This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Basees's Profile

Basees's Avatar Joined over 3 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by Basees

More Discussions by Basees

Latest Comments by Basees

Go to: Plant RNAs Found in Mammals

Basees's Avatar Jump to comment 2 by Basees

"Once in the liver, MIR168a binds to LDLRAP1 mRNA, reducing the protein levels and ultimately impairing the removal of LDL from the blood".

"The plant microRNAs with the highest concentrations were MIR156a and MIR168a, both of which are known to be enriched in rice and cruciferous vegetables such as cauliflower, cabbage, and broccoli".

I guess cauliflower, cabbage and broccoli, three of the most touted vegetables for good health are now off the menu. Which one is going to be next in line as bad-for-health? Not apples or bananas, surly?

Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:03:03 UTC | #873211

Go to: Atheist group’s frivolous lawsuit aims to bar ‘cross’ from 9/11 museum

Basees's Avatar Jump to comment 73 by Basees

Comment 68 by manilla_wise :

that was no reason to exclude anything from a museum, and because it is going to a museum to be part of a history exhibit and not a monument to the proper American interpretation of 9/11, I don’t see what the problem is.

But this is not an ordinary museum piece.

When some people see this piece of metal as god's a divine sign, that's their problem. But when they try to promulgate that notion by displaying its symbol in public (in museums, parks, squares .. etc), it becomes an attempt to inflict it on the public. It should be resisted, and the American Atheist are right in filing a lawsuit to stop it.

Fri, 05 Aug 2011 21:04:09 UTC | #858382

Go to: Atheist group’s frivolous lawsuit aims to bar ‘cross’ from 9/11 museum

Basees's Avatar Jump to comment 51 by Basees

Comment 42 by manilla_wise :

...its a very powerful symbol representing a destructive, backward, influential force which is corrupting the mind.

Can you imagine a museum without such things? It would hardly be worth visiting.

I'm tempted to agree. But seriously, I think the emphasis on placing that cross in a MUSEUM as enough justification for its presence in a public place, ignores the circumstances which lead to that decision. It should be looked at the whole package and not part of it only.

Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:44:42 UTC | #858327

Go to: Atheist group’s frivolous lawsuit aims to bar ‘cross’ from 9/11 museum

Basees's Avatar Jump to comment 46 by Basees

Comment 37 by Watchemoket :

@ Comment 28 by Basees: "I agree with the American Atheists lawsuit. For one thing, where do you draw the line to decide one objection meriting a lawsuit is frivolous and another is serious enough? What's the criteria? "

I'm not sure how to frame the criteria or 'formula' to decide when an issue or situation is 'serious enough' to justify litigation, but I am pretty sure that this situation does not. Although I am also concerned about the 'little things' that add up to serious Constitutional issues, this can't in any way be placed in that category. The 'cross' will be one of several exhibits, it is an artifact created (by whom can still be an open question) at ground zero and it did cause a significant response among a lot of people all over the world.

I might have a different opinion if, as another commenter hypothesized, the cross was intended as the main exhibit at the entrance to the museum with clear references to "god" having created or preserved it, but that is apparently not what is intended here. Every viewer can interpret the exhibit and respond in their own way - that is the heart of out Constitutional freedoms.

Finally, it is a rather embarrassing way to get publicity (if that is AA's intent) and will have harmful effects on the perceptions of everyone toward atheist organizations, if not atheists individually.

"I'm not sure how to frame the criteria or 'formula' to decide when an issue or situation is 'serious enough' to justify litigation, but I am pretty sure that this situation does not"

If a criteria cannot be framed to reach a decision for litigation on such cases, how can you sure that this situation does not merit one?

I cannot see why making an objection, and taking it all the way to the courts if needs be, to the corrupting influence of promoting myths and legends should be classed as frivolous or serious. There should be no distinction between bad influence and less bad influence if both are bad.

Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:06:44 UTC | #858312

Go to: Atheist group’s frivolous lawsuit aims to bar ‘cross’ from 9/11 museum

Basees's Avatar Jump to comment 40 by Basees

Comment 35 by debonnesnouvelles :

Comment 28 by Basees :

... For one thing, where do you draw the line to decide one objection meriting a lawsuit is frivolous and another is serious enough? What's the criteria?...

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that objects per se don't merit lawsuits. It is people's actions that can be scrutinized as to whether they constitute crimes or infringe on other individuals' rights.

That cross is not just any object, its a very powerful symbol representing a destructive, backward, influential force which is corrupting the mind. And for that reason alone there should be a strong case to remove it from public places. But, as I understand it, it is the action of people who install that symbol in public places which the lawsuit is filed against, not the object per se.

Surely museums need a variety of objects, so that they can show them and explain their history. I don't see any good reason why these beams, which were part of the WTC, should not be allowed to be among those artifacts.

Well, this beam is not just any piece of metal, it was chosen because its religious connotation.

Although I must admit, my favorite exhibit piece would have been an underground prison cell deep down in ground zero, with thick glass as its ceiling, and only one inmate inside it of course. It is a shame he isn't alive any more for anyone to have been able to use the idea...

I suspect such a choice was available, but was rejected for political expediency and, I must hasten to add, public safety.

Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:35:14 UTC | #858293

More Comments by Basees