may not become socially acceptable, only time can tell for sure.

On the contrary, I have explained why - it is a natural bond, a feeling like "I won this race by myself" only much deeper and more powerful than that. It is a mark of the times, an achievement, an accomplishment. Only children born out of hatred go unloved.

But yes, as long as the world is ruled by "God", most of the higher-end science will be delayed.

On the contrary, I have explained why - it is a natural bond, a feeling like "I won this race by myself" only much deeper and more powerful than that. It is a mark of the times, an achievement, an accomplishment. Only children born out of hatred go unloved.
And this is based on?

It is based on the accumulated knowledge of a lifetime. I could ask the same of you.

So you propose that we can refer to accumulated knowledge over a lifetime? This system can never work because than any moron (Not that I am calling you a moron) can just say "Yeah well in my lifetime I have seen some stuff to indicate that pigs can defy gravity" and civilization as we know it would decay further. Although your accumulated knowledge may imply one thing mine implies another, so it appears that we are at an impasse.

But can morons truly debate? If their arguments were completely unbased, it would be evident. "Seeing something" is not the same as "accumulating knowledge". One could define science itself as "accumulated knowledge", could one not? Science itself is a variable; it changes as new discoveries are made. As such, from the sources that I have read in my lifetime, including the short story, "Penny in the Dust", it appears that fathers have harboured their feelings inside for a great deal of time in the past.

Things such as stereotyping and cultural bias make this evident, as well. Set roles have been assigned to people for centuries, and it has only been recently that they have begun to break away from these traditions. With the rise of intellectuals, the age has changed.

But can morons truly debate? If their arguments were completely unbased, it would be evident. "Seeing something" is not the same as "accumulating knowledge". One could define science itself as "accumulated knowledge", could one not? Science itself is a variable; it changes as new discoveries are made. As such, from the sources that I have read in my lifetime, including the short story, "Penny in the Dust", it appears that fathers have harboured their feelings inside for a great deal of time in the past.
To answer your first question I must first know how you define debate. But seeing something is accumulating knowledge, you see what it looks like therefore you know what it looks like, the same goes for all of our senses. Yes that is all very well and good but one was not defining accumulated knowledge as science one as defining it as what one has experienced in life. I find it hard to take fictional stories as proof, but in the case of that story I can admit that there are situations like that but that does not mean that it is a majority of situations, there are abusive and resentful relationship out there between blood, and loving caring ones between genetic strangers.

Things such as stereotyping and cultural bias make this evident, as well. Set roles have been assigned to people for centuries, and it has only been recently that they have begun to break away from these traditions. With the rise of intellectuals, the age has changed.
The rise of intellectuals? I think you might not realize just how crammed full of morons this planet is, they come in every shape size. As for assigned roles, yes there have in the past been assigned roles and there still are today, although I do not see how pointing out that society changes helps your point.

But accumulating knowledge is generally held in more than a simple sense of experience. Yes, we experience things constantly, but the minute amount of information we acquire from this is hardly anything compared to actual study. When you are looking for a specific point and are actually studying a subject, it is far easier to make relevant points. This is why not morons aren't believed - their claims are obviously faulty.

I don't, however, see how pointing out that there are exceptions to every rule aids your point. Yes, some adopted children are loved, but from what we get from the news, magazines, the internet, and books show us a much higher percentage of dissimilar genetics causing strife within a family. Most abusive relationships between those of common blood tend to be because of an unresolved issue in the parent's life, and the love is still there, at least from what those same sources tell us.



And who are the people in central control of society? Politicians, scientists, and philosophers. Bush is merely a tool for the officials behind him, I believe, and they are intelligent enough to manipulate people for money. Scientists and philosophers are changing the way the world thinks. Just because they are a minority does not mean they do not have power.

Societal roles prove my point by saying that fathers were forced not to show their love for their children because of societal stereotypes, and that is still in effect today.

Well it seems that we have differing viewpoints about society but the end result is the same we both agree that cloning and genetic modification are good abd that society is holding bothe categories back.

True enough. The wider picture can be agreed with; a few smaller details, perhaps not.

And now we wait for some moron with the wrong general views.

Which could definitely take a while...

I know for a fact that there is a board member who is against genetic modification and cloning humans if not for organ harvesting.