3 ms·

> I find this hilarious. This comes off as quite dismissive and a lack of willingness to try to understand others. I'm not aware of any religious texts that pr

by grzm 9y ago

> I find this hilarious. This comes off as quite dismissive and a lack of willingness to try to understand others. I'm not aware of any religious texts that proscribe injecting a mixture of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride[0] for punishment but some people firmly believe that's a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.[1] It's fine if you disagree. But please try to do so in a manner that shows respect for someone else. To say "just fairly sure religious texts" isn't granting anyone the benefit of the doubt that they may be able to reasonably interpret religious texts to mean something other than a strict literal interpretation. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill

losteric 9y ago
Can you point to scripture that could be interpreted as standing against stem cell-based cures? Because opposing lethal injection is a pretty strict, literal interpretation of "thou shalt not kill".
- grzm 9y ago
  If you interpret the harvesting of stem cells as killing a human being, it's pretty direct. As for capital punishment, one can parse punishment as different from murder, and only the latter as proscribed by "thou shall not kill". My point is not to discuss interpretation of religious texts. I think it's important to take the time to try to understand where someone is coming from. Dismissing it out of hand prevents you from both understanding and hopefully being understood. You can understand and follow someone's logic without necessarily agreeing with it.
  - losteric 9y ago
    I want to clarify context here because I'm not sure you read this thread much less the article: Treatment from natural stem cells is old news, a while ago we discovered how to convert specialized cells into artificial stem cells then into (other) specialized cells, and now this research demonstrates converting between specialized cells without an intermediary "blank slate" stem cell. No one is dismissing religiously inspired ethical arguments "out of hand" - religions have some time-tested philosophical/ethical answers - but a post like > Or maybe also people who have religious views about stem cell research? requires a bit more meat to be taken seriously. You know religions don't talk about stem cells. As you said, it's about interpretations... and we're not mind readers, we don't know what yours is. Communicate your specific concerns and reasoning if you want people to follow your logic. Otherwise, the immediate assumption is that you're suggesting the bible literally says "don't mess with stem cells" - which is funny.
    - grzm 9y ago
      I think you may be assuming a position I have been very clear not to make. I'm responding explicitly to this exchange: 'ada1981> Or maybe also people who have religious views about stem cell research? 'nawgszy> I find this hilarious. Not knocking your comment or anything, just fairly sure religious texts didn't say 'thou shall not induce artificial stem cell growth' You're right in that the comment by 'ada1981 requires more meat, but that doesn't mean you dismiss it because it's not there: if you want to engage you ask for it or at least assume the most charitable interpretation and acknowledge where you're making charitable assumptions. Neither 'ada1981 nor myself have aligned ourselves with the positions of those that hold these religious views (and 'ada1981 has commented further down that they don't hold this opinion). And that's getting to the heart of my point: we can understand others opinions without necessarily agreeing with them. You're exactly right: we're not mind readers. And I've tried very hard to be clear what mine is: that to have earnest, meaningful, and constructive discussion we need to strive to understand other's points of view. I've found Daniel Dennett's explanation of Rapoport's Rules to be very helpful, and explains the position much better than I: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo... FWIW, a similar tenet has been recently added to the HN guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html This is what I'm pushing against. I would argue that assuming the simplistic immediate assumption of literal interpretation is uncharitable. If you're reading into my comments that I hold any particular views with respect to stem cell research or treatment, please point them out, because that's not my intent and I've tried my best to not include any (and to see explain various points of view fairly), and I don't think you can find such a claim. My interest is much more in figuring out how people can productively discuss contentious topics. And that's something I can work on as well. Regardless, I've derailed this much more than I ever intended, so I'll sign off this thread. Best, and I hope you have a good day! Edit to add: FWIW, I understand where you're coming from with respect to the article and its implications regarding some past ethical concerns. That doesn't obviate how one discusses the topic with others. Almost by definition when we disagree with someone we're going to find something prima facie unreasonable.
brookside 9y ago
I would counter that interpreting religious texts as an overall activity is not a reasonable one. It is good an reasonable to show people respect but the same isn't owed to beliefs. Mysticism has an undue influence worldwide on the legality of all sorts of things beyond stem cell research. We shouldn't be afraid to call out, or even laugh at this kind of superstition.
- grzm 9y ago
  > It is good an reasonable to show people respect but the same isn't owed to beliefs I agree. This is exactly why I wrote as I did in the above: > willingness to try to understand others > try to do so in a manner that shows respect for someone else > granting anyone the benefit of the doubt that they may be able to reasonably interpret religious texts to mean something other than a strict literal interpretation. This can charitably (and without much of a stretch) read as "granting anyone the benefit of the doubt that they may be able to reasonably interpret <whatever> in a way that may differ from yours". It's not limited to interpretation of religious texts. And below: > I think it's important to take the time to try to understand where someone is coming from. Dismissing it out of hand prevents you from both understanding and hopefully being understood. You can understand and follow someone's logic without necessarily agreeing with it. You comment: > I would counter that interpreting religious texts as an overall activity is not a reasonable one. Which is why I elaborated below: > My point is not to discuss interpretation of religious texts. If you expect others to understand your point of you (much less come to agree with it), I believe it's incumbent on you to understand theirs. If you've already written off or otherwise dismissed others, there's little point in discussion.
  - brookside 9y ago
    > You can understand and follow someone's logic without necessarily agreeing with it. Religion isn't logic- it is indoctrinated superstition. There are no reasons to understand. Faith is undebatable. Certainly being combative won't win anybody over, we all know that. But there is no real understanding to be gained debating with someone who has derived their position from an ancient text they believe to be sacred. I don't care if their interpretation is "reasonable" or not...I just don't see how their divining rod should be entering public debate.

by grzm 9y ago

losteric 9y ago

Can you point to scripture that could be interpreted as standing against stem cell-based cures? Because opposing lethal injection is a pretty strict, literal interpretation of "thou shalt not kill".

grzm 9y ago
If you interpret the harvesting of stem cells as killing a human being, it's pretty direct. As for capital punishment, one can parse punishment as different from murder, and only the latter as proscribed by "thou shall not kill". My point is not to discuss interpretation of religious texts. I think it's important to take the time to try to understand where someone is coming from. Dismissing it out of hand prevents you from both understanding and hopefully being understood. You can understand and follow someone's logic without necessarily agreeing with it.
- losteric 9y ago
  I want to clarify context here because I'm not sure you read this thread much less the article: Treatment from natural stem cells is old news, a while ago we discovered how to convert specialized cells into artificial stem cells then into (other) specialized cells, and now this research demonstrates converting between specialized cells without an intermediary "blank slate" stem cell. No one is dismissing religiously inspired ethical arguments "out of hand" - religions have some time-tested philosophical/ethical answers - but a post like > Or maybe also people who have religious views about stem cell research? requires a bit more meat to be taken seriously. You know religions don't talk about stem cells. As you said, it's about interpretations... and we're not mind readers, we don't know what yours is. Communicate your specific concerns and reasoning if you want people to follow your logic. Otherwise, the immediate assumption is that you're suggesting the bible literally says "don't mess with stem cells" - which is funny.
  - grzm 9y ago
    I think you may be assuming a position I have been very clear not to make. I'm responding explicitly to this exchange: 'ada1981> Or maybe also people who have religious views about stem cell research? 'nawgszy> I find this hilarious. Not knocking your comment or anything, just fairly sure religious texts didn't say 'thou shall not induce artificial stem cell growth' You're right in that the comment by 'ada1981 requires more meat, but that doesn't mean you dismiss it because it's not there: if you want to engage you ask for it or at least assume the most charitable interpretation and acknowledge where you're making charitable assumptions. Neither 'ada1981 nor myself have aligned ourselves with the positions of those that hold these religious views (and 'ada1981 has commented further down that they don't hold this opinion). And that's getting to the heart of my point: we can understand others opinions without necessarily agreeing with them. You're exactly right: we're not mind readers. And I've tried very hard to be clear what mine is: that to have earnest, meaningful, and constructive discussion we need to strive to understand other's points of view. I've found Daniel Dennett's explanation of Rapoport's Rules to be very helpful, and explains the position much better than I: https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapoport-rules-criticism/ https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/03/28/daniel-dennett-rapo... FWIW, a similar tenet has been recently added to the HN guidelines: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html This is what I'm pushing against. I would argue that assuming the simplistic immediate assumption of literal interpretation is uncharitable. If you're reading into my comments that I hold any particular views with respect to stem cell research or treatment, please point them out, because that's not my intent and I've tried my best to not include any (and to see explain various points of view fairly), and I don't think you can find such a claim. My interest is much more in figuring out how people can productively discuss contentious topics. And that's something I can work on as well. Regardless, I've derailed this much more than I ever intended, so I'll sign off this thread. Best, and I hope you have a good day! Edit to add: FWIW, I understand where you're coming from with respect to the article and its implications regarding some past ethical concerns. That doesn't obviate how one discusses the topic with others. Almost by definition when we disagree with someone we're going to find something prima facie unreasonable.

brookside 9y ago

I would counter that interpreting religious texts as an overall activity is not a reasonable one. It is good an reasonable to show people respect but the same isn't owed to beliefs. Mysticism has an undue influence worldwide on the legality of all sorts of things beyond stem cell research. We shouldn't be afraid to call out, or even laugh at this kind of superstition.

grzm 9y ago
> It is good an reasonable to show people respect but the same isn't owed to beliefs I agree. This is exactly why I wrote as I did in the above: > willingness to try to understand others > try to do so in a manner that shows respect for someone else > granting anyone the benefit of the doubt that they may be able to reasonably interpret religious texts to mean something other than a strict literal interpretation. This can charitably (and without much of a stretch) read as "granting anyone the benefit of the doubt that they may be able to reasonably interpret <whatever> in a way that may differ from yours". It's not limited to interpretation of religious texts. And below: > I think it's important to take the time to try to understand where someone is coming from. Dismissing it out of hand prevents you from both understanding and hopefully being understood. You can understand and follow someone's logic without necessarily agreeing with it. You comment: > I would counter that interpreting religious texts as an overall activity is not a reasonable one. Which is why I elaborated below: > My point is not to discuss interpretation of religious texts. If you expect others to understand your point of you (much less come to agree with it), I believe it's incumbent on you to understand theirs. If you've already written off or otherwise dismissed others, there's little point in discussion.
- brookside 9y ago
  > You can understand and follow someone's logic without necessarily agreeing with it. Religion isn't logic- it is indoctrinated superstition. There are no reasons to understand. Faith is undebatable. Certainly being combative won't win anybody over, we all know that. But there is no real understanding to be gained debating with someone who has derived their position from an ancient text they believe to be sacred. I don't care if their interpretation is "reasonable" or not...I just don't see how their divining rod should be entering public debate.