Topic: Trump orders NIH to stop CANCER research
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #123,124
wtf?
Meta joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later[^] [v] #1,342,506
Well yes, if you look at the Constitution it's clearly not something the Federal government is authorized to do.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 13 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,507
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 14 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,508
Please post link where Trump said this
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 49 seconds later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,509
@previous (C)
https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/23/nx-s1-5272398/nih-trump-hhs-cancer-research
https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/23/nx-s1-5272398/nih-trump-hhs-cancer-research
Meta replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,512
@1,342,507 (A)
I checked the 14th amendment and I couldn't find anything about research in it. Could you link me to the part of the 14th amendment that talks about the NIH and cancer research?
I checked the 14th amendment and I couldn't find anything about research in it. Could you link me to the part of the 14th amendment that talks about the NIH and cancer research?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,514
@previous (Meta)
Ah, I see that your mind is not complex enough to understand the point. Consider it a totally unrelated question: is the 14th Amendment a part of the constitution?
Ah, I see that your mind is not complex enough to understand the point. Consider it a totally unrelated question: is the 14th Amendment a part of the constitution?
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,516
@1,342,509 (A)
> The move comes after federal health officials were told to halt public communications until they could be reviewed by a Trump appointee.
Stopping public communication is hardly canceling cancer research.
> The agency gathers together scientists at academic institutions around the country into what are called "study sections" to help them figure out what research is the most important to fund.
Ooh, so they must wait to see what research is more important to fund. $40 billion a year isn't enough to last several years?
> The move comes after federal health officials were told to halt public communications until they could be reviewed by a Trump appointee.
Stopping public communication is hardly canceling cancer research.
> The agency gathers together scientists at academic institutions around the country into what are called "study sections" to help them figure out what research is the most important to fund.
Ooh, so they must wait to see what research is more important to fund. $40 billion a year isn't enough to last several years?
Meta replied with this 1 year ago, 8 seconds later, 21 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,517
@1,342,514 (A)
Yes, it is. Now please explain how the 14th amendment authorized the NIH or cancer research?
Yes, it is. Now please explain how the 14th amendment authorized the NIH or cancer research?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 22 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,519
@previous (Meta)
So, it's fair to say, then, that you would oppose a politician who tries to singlehandedly cancel the 14th Amendment?
So, it's fair to say, then, that you would oppose a politician who tries to singlehandedly cancel the 14th Amendment?
Meta replied with this 1 year ago, 38 seconds later, 23 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,520
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,521
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,527
@1,342,520 (Meta)
I'll answer that as soon as you answer me. Would would oppose a politician who tries to singlehandedly cancel the 14th Amendment? Answer me that, then I will absolutely answer your specific question.
I'll answer that as soon as you answer me. Would would oppose a politician who tries to singlehandedly cancel the 14th Amendment? Answer me that, then I will absolutely answer your specific question.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 29 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,529
@previous (A)
You changed subjects from cancer to the 14th amendment, and you want him to answer you first? Please explain where the 14 amendment says anything about NIH.
You changed subjects from cancer to the 14th amendment, and you want him to answer you first? Please explain where the 14 amendment says anything about NIH.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 44 seconds later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,531
@previous (C)
The 14th Amendment does not say anything about cancer research. Now, answer my question.
The 14th Amendment does not say anything about cancer research. Now, answer my question.
Meta replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,534
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 14 seconds later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,536
@1,342,531 (A)
Then why did you bring up the 14th amendment when it has absolutely fucking nothing to do with cancer research?
Then why did you bring up the 14th amendment when it has absolutely fucking nothing to do with cancer research?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 20 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,537
Meta replied with this 1 year ago, 37 seconds later, 32 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,539
@previous (A)
You've already refused after I answered your question so you're clearly not arguing in good faith here.
You've already refused after I answered your question so you're clearly not arguing in good faith here.
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 13 seconds later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,540
@1,342,536 (C)
Because Meta argued about cancer research from the standpoint that the constitution does not provide for it. I brought up an example of something else the constitution provides for that Meta's favorite president tried to eliminate. My purpose in doing so was to demonstrate that Meta's reasoning is inconsistent.
Because Meta argued about cancer research from the standpoint that the constitution does not provide for it. I brought up an example of something else the constitution provides for that Meta's favorite president tried to eliminate. My purpose in doing so was to demonstrate that Meta's reasoning is inconsistent.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 47 seconds later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,543
@1,342,534 (Meta)
He's suggesting you're a hypocrite for not opposing somebody who would amend the constitution. Which is strange, because he seems to expect you to support both amending the constitution, and not amending the constitution.
He's suggesting you're a hypocrite for not opposing somebody who would amend the constitution. Which is strange, because he seems to expect you to support both amending the constitution, and not amending the constitution.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 56 seconds later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,545
@1,342,540 (A)
So he disagrees with you, and since you lost, you change the subject. Typical of you.
So he disagrees with you, and since you lost, you change the subject. Typical of you.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 38 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,547
@previous (C)
To the contrary, he argued that cancer research should not be government-funded because he believes the constitution does not support it. I am pointing out the inconsistency in that argument in order to dismantle it. It's a standard discussion technique.
To the contrary, he argued that cancer research should not be government-funded because he believes the constitution does not support it. I am pointing out the inconsistency in that argument in order to dismantle it. It's a standard discussion technique.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,552
@previous (A)
It is absolutely not an inconsistency. In fact, it supports Meta's constitutionalist position.
It is absolutely not an inconsistency. In fact, it supports Meta's constitutionalist position.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,562
@previous (D)
No, it does not. He cannot claim to be a constitutionalist while also supporting a politician who wants to eliminate parts of that constitution with a simple executive order.
No, it does not. He cannot claim to be a constitutionalist while also supporting a politician who wants to eliminate parts of that constitution with a simple executive order.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 44 seconds later, 48 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,565
@previous (A)
As you know, it's impossible to amend the constitution with an executive order. Claims to the contrary are nonsensical.
As you know, it's impossible to amend the constitution with an executive order. Claims to the contrary are nonsensical.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 49 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,567
@previous (D)
Not the point. He supports a politician who is TRYING to do that. If Meta were a constitutionalist, he would not support such.
Not the point. He supports a politician who is TRYING to do that. If Meta were a constitutionalist, he would not support such.
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,574
@previous (A)
That's just a silly position to take. It's not possible, although it is possible (and entirely fine) to advocate for the removal of an amendment.
That's just a silly position to take. It's not possible, although it is possible (and entirely fine) to advocate for the removal of an amendment.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,577
@previous (D)
But not the way Trump is doing it. That is the point. I'm frankly alarmed that you keep missing it.
But not the way Trump is doing it. That is the point. I'm frankly alarmed that you keep missing it.
Meta replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,581
@1,342,574 (D)
Exactly. It was specifically designed to be amended. Which is why we have so many amendments.
Exactly. It was specifically designed to be amended. Which is why we have so many amendments.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,583
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 21 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,585
@1,342,577 (A)
What you're saying Trump is doing is impossible. It is not possible to amend the constitution through executive order.
What you're saying Trump is doing is impossible. It is not possible to amend the constitution through executive order.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 29 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,587
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,590
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 22 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,592
@1,342,587 (A)
You supported Biden, you know, the old bastard who violated the constitution multiple times. But you had no issue with that, did you?
You supported Biden, you know, the old bastard who violated the constitution multiple times. But you had no issue with that, did you?
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 21 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,612
PootMaster69™ joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,615
Meta replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,645
@previous (PootMaster69™)
So he can get out of any argument. "Oh well I never supported Biden". Bullshit Matt. You did and we all saw it.
So he can get out of any argument. "Oh well I never supported Biden". Bullshit Matt. You did and we all saw it.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 50 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,654
Meta replied with this 1 year ago, 34 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,661
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,662
@1,342,539 (Meta)
> You've already refused after I answered your question so you're clearly not arguing in good faith here.
Exactly. Besides, OpenAI will achieve AGI and then ASI within 4 years and cancer will cured with an MRNA vaccine. So @OP's arguments are completely pointless
> You've already refused after I answered your question so you're clearly not arguing in good faith here.
Exactly. Besides, OpenAI will achieve AGI and then ASI within 4 years and cancer will cured with an MRNA vaccine. So @OP's arguments are completely pointless
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Meta replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,664
@previous (F)
I really hope they get AGI because I'm sick of seeing retards argue about it on rationalist forums.
I really hope they get AGI because I'm sick of seeing retards argue about it on rationalist forums.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,667
Meta replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,668
La Reina Catalina !j0siCathyI joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,671
I don't understand what the reason is behind this. I know there probably is some progress toward cures for a variety of different cancers, but they're reserved only for the wealthy. But what the fuck? It's like Trump is on a mission to make America suffer more.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,673
@1,342,668 (Meta)
No, you said I went to college for 39 years. That would mean that I began college as a newborn baby, which means I'm the world's top genius.
No, you said I went to college for 39 years. That would mean that I began college as a newborn baby, which means I'm the world's top genius.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,675
Meta replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,676
Meta double-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,677
Meta triple-posted this 1 year ago, 39 seconds later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,678
inb4 OP claims AIDS can be cured through diet like Type 1 diabetes 😂
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 37 minutes later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,679
Anonymous F replied with this 1 year ago, 26 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,681
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 32 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,685
Anonymous D replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,688
Kook !!rcSrAtaAC joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,690
Toilet Seat !tr.t4dJfuU replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,342,717
@1,342,673 (A)
> No, you said I started college at 39 years, which means I'm a retard.
Fifty. Years. Old.
> No, you said I started college at 39 years, which means I'm a retard.
Fifty. Years. Old.