This is a fantastically stupid assertion. Just breathtaking. Awe-inspiring, really. I applaud you.
It is rather amazing. I wonder if he thinks Microsoft Word has been the same since 1988?
“I didn’t mean software! Software is different!”
Cars?
Food?
Printing?
I am having a harder time trying to think of a product where this is true than one which it is not.
Leaches?
You probably mean “leeches”?
Anyway, wasn’t aspirin originally a powder? Then a pill, then an extra strength pill, then further research to understand it’s effect on the heart and on the digestive system, likely further research to understand its effects on pregnant people and fetuses, and so on and so forth.
Anyway, I think we can agree that the Clarence Thomas court will be a malevolent force in this nation and that @Bootb is either a braindead partisan, or unwilling to admit error, or just an idiot.
To bring some much needed levity during a time when SCOTUS is preparing to roll back American society back to the late 1800’s, I offer you: The Onion filing an Amicus Curiae brief.
The case involves a … troubling … decision by the 6th Circuit that seems to require that parody must be identified as parody before it is entitled to 1st Amendment protection (it’s much more complex than that, but the important part is that it deals with parody as free speech). The Onion, self identified as: “The Onion is the world’s leading news publication, offering highly acclaimed, universally revered coverage of breaking national, international, and local news events. Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1756, The Onion now enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human history.” has a great interest in parody, so they filed a brief. As you would expect, it is pretty damn funny. Here’s some of my favorite bits:
“The Onion cannot stand idly by in the face of a ruling that threatens to disembowel a form of rhetoric that has existed for millennia, that is particularly potent in the realm of political debate, and that, purely incidentally, forms the basis of The Onion’s writers’ paychecks.”
“Tu stultus es. You are dumb. These three Latin words have been The Onion’s motto and guiding light since it was founded in 1988 as America’s Finest News Source, leading its writers toward the paper’s singular purpose of pointing out that its readers are deeply gullible people.”
“That seems a bit cruel—until you realize that you in fact are reading A Modest Proposal. To be clear, The Onion is not trying to compare itself to Jonathan Swift; its writers are far more talented, and their output will be read long after that hack Swift’s has been lost to the sands of time.”
"This is the fifteenth page of a convoluted legal filing intended to deconstruct the societal implications of parody, so the reader’s attention is almost certainly wandering. That’s understandable. So here is a paragraph of gripping legal analysis to ensure that every jurist who reads this brief is appropriately impressed by the logic of its argument and the lucidity of its prose:
Bona vacantia. De bonis asportatis. Writ of certiorari. De minimis. Jus accrescendi. Forum non conveniens. Corpus juris. Ad hominem tu quoque. Post hoc ergo
propter hoc. Quod est demonstrandum. Actus reus. Scandalum magnatum. Pactum reservati dominii.
See what happened? This brief itself went from a discussion of parody’s function—and the quite serious historical and legal arguments in favor of strong protections for parodic speech—to a curveball mocking the way legalese can be both impenetrably boring and belie the hollowness of a legal position. That’s the setup and punchline idea again."
Definitely worth a read.
Ya gotta love The Onion. Smart AND funny.
It may have been developed, but the research continues.
I would like us to put our skeptic hats on. We’ve all seen lists of “facts” that includes “A duck’s quack does not echo, and no one knows why.”; we’ve probably all seen the disproofs of that “fact”. (see here or here for two obvious ones) Just because a list exists and is used does not mean that it’s true. First of all, is there a “definitive” list? Second, has anyone actually verified the veracity of said list? I can see Bootb’s argument for Tylenol or Pepto Bismol - obviously developed and sold long before there was such a thing as stem cell research, much less fetal cells used in said research - so how do they end up on the list? “common sense” says because someone was studying how it works. or if they’re effective in certain situations, but do we have proof? And if J&J tested Tylenol after it was on the market, does that taint the generics developed before then? Not to give “those people” ideas, but if the testing was done on developing the infant Tylenol drops, does that mean the regular adult pill is still OK? Hey, if you’re taking your religion that seriously, it’s important to know.
BTW - just because there are some questionable items on the list doesn’t mean every item on the list is questionable. I’m willing to bet that Aleve/Naproxen is on that list, and Wikipedia says that they’re studying it’s effect as an antiviral for influenza. Sounds like research that would include stem cells.
There have been no improvements to personal computers since the TRS-80, don’t 'cha know,
Well, as Buck_Godot said, if you’re only taking ibuprofen/aspirin/acetaminophen/etc. tablets that were manufactured and sold decades ago before the use of fetal stem cell lines in research, then you might have a valid argument.
But if you’re taking any modern form of the medication, then you’re taking something whose development has involved the use of cell lines originating in aborted fetal tissue such as the near-universal HEK-293.
(For example, testing for over-the-counter-medication status approval and “fast-acting” pain relief formulations all happened in the HEK-293 era. As this article describes, pretty much every modern medication continues to be developed and modified based on results including some form of fetal stem cell testing.)
Pretending that fetal stem cell testing in ongoing R&D somehow “doesn’t count” as long as some form of the drug was marketed before fetal stem cell testing was used is just a desperate attempt at rationalization. Hell, by that “logic” we could argue that since measles vaccines first came out in the 1950s, and measles vaccines were used as the basis for developing COVID vaccines, then the use of fetal stem cell testing for the COVID vaccine “doesn’t count” either.
Corn? Nope, humanity constantly mucked around with that plant. I’m with you. There’s nothing that isn’t subject to revision.
That’s exactly what I was looking for! Thank you.
Oh, and for those people who refuse the vaccine, but INSIST on CFSG’s favorite drugs, I direct you to the list…
(Ivermectin is 15 on the list; Discourse keeps re-numbering it)
Did Thomas violate the law in his ruling on Lindsey Graham?
If Roberts really cares about the legacy of his court, he needs to rein in Thomas before it’s too late.*
*It may already be
He probably just wants to lecture us some more on why we need to RESPECT the shit out of the court.
Put this in the Politics and Elections thread on Thomas. Going it the Pit too.
Scathing.
What about income tax reporting in addition to ethics?
Someone told him not to worry about the tax reporting thing. So it’s all good. We all know that excuse is all you need.
Next up: Those two little words that Steve Martin told us were so handy:
I forgot.
“I forgot to put that in my taxes”. “I forgot that accepting gifts was a violation of my oath” “I forgot armed robbery was a crime.”
This reminds me of something Jared Kushner once said in defense of his felonious father.
For those who aren’t familiar, Kushner Sr. was under federal investigation for financial crimes and his brother-in-law was poised to turn on him. So Jared’s daddy set his brother-in-law up with a hooker and taped the liaison, then attempted to use the tape to blackmail his BIL into silence.
Apropos of nothing, Chris Christie was the prosecutor.
I recently read a quote where Kushner defended his father’s actions. He claimed that his dad had consulted with lawyers regarding everything he did, and he’d been assured it was all perfectly legal. This is a common defense, even when it’s obvious bullshit,
Even if it was true, so what? You need to get a better grade of lawyer who – you know – gives good advice instead of what you want to hear.
Does “I was advised it was ok” stand up for normal people? Yeah, didn’t think so.
Calling Clarence Thomas “Your/His Honor” is a blatant falsehood that should never be used. Lying, treasonous bastard who sexually assaults women.
So a Supreme Court Justice is using the George Costanza defense when he was caught having sex with the cleaning woman on his office desk.