Tuesday, March 25, 2008

So Weak: Mr GuF Too Crashes on Bio-Science Bill

Mr Paul Staines aka Guido Fawkes aka Mr GuF has also had better days. But has certainly outdone Dale ... by having some content.

But then again. What silly content it really is. That gratuitous Emily Maitlis thigh picture again. And the good old boy homophobia.

The prospect of using shell animal eggs plus human stuff to make stem cells for life-saving experiments (99.99% human but very non viable and short-lived) is referred to with the F word. Is GuF a libertarian or not? Does the pope shit in the woods? Probably if he's caught short. But do Bears wear pointy hats? Err, NO!

Does GuF have a brain or not? Is Guido Fawkes the blogger pretending to be some centuries old dissident? Or is Staines himself a pathetic catholic drone in the here and now?

Why is the flat earth libertarian GuF not actually saying what HE THINKS or HE FEELS about the issue of scientists using their brains to solve human problems? Dale doesn't either. Pathetic, the pair of them.

In case you don't read comments at Dale's place I'd like to say that I am utterly in favour of the spirit of this Bill. It is crazy to oppose science to resist Parkinson's and the like. My dad has it. And it is not pretty. It's certainly a huge pain for him.

My mother, a card-carrying pro-life marcher, now faces quite a quandary. But to me it is so obvious - as Jim Devine MP has stated in a very heroic way in my view - that the church(es) is/are way wrong on this. I hope that Catholic Ministers and MPs use this opportunity to vote for modernity and science over medievalism and superstition.

This is the blessing of a free vote on clauses as far as I'm concerned. Let's see just who has so little regard for science and modernity that they vote with the more stupid bishops, cardinals and nazi popes. With clerics that scarcely seem to have even the slightest moral or ethical argument against saving and enhancing lives with science.

The image of the "heretic" Galileo comes from the Roshi Bob Blog.


Anonymous said...

Dear O Dear,

Guess who has forgotten his history of the "Gun Powder" treason.

And the motivation of the plotters !

Mind you the tought of GuF being choked. castrated and gutted at Tower Hill has some merit.


Chris Paul said...

Don't forget the little fricassie du coillons prior to the evisceration.

Red Maria said...

You mentioned 99% human-animal hybrids but 50:50 human-animal hybrid embryos would also be allowed by the Bill. You neglected to mention this. Why?

You disclose that your father has Parkinsons, adding irrelevantly that it's not pretty, as though your experience of a close relative with a debilitating disease is unique, when plainly it isn't. Why? Is this an attempt at emotionally blackmailing those who oppose the contentious aspects of the HFE Bill? If so it's a pretty crude one. Why do you do it? Can't you rely on your penetrating powers of reason alone? If not, why not?

You say that science should not be opposed. But I presume you perceive that it isn't science which is opposed but ethically contentious practices. Why do you misrepresent the argument?

You make a fuss about the F word being used but happily use the M word (medievalism) and the S word (superstition) while fatuously dissing the Bill's opponents. Why the double standards?

You express the boorishly anti-Catholic hope that Roman Catholic MPs will vote for the Bill so risking their standing in their religion. Would you hope for Orthodox Jews to vote against schehita or Hindus for bovine experimentation? Why should any practising Roman Catholic pay any attention to what you say?

You mention stupid bishops and cardinals. Care to name names? Are you brighter than them? Demonstrate it.

You speak of Nazi popes. Are you thinking of anyone in particular or is it just another fatuous diss?

I see your blog is entitled Labour of Love. How, precisely, is your love for the Labour Party productively expressed when you are doing your best to alienate practising Roman Catholics from it?

You refer to "clerics [who] scarcely seem to have even the slightest moral or ethical argument against saving and enhancing lives with science".

You're right, they don't have any argument against saving or enhancing lives with science but that's not what you meant or why they oppose the Bill. Your sentence was poorly constructed and your reasoning hopelessly sloppy. Now who's stupid?

You prattle on about science but don't seem clear about what it is you are actually arguing for. Let me ask you a simple question: what therapies for human diseases have been produced as a result of embryonic stem cell research. Name me just one.

Now explain your mother's dilemma to me again. Take your time.

Chris Paul said...

Well, we are blessed by your contribution Maria. Seems to me that you have made my case for me. There is not an ounce of reason or reasonableness within your comment. There are no links to arguments.

You do not begin to explain any ethical objection to this legislation.

My contention is that if you believe in God as a generous creator of human talent inter alia you will have no issue with the use of that talent in regulated attempts to tackle debilitating diseases.

And if you don't believe in god etc then you will also have no problem.

Whereas if you believe in a church which is necessarily run by men several places removed from god then you get stuck.

Religionists of all stripes have a history of unreasonable opposition to science and technology. A relevant example here would be the use of bovine material to produce vaccines a century or thereabouts ago.

Opposition to and naked lies about condoms and HIV/AIDS are another example.

This is clearly a personal blog, not a journal of medical ethics, religion, or of science.

There is no equivalence between the gratuitous and self-defeating use of the Frankenstein word and of the M and S words you object to.

My preferred M and S words are modernity and science.

I welcome the free vote on this matter in the hope that MPs will do the right thing. As you do. We can agree on that one.

Anonymous said...

"Nazi popes"?

And you think the Catholic Church is being hysterical and dissembling?

Chris Paul said...

You're right. That should be Nazi pope (singular) or even ex-Nazi pope. If the defamation police come for me I'll claim the defence of "humour" - remember that?

The Catholic Church and bloggers Dale, Fawkes and Dorries for example ARE being hysterical and dissembling ... what else can we call referring to cells produced - without IMO offending any ethical principle and indeed supporting many - using god-given (?) genius for scientific research as "Frankenstein"?

Dale and Fawkes are not actually sharing their views and/or rationale. I think that's very weak.

And I hope that Catholic MPs and others DO vote with the government and against the principle and practice of churches meddling in politics.