• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Teabagger Whacktard Christine O’Donnell Warns Against Mice With Human Brains!

AlBell said:
Luckily, 999 normal voters out of 1000 can likely read those words and understand the intent without envisioning mouse/human bestiality.

It's strange that the bestiality aspect is what posters here seem bent to seize on.

No, I lied. It's not at all strange.
Click to expand...

What is strange is that you have read this thread and think that the bestiality aspect is what posters have focussed on. Scientists have not created mice with fully functioning human brains. That's what she said: "scientists have already created mice with fully functioning human brains." Whether she alleges it was done with cloning, hybridization, in vitro, cross pollination, or any other technique is irrelevant. Scientists have NOT already created mice with fully-functioning human brains. The statement was nonsense.
 
Last edited:
AlBell said:
Luckily, 999 normal voters out of 1000 can likely read those words and understand the intent without envisioning mouse/human bestiality.

It's strange that the bestiality aspect is what posters here seem bent to seize on.

No, I lied. It's not at all strange.
Click to expand...

Hey, if you're going to make up numbers why not just say 9,999,999,999 out of 10,000,000,000? :rolleyes:

"Cross-breeding" means something very specific, and nothing at all to do with the reality to which O'Donnell was erroneously referring. So you either share O'Donnell's laughable misconception of what "cross-breeding" means, or you think 99.9% of "normal voters" are as stupid as she is.
 
mhaze said:
Did someone claim the lady wasn't a fundamentalist?

Don't think so.
Click to expand...

Did someone answer the question?

Don't think so.

Please respond, Mhaze. Is claiming the evidence for creationism rivals the evidence for evolution a silly thing to say?

Is this relevant as to whether she'll vote according to strict constitutionality as her pledge has been?
Click to expand...

I don't give a rat's ass how she will vote if elected.

I'm just trying to determine if you will defend every silly thing she says or if you are willing to admit that asserting that creationism has as much evidence as evolution is nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
Did someone answer the question?

Don't think so.

Please respond, Mhaze. Is claiming the evidence for creationism rivals the evidence for evolution a silly thing to say?

I don't give a rat's ass how she will vote if elected.
...
Click to expand...

O'Donnell

“when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.”

As an employer I don't give a rat's ass about things people believe that are not related to the job. I've hired and fired fundies, mormons, agnostics, and athiests with equal pleasure. And it's time to do some firiig in DC.

Got it?

AlBell said:
Luckily, 999 normal voters out of 1000 can likely read those words and understand the intent without envisioning mouse/human bestiality.

It's strange that the bestiality aspect is what posters here seem bent to seize on.

No, I lied. It's not at all strange.
Click to expand...
Nope, it's not strange given the far left nature of this group.

Ridicule tactic.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
O'Donnell

“when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.”

As an employer I don't give a rat's ass about things people believe that are not related to the job.

Got it?
Click to expand...

Not at all.

Given that people in the senate have to understand science well enough to vote on issues such as NASA funding, bills related to carbon emission, and bills related to research with human stem cells, it is imperative that twenty-first century congressmen understand what constitutes evidence. Her ridiculous statement indicates that she has absolutely no understanding of how scientific evidence works.


I'll ask a third time. Do you, Mhaze, believe it is nonsense to claim that 6-day creationism has as much evidence as evolution? I understand that you believe her religious views should not be considered when selecting a candidate, but I want to know what your definition of nonsense entails. It is nonsense to claim that 6-day creationism has as much evidence as evolution?
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
The place where she was wrong was in stated that the human brain/mouse chimera had been done or was being done. Unless she knows something that I didn't find on google, it has not been done.

We can agree she was wrong.

Beyond that, criticizers of her comments are equally wrong. I've tried to point out why and how.

High uncertainty is one argument used in discussions of the ethics of biomedical science. It's got a place in a discussion of such things.
Click to expand...

It's fairly easy to see what happened here, and you needed be so in denial. She said something stupid without thinking, in a very similar way to a child does when they blurt out something they think is true like 'There is such a thing as life on Mars'. In their case it is understandable, in Ms O'Donnell's case it is not. She said something ridiculous - yes, as ridiculous as saying people are buying and piloting flying cars on the streets of Cambara - and once more, honestly believes it.

Honestly mhaze, can't you see the uproar on the right that would follow Obama saying a similar thing? Would you be defending him in this way? Just walk away from trying the defend the indefensible.
 
Her concept of "constitutional" most likely comes from a Ouija board. Seriously, I know actual, legitimate Constitutional scholars, and they studied for over a decade to comprehend that collection of documents. Just what we need in DC is another self-imporant lunatic thinking that they can out-Traficant Traficant.
 
BenBurch said:
Her concept of "constitutional" most likely comes from a Ouija board. Seriously, I know actual, legitimate Constitutional scholars, and they studied for over a decade to comprehend that collection of documents. Just what we need in DC is another self-imporant lunatic thinking that they can out-Traficant Traficant.
Click to expand...
I thought you liked Obama.
 
mhaze said:
The place where she was wrong was in stated that the human brain/mouse chimera had been done or was being done. Unless she knows something that I didn't find on google, it has not been done.

We can agree she was wrong.

Beyond that, criticizers of her comments are equally wrong. I've tried to point out why and how.

High uncertainty is one argument used in discussions of the ethics of biomedical science. It's got a place in a discussion of such things.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Let's recap:

1) O'Donnell claims that scientists had created a mouse with a fully functioning human brain.

2) Skeptics laugh at O'Donnell.

3) You claim that O'Donnell was sort of kind of right.

4) Skeptics laugh at you.

5) You now admit she was wrong when she said scientists had created a mouse with a fully functioning human brain. And yet...

6) You claim that we are "equally wrong" for pointing out that she was wrong.

Got it.

I think?
 
mhaze said:
O'Donnell

“when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.”
Click to expand...

How is this different than what every other Senator does?
 
mhaze said:
Did someone claim the lady wasn't a fundamentalist?

Don't think so.

Is this relevant as to whether she'll vote according to strict constitutionality as her pledge has been?
Click to expand...

It would be foolish not to factor it in. Any person can say they will abide by the constitution, but they cannot simply be a body that channels it. Some responsibility much be taken for her own actions and decisions.

If she believes something so blind to a vast amount of evidence and be so grossly scientifically illiterate, how can you trust her to take be an intellectual, thoughtful and analytical member of the upper house of the United states? Tom Cruise could run for the Senate saying he would be a strict constitutionalist. That is not reason to elect him, and I think you know it.
 
BenBurch said:
Her concept of "constitutional" most likely comes from a Ouija board. Seriously, I know actual, legitimate Constitutional scholars, and they studied for over a decade to comprehend that collection of documents. Just what we need in DC is another self-imporant lunatic thinking that they can out-Traficant Traficant.
Click to expand...

So....leave attempts to "comprehend the Constitution" to some group of .... experts?

As opposed to elected representatives and Senators?

I'm afraid the Supreme Court has ruled on that and you are wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom