CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Hybrid Human Cloning with other species OK?
We already eat strawberries with fish genes to tolerate cold snaps. We already inject human genes in corn in order to find a cure for cancer. Hybrid human gene cloning is already been done with plants but for some reason people are balking at the concept of Hybrid Human gene cloning with animals
Chinook Salmon genetically altered to eat year round. What are the chances that these FrankenFish may escape fish farms and alter wild endangered salmon in the open ocean?
There are a number of misrepresentations with this topic in which I will dispel. Firstly your pictures have nothing to do with the topic. One picture comes from a horror movie and the other is of a sea cucumber.
Secondly, Genetically modified food (which I assume you are talking about based on your post) has nothing to do with hybridization. Hybridization is an entirely different process. Nor does it have particularly anything to do with cloning apart from the cloning that many asexual plants do in nature anyway.
Thirdly, let's be clear about this. Genetically modified food has saved billions of lives, that's Billions with a -B. If we can modify crop that are resistant to drought, that grows better in a particular type of soil composition, this can and has saved a lot of people's lives in a lot of starving countries. In light of this, any protest of 'FrankenFood' has proven to be unfounded and irrational.
OMG - you are good - it IS from a horror movie & it IS a sea cumcumber!
But I must dispute the Big B saved lives. Monsanto does give patented seed to starving African nations for free - just like a illicit drug dealer gives a freebie to give thier future addicted customers hooked on the shit that they selling.
There is a very big thing about Monsanto's 'evil empire' selling seeds that are dependent on Monsanto's pesticides, becuase the plants are made to resist the pesticide that Monsanto makes.
Maybe that's OK for rich American corporate farmers but not for the traditional farmer in Africa.
QUOTE: "The activists said the introduction of patented seeds and related chemicals into the farming systems threatens Kenya’s agricultural practices, livelihood, the environment, and undermines national seed sovereignty. "
Here's on Europe banned GM0's - and shut the hell up about it not a "real reference" the fricken fact is that GMO's ARE banned in Europe and if you dispute it Then show me a god-damn link buddy.....
"They TELL us that they HAVE to give us this GMO food to increase yields and all that garbage but we really know that Monstanto has paid off our CONgress very well to make this happen. Many countries in Europe have banned this Frankenfood but not the good ole USA. Nope, you see our criminal government doesn't care that it will destroy our natural crops and give us organ failures."
But I must dispute the Big B saved lives. Monsanto does give patented seed to starving African nations for free - just like a illicit drug dealer gives a freebie to give thier future addicted customers hooked on the shit that they selling.
Yet there is not a single shred of credible scientific evidence that GM food poses a hazard to your health. In fact there is a plethora of scientific evidence supporting the safety of GM crop. Since it's introduction there has not been a single recorded death, illness or ailment of any kind that can be linked to GM food.
Even so, the fact that GM food was given out freely has only supported my argument.
Maybe that's OK for rich American corporate farmers but not for the traditional farmer in Africa.
I'll tell you what's not good for African farmers....starvation. Malnutrition is a very real, very serious reality throughout much of Africa, Asia, and south America. Millions of people go to bed hungry every night. 15 million children in the world die of starvation every year. High yield crops save lives. Yet we are supposed to stop growing them because of some unfounded fear that they are going to turn us into Frankenstein monsters.
QUOTE: "The activists said the introduction of patented seeds and related chemicals into the farming systems threatens Kenya’s agricultural practices, livelihood, the environment, and undermines national seed sovereignty. "
A paragraph that begins with "The activists said..." hardly supports what they say.
Here's on Europe banned GM0's - and shut the hell up about it not a "real reference" the fricken fact is that GMO's ARE banned in Europe and if you dispute it Then show me a god-damn link buddy.....
First of all, You gave a link to some person's blog, hardly a credible source.
Second of all, your blogger only says that it's banned in "many countries" in Europe, not as you claim all of Europe.
And, finally you are the one making the claim, it is your prerogative to prove that claim and not mine to disprove it. That is not how this works.
"They TELL us that they HAVE to give us this GMO food to increase yields and all that garbage but we really know that Monstanto has paid off our CONgress very well to make this happen. Many countries in Europe have banned this Frankenfood but not the good ole USA. Nope, you see our criminal government doesn't care that it will destroy our natural crops and give us organ failures.
Can you provide a single recorded instances of anyone anywhere having died of organ failure from eating GE food?
What's wrong with giving GMO seeds to African farmers? I take it that you ignored the protests of the very farmers that this "gift" has been offered. Starvaton is more more likely with a single source of suicide seeds are cut off. Economonic war via starvation."
Mincing weasle words about "all" or "some" means your are digging over semantics. I said Europe in general. Are you saying France, Germany, Spain, Norway, Finland & Sweden, etal do not ban them?
I believe you are a shill for the AgroBio, nobody defends with such strength and willful obtuse straw man "logic' unless he is a paid blogger for propaganda.
Your retort:"a single recorded death, illness or ailment of any kind that can be linked to GM food."
You lie Sir.
No lie. My statement is as true now as when I first said it.
Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals
Mosanto's GMO corn linked to organ failure --IN RATS--A crop that wasn't meant for human consumption to begin with.
Funny how that important detail was left out of the study.
You post a misleading study conducted by a non-scientific body with a well known bias against such GE crops. My initial claim still stands.
Billions of people have consumed GE crops worldwide, and not a single recorded case of death or illness has be reported, that fact alone speaks volumes. You present faux health concerns.
And here is a study confirming the safety of Bt corn (A crop that is meant for human consumption):
What's wrong with giving GMO seeds to African farmers? I take it that you ignored the protests of the very farmers that this "gift" has been offered.
As the result of a Green Peace misinformation Campaign.
And why does it seem that all of your sources come from blogs? Blogs are perhaps the least reliable source of information you could provide.
Mincing weasle words about "all" or "some" means your are digging over semantics.
There is a pretty substantial difference between some people doing something and everybody doing something.
To say that some countries in europe ban the import of GE crop, is different than saying Europe bans the import of GE crop. Even some of the countries you listed as banning GE crop have only banned the growth of them, but still allow the import of GE crop.
So you need to chose your words carefully when making such claims, because someone like me is going to call you on them.
I believe you are a shill for the AgroBio, nobody defends with such strength and willful obtuse straw man "logic' unless he is a paid blogger for propaganda.
AHAHAHAHAHA!!
Yes, I'm a paid blogger for the GE industry, you caught me.
I'm joking of course. To think that every person on the internet who disagrees with a particular view is just a 'paid blogger' is mildly ridiculous proposition.
Anybody who has known me on this site would find that assertion amusing.
It's amazing the fog of tabloid fake news far right idiots are lost in.
Nothing from your headline nor pictures is even close to anything legal, being planned, or which has been done.
At any rate, I'd go into an explanation of how humans ability to alter genes is natural anyway in that it is a combination of evolution and nature which has allowed us to get nearly to that point,
and that not a single science that has ever started in the history of the world has ever been discontinued regardless how many village idiots with pitch forks set people on fire at the stake for it,
but you should get back to your tabloids. The stream of misinformation must be constant in order to ensure the continuation of your indoctrination.
I guess so, I'm not versed on such matters, if you say so, I'll go and have a read about it, I have a faint idea, but politics has never been my strong point.
Firstly, we live in world, where everything developing very fast. we must stepping with technologies as fast as they.
Secondly, we can cloning not only humans, but organs, which is very important for life, such as kidney... Nowadays it is very necessary for some operations. It will save people's life.
Next, cloning and genes engineering will be on leading position in future, so we must support them.
Also, we can prolong our life. we can live how much we want. Of course, from the first hearing its look like fantasy, but think about our past. what technologies and medicine operations we have for ex.20 years ago and compare it with our nowadays situation... in the past you thought that it is fantastic, but now you can touch and use it. and human cloning and genes engineering isn't exception!
not if were talking about like a human with shark teeth and a tiger from the waist down. if were talking about genetically modifying humans so we live longer and are spared from illness ok. it shouldn't be physical change but chemical or genetic for medical purposes(not just for healing but creating super humans and stuff as well)
Hybrid human is definitely something totally crazy, however, if scientists someday will find the proper way to actually create that kind of a human,(im talking about no negative impact for the human) the whole world could become better. Imagine a human with all kinds of resistances and resiliences, wouldn't it be kind of cool?
Oh stop playing God. Okay? Atheist? Stop defying the force of nature. It is repelling bad enough. We don't need no Human spiders or anything. Really... We are good enough.
Yeah... Except it has repelled a million times, in the form of nuclear reactions, estrogen causing cardiac arrests, excess plastic usage, running out of fuels and etc. I don't oppose all. Just a few that aren't essential.
I have no idea what 92nida was trying to say. But I support the Spiderman reference. :)
But really Is this a human-sized spider-hero? Of is it a fly-sized fly with a tweeny weeny human head caught in a spider web, screaming in a little teensy voice, "Help me! Help meeeeeeeeee!"
This without a doubt is the sickest debate...ever. The pictures literally make me want to puke. I pray the earth blows up before this would ever happen.....
How ironic that someone would post a female cloned for sex and not a male.....
How about a man that cant move with a huge gigantic penis?
The pictures literally make me want to puke. I pray the earth blows up before this would ever happen.....
I think the picture is meant as an Ironic caricature, one not to be taken as the desired effect.
How ironic that someone would post a female cloned for sex and not a male.....
Given the nature of male desires I reckon it'll definitely be a female before a male that is cloned for sex, being that women are far more intimate and men more carnal.
How about a man that cant move with a huge gigantic penis?
What women would ever want this? The physical limitations of a ladies privates are part of their allure, I doubt any women alive would want to have sex with a man who's schlong is of gargantuan proportions and neither would any man of sound mind want to have sex with the lady in the picture.
thanks. Of course the pictures are fantasies - and is merely a representation of a worst case what if. The arguement about the images doesn't pertain to the question.
In the USA it is illegal to label GMO as a GMO in your supermarket. Here's a tip: if it doesn't have the little sticker with four numbers on it then it is a GMO. That's why all your strawberries don't have a Fruit/Vegetable code.
In Europe, GMO's are banned and USA produce is not allowed to be imported. The GMO fields locations are a trade secret but if a regular farmer's field is contaminated with GMO - the farmer must pay the offending company.
Now .. what's even worse is in USA can patent a non-GMO that has been in existance for eons. I think this patent shit is way out of hand and is evil in itself.
well, You can downvote me if you want, and your statement will still be false. Europe as a whole does not ban anything, individual countries may ban certain imports in accordance with their own domestic laws and with international trade laws. A few countries within Europe have banned the import (Austria, and Hungary), but Europe as a whole has not instituted a continent wide ban. The European Union, did at one time place a ban on GM food, but has since been overturned.
Continue to make generalizations and you will be corrected.
Member states can already block GM by invoking a so-called ‘safeguard clause’. Under this rule they can ban the use and sale of a GMO if they have justifiable reasons to consider that it poses a risk to human health or the environment.
Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Germany and Luxembourg have all used the clause in recent years.
Ireland recently banned the growth of any genetically modified foods ... Egypt has banned the import and export of GMOs ... Though Japan imports a lot of food from countries still growing and exporting GMO foods --- they are staunchly opposed to consuming GMOs. ...Austria and Hungary
You are right, Current EU law allows for individual countries to ban if they choose.
If I am right, then why do you continue to support a losing argument?
Member states can already block GM by invoking a so-called ‘safeguard clause’. Under this rule they can ban the use and sale of a GMO if they have justifiable reasons to consider that it poses a risk to human health or the environment.
Member Nations of the EU are 'allowed' to ban GM crop, doesn't support your claim that the continent of Europe has banned the import of all GM crops.
-EU has 27 member nations
-Europe contains about 50 nations.
-Banning the cultivation of GM crop, is not necessarily a ban on the import of GM crop.
-Egypt and Japan are not European nations.
-Ireland has banned the cultivation of GM crop but NOT the import of it.
I will not save myself! I will go on to the bitter end. You have not changed my mind (yet) on this one.
Your refutation is mostly based agaisnt the imagination of the possible.
Ya know - computers smaller than the size of a car was once considered impoosible .........
Consider the images as a "artist rendition" like pictures of the surfacde of other planets. Give up on the pictures pal. And forget about which law in which country sematics.
Well, that seems to be what the debate is about. Some people are worried that GE crop 'might' potentially have health side-effects that we are not yet aware of, but to ban something because it 'might' have side-effects I think is folly, especially given the benefits of GE food and the ability to grow more food and feed more people. Significant scientific testing has been done on GE crop and no health side-effects have been identified. I think the most convincing test, has been the test of time. Lots of people have eaten GE food, and if there was something dangerous about it, we would have found it by now.
As soon as they find something harmful about GE crop I will oppose it.
What about the Bt corn for cows that went into the human food chain by mistake in the USA? That is one example I already wrote previously in disputing you that you forgot. Here it is again -
But I guess you'll dispute it because the experiements is on hamsters and not humans.
Then there are religious reasons like not eating pork, or [technically] another human being. Personally the stuff being shoved down our throats has not been around long enough to even have cases of long term injuries. Just like radiation wasn't considered bad just a mere 100 years ago.
# Kidney and blood abnormalities in rats GM maize i
# Villagers in the south of the Philippines who suffered mysterious illnesses when another GM maize came into flower in a nearby field two years in a row. Antibodies to the Bt protein inserted into the GM maize were found in the villagers.
# cows died after eating GM maize Autopsies failed to be carried out
# rats fed GM potatoes ended up with damage in every organ system;
# rats fed GM tomatoes had developed small holes in their stomach.
" ... the U.S. government has given a green light to virtually all of Monsanto's GM crops and related chemicals, despite minimal testing and widespread concern."
NORMAN BORLAUG Ph.D: [Some critics] say, "If [BT corn, for example, is] toxic to that insect, it must be toxic to us." But that's an over-simplification. Dr. Bruce Ames at the University of California, for the last 20 years, has been analyzing all kinds of foods, thousands of different samples. He finds that in the foods that we've been eating from the beginning of agriculture, there are many toxic substances, but they're present in very small quantity.
A good example to illustrate is the case of the common mushroom that most of us like to have with our steak or gravy. There are two [toxins] present in minute quantity. But if you isolate those, like Dr. Ames has, increase the dosage and incorporate it in the feed of rats, it's a beautiful carcinogen. Why don't we get [cancer from eating these mushrooms]? Simple reason is that we don't eat kilos each day of mushrooms. So dosage really makes the toxin or carcinogen. There's no zero risk in the biological world.
What about the Bt corn for cows that went into the human food chain by mistake in the USA? That is one example I already wrote previously in disputing you that you forgot. Here it is again -
But I guess you'll dispute it because the experiements is on hamsters and not humans.
Then there are religious reasons like not eating pork, or [technically] another human being. Personally the stuff being shoved down our throats has not been around long enough to even have cases of long term injuries. Just like radiation wasn't considered bad just a mere 100 years ago.
# Kidney and blood abnormalities in rats GM maize i
# Villagers in the south of the Philippines who suffered mysterious illnesses when another GM maize came into flower in a nearby field two years in a row. Antibodies to the Bt protein inserted into the GM maize were found in the villagers.
# cows died after eating GM maize Autopsies failed to be carried out
# rats fed GM potatoes ended up with damage in every organ system;
# rats fed GM tomatoes had developed small holes in their stomach.
" ... the U.S. government has given a green light to virtually all of Monsanto's GM crops and related chemicals, despite minimal testing and widespread concern."
I will not save myself! I will go on to the bitter end. You have not changed my mind (yet) on this one.
Your refutation is mostly based agaisnt the imagination of the possible.
Ya know - computers smaller than the size of a car was once considered impossible .........
Consider the images as a "artist rendition" like pictures of the surfacde of other planets. Give up on the pictures pal. And forget about which law in which country sematics.
Member states can already block GM by invoking a so-called ‘safeguard clause’. Under this rule they can ban the use and sale of a GMO if they have justifiable reasons to consider that it poses a risk to human health or the environment.
Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Germany and Luxembourg have all used the clause in recent years.
Ireland recently banned the growth of any genetically modified foods ... Egypt has banned the import and export of GMOs ... Though Japan imports a lot of food from countries still growing and exporting GMO foods --- they are staunchly opposed to consuming GMOs. ...Austria and Hungary
Member states can already block GM by invoking a so-called ‘safeguard clause’. Under this rule they can ban the use and sale of a GMO if they have justifiable reasons to consider that it poses a risk to human health or the environment.
Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Germany and Luxembourg have all used the clause in recent years.
Ireland recently banned the growth of any genetically modified foods ... Egypt has banned the import and export of GMOs ... Though Japan imports a lot of food from countries still growing and exporting GMO foods --- they are staunchly opposed to consuming GMOs. ...Austria and Hungary
Humans are animals. Not a very good point of distinction for your point.
Is it pleasurable to you to refute a point with pedantry rather than reasonable consideration? You and I understand perfectly well what *"animals" refers to.
"Is it pleasurable to you to refute a point with pedantry rather than reasonable consideration?"
It wasn't an actual refutation, and whether or not I agreed with it wasn't in the consideration of my comment. Out of humorous thought and an actual lack of distinction, it was simply a correction that hardly warrants you making a post dedicated to it's purpose.
" You and I understand perfectly well what *"animals" refers to."
Animals is a term that covers eukaryotic organisms. Humans are a type of animal, I had every basic law of biology to support asking for a greater point of distinction, whether it be for discussion or for humorous reasons.
and whether or not I agreed with it wasn't in the consideration of my comment.
Then why on Earth did you post it?
Out of humorous thought and an actual lack of distinction
So you found it amusing to irritate another debater with pedantry? How perversely obnoxious.
Animals is a term that covers eukaryotic organisms.
What may have compelled you to explain a term that I have unequivocally declared sensibility to, I cannot conceive.
Humans are a type of animal
From a zoological view, but you are perfectly aware that in this context the word refers to non-humans. As I said, it is quite invalid pedantry to demand that humans be included under the term in the context it was used in.
Perhaps you should recall that the term "animal" has meant non-human for millennia longer than it has had any scientific definition.
It was a factual correction, at least I am not trolling the subject.
Though you seem to be doing your level best to aggravate him.
What drives you to continue posting to a comment you say has no purpose?
Simply, I do not like you and am therefore compelled to frustrate you at every turn.
Had he said "non-humans", I would not have made a post.But he said animals, therefor having no distinction.
No manifest distinction, but you understood perfectly well what he meant. As would anybody with a functioning brain. Your object therefore was merely to ridicule another for self aggrandisement. Lord knows I do it enough myself to recognise it in somebody else.
Sorry, I don't see humans as important enough to warrant separating them from the rest of the planet's animals.
By what arbitrary standards? As the inventors of definition, sir, I should think it our sovereign right to do so.
Gee, so we should use definitions used before we had any understanding of biology let alone modern science?
What a fatuous thing to say! It is the fault of biologists for taking a term that specifically meant non-humans and then using it, in a gross misappellation, to include all members of the kingdom Animalia.
For good or ill, it now serves both purposes and it is grossly pedantic to refuse to recognise the original and still quite valid definition, which appears in every reputable dictionary:
In addition, transcribed from my own Readers Digest Universal dictionary: "2. Any such organism other than a human being; especially, a mammal."
And my Oxford dictionary: "2. Any such living organism other than a human being".
I trust you shall defer to the assembled might of the etymologists? Or are you so arrogant and pig-headed, if you would excuse the pun, that even their learned opinions will not suffice to persuade you?
"Though you seem to be doing your level best to aggravate him."
My best? You have such a low opinion of me :)
"Simply, I do not like you and am therefore compelled to frustrate you at every turn."
You assume you frustrate me. I actually quite enjoy our conflicts. After dealing with the likes of scrom and churchmouse it is nice to see one like yourself taking the time to respond. Although I must ask what exactly causes you to dislike me.
"By what arbitrary standards? As the inventors of definition, sir, I should think it our sovereign right to do so. "
To each his own, I simply don't agree that any distinction between humans and animals should be made. We are animals, we have our latin name to prove it. We work within the confines of our biological abilities, just like any other species of animal.
"Animalia."
Recap, we are in the above kingdom, no? We fall into it next to our cousins, the chimpanzees?
"For good or ill, it now serves both purposes and it is grossly pedantic to refuse to recognise the original and still quite valid definition"
If both definitions were valid, then no wrong was done in a correction. And for one claiming this to be pedantic, you are the one who is blowing it out of proportion.
"I trust you shall defer to the assembled might of the etymologists? Or are you so arrogant and pig-headed, if you would excuse the pun, that even their learned opinions will not suffice to persuade you?"
You yourself admitted that the use in which I use the term "animal" is valid, what persuading needs to be done? I could post definitions of basic biology books, but doing so would be redundant as you have admitted the validity.
If my opinion fo you was so low, why should I think that this behaviour is beneath you. You are blessed with a philosophical mind, and that is an endowment of a quality that should transcend the torment of the lesser minds of men.
You assume you frustrate me. I actually quite enjoy our conflicts.
That is not the meaning of "frustrate" that I meant to employ. I has sought to "counter" you, to "oppose" or "combat".
I actually quite enjoy our conflicts.
Conflict is a natural delectation of man, and the enterprise from which all progress is derived.
Although I must ask what exactly causes you to dislike me.
Perhaps I was too hasty in my dismissal. You and I, sir could be great friends once Hegelian Dialectics have run their course and performed their miraculous work. We are students of two schools of thought that, when met, might burst upon something superior to either, if we could both overcome our pride.
We are animals, we have our latin name to prove it.
When Latin was a widespread and prosperous tongue, the term did not apply to man. It has, unintentionally but unfortunately, been usurped. A new term should really have been created for all complex organisms.
If both definitions were valid, then no wrong was done in a correction.
If both terms are valid, there is no correction to be made.
And for one claiming this to be pedantic, you are the one who is blowing it out of proportion.
I cannot be called a pedant for pleading tolerance of another way.
" I has sought to "counter" you, to "oppose" or "combat"."
Ah. And I am very grateful to you for it, I always enjoy discussion with someone intelligent.
"Perhaps I was too hasty in my dismissal."
I would hope so, I have great respect for the way you compose your arguments.
"A new term should really have been created for all complex organisms."
Alright, I will concede to this.
"If both terms are valid, there is no correction to be made"
If one has a preference or hasn't knowledge of another use of a word, then technically it would be a correction. I have always used the term animal to describe all in the kingdom animalia, I guess since I have used it this way since childhood I fail to see it as meaning non-humans. The original post wasn't meant to reflect anything, the topic as it was going seemed pointless and the pictures misleading.
"I cannot be called a pedant for pleading tolerance of another way"
And I am very grateful to you for it, I always enjoy discussion with someone intelligent.
The water of the oasis is the sweetest.
I have great respect for the way you compose your arguments.
Thank you.
The topic as it was going seemed pointless and the pictures misleading.
I am rapidly coming to think that Greenpeace is one of the most unhelpful, most radical and most inconvenient and useless organisations in the West.
And the pictures are reflective of one of that organisation's favourite tactics: obfuscation by exaggeration. They contrive to meet their goals by prosecuting a campaign of disinformation against the multitudes. They are fanatics as dangerous as any religious sect and, in this one's opinion, should be disbanded.,
