Difference between revisions of "Talk:Howard Stern"

Revision as of 00:44, June 23, 2007

Look, CoulterMan, maybe then you can explain to me why its relevant to Stern's politics that he had Moore on at one point? Or why in a discussion about Stern's politics its necessary to describe Stem-Cell research as basically Murder? Its editorializing where none is necessary. Thats why I keep cutting it out, can you tell us why you keep putting it in? Theres no descriptive paragraph explaining what Satellite Radio is when thats mentioned, and no paragraph describing Boston University when its mentioned, so why hold up Stern's political section with an inflammatory description of stem cells? Plus, having Moore on his show is irrelevant to Stern's political views since he has alot of people on. He's had Drew Carey on and He's a registered republican, so what the hell's the point of mentioning just one guest? And to say that he "even" had Moore on, as though that crosses some kind of line, where is the sense in this? Explain yourself.--RexMundane 19:21, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

"that involves the killing and cloning of human embryos"

The passage "that involves the killing and cloning of human embryos" has been removed with this edit (which is marked as minor - but isn't). Does anyone have anything to back this up either way? The removal of this phrase significantly changes what is said when it comes to stem cell research. --Mtur 21:15, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

• Listen to his show! That's what he supports! -- CoulterMan 08:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Nobody's challenging that that he supports embryonic stem cell research, but unless stern himself has said, directly, that he supports embryo-killing, then its not necessary to say it. Unless you can say "Stern has said that he supports 'the killing and cloning of human embryos'" as a direct quote from him then its completely unnecessary to describe it in imflammatory language just for your own petty need to frame the debate however you like. Grow up about this, and realize that nobody in fact wants to hear you editorialize, especially when it takes the article away from its subject matter (Stern) into where you want to go just to vent (Moore and Stem Cells, frinstance).

This is a touchy issue for those who believes that embryos are human. Please be sensitive to your fellow contributors. --Ed Poor 15:48, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I try to be. However I dont see editorializing about Michael Moore and opinions on Stem Cells in an entry on Howard Stern actually contributes anything. To say embryonic stem cell research "involves the killing and cloning of human embryos" is as it may be and is perhaps an acceptable (if loaded) opinion in a discussion on stem cells. It is not appropriate to a discussion on Howard Stern to detail what this one person thinks about this particular field of medical research. If it is, then at what point can you stop it at all? Why not have the article on Howard Stern just outright hijacked by a debate then?

"Stern is in favor of embryonic stem cell research which involves the killing and cloning of human embryos, but is seen by many as a necessary and vital step in medical research with the potential to save untold numbers of lives, although that salvation surely comes at a moral cost given the nature of the research, however some would argue that it is morally permissable to terminate the life of non-sentient cellular clusters to save a human, but how can you say that they're only cellular clusters when you're very clearly committing homicide on infants, but they're not really infants they havent even developed a nervous system, but they have a soul, and if they're not baptised then they'll burn in hell for the sake of your medical research, and is that what you want? Is it?!

Stern also considers Ralph Nader to be a personal hero."

Its unnecessary editorializing to describe, in loaded, opinionated language, what Stem Cell research is in an obvious attempt to attack the man in an already loaded article ("attempts at humor" in the opening sentence lets us know outright what the opinion being put forth is, so much for non-biased) as is saying "Stern even had Michael Moore on his show once! Can you believe that? Can you!? HUH!?!?" and saying that one particular episode with extraordinarily offensive content is "Typical." Its loaded language, its unnecessary, and it has no place whatsoever in any place that pretends to take itself seriously.

Funny thing how I'm always having to explain myself and what I do and still watch it undone. Not surprising of course given the nature of this site, just funny. "An encyclopedia you can trust" indeed.

--RexMundane 16:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

There is much stem cell research that is done without going to human cell lines at all. Furthermore, look at the HeLa line (not a stem cell, but an example of a cell line). One can also obtain stem cells from umbilical chords and there is work being done to isolate stem cells from adults. These are all approaches that are not in conflict with Howard Stern's stance on stem cell research. --Mtur 15:56, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I probably should read this entire thread, but I stopped when I read Rex's point about article hijacking. Would you both agree to moving this discussion to Talk:stem cells? --Ed Poor 14:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Better yet, Stem cell research's talk page: Talk:Stem cell research. --Ed Poor 14:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you, yes, that was my point from the outset, that an article on Howard Stern is not the place to exposit personal commentary on a seperate issue, and that its enough to say Stern supports the research.--RexMundane 15:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Plagarism?

This article is largely an unsourced lift from here. I thought we weren't supposed to copy from other sources. Matthew1036 20:44, 22 June 2007 (EDT)