Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sumane12 t1_j3lfboz wrote

Reply to comment by a4mula in Arguments against calling aging a disease make no sense relative to other natural processes we attempt to fix. by Desperate_Food7354

People don't die or get sick from ageing, they die and get sick from age related diseases.

A 2 year old can die from the same thing as a 90 year old, its just extremely unlikely due to their ability to recover.

The cell degradation that occurs in the elderly, happens in young people at a much slower rate, it just increases over time to the point that you are exponentially more likely to die from something you previously would have recovered from.

Ageing CAN be cured, we literally copy our cells into our children, we just need to figure out the process into ourselves. It might be impossible today, but eventually it won't be

3

a4mula t1_j3lffeb wrote

Finally, someone I can upvote. Ty good sir or good ma'am. I'm sorry for all of the mental gymnastics it took to get here, but at least someone finally had a light come on.

Edit. I lied. I didn't read all the way through lol.

Aging will never be cured. Age-related disease can be cured. I know these things are subtle. They're tough. But it's important, otherwise you're going to keep looking for ways to cure something that isn't a disease and is incapable of being cured. You were so close though. Still. High Five.

2

sumane12 t1_j3llkxu wrote

>Aging will never be cured.

The fact that you made this statement, just shows how little you understand the subject.

Apart from the fact that you made a blanket statement ignoring all the progress that has been made, in every area over the years where people have asserted something 'cannot be done', you also don't define your argument.

A good way to define your statement would be "it's impossible to avoid metabolic cellular damage within an active agent " this is a true statement because if not, it violates Newton's third law of motion, every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The question is not whether we can cure aging, it's about whether we can slow cellular degradation to the point that a repair can be done. We know this is possible as I mentioned earlier, we can pass on our genetic information at any age and we still get a newborn.

3

a4mula t1_j3llw4l wrote

>The fact that you made this statement, just shows how little you understand the subject.

I stopped there. Nothing you can say after this has merit.

Let me ask you a question.

Can you cure puberty?

Perhaps you say, but why in the fuck would you ever want to?

Now, you're getting it.

That's right. Puberty is a natural process that allows children to develop into adults.

But hey Mr. Smarty Pants? Isn't that also a product of aging?

So when the fuck are you going to cure it?

edit:

Fuck, that logic shit is a bitch. When are you going to understand? Aging in a natural process we must all go through. There is nothing to cure. It's not a disease.

Stop trying to cure aging you dumb fuck and instead focus on the natural biological systems that are triggered by it. Just like puberty is. Just don't cure that one.

1

MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3m4l8h wrote

Puberty doesn’t cause death, aging does. That’s why it’s called a disease. You’re not very fast are you.

3

a4mula t1_j3sby36 wrote

Fast? No, I'm a human. I take it you've not lifted those knuckles too far as one?

Tell me. You know anyone that has died from aging?

1

MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3se15s wrote

Plenty

1

a4mula t1_j3sfa17 wrote

Do tell. This will be a story for the ages. Call the press first. Notify the world. Because you're about to tell a story that's never happened in the history of life before.

Nothing dies from aging. Things die because the natural processes that allow them to age stop functioning.

1

MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3sgcff wrote

Aging allows such vulnerability to take place. A person getting stabbed and you’re so adamant in removing the knife as opposed to the murderer. Aging is not like puberty, puberty is by design and aging is part of nature’s limitation. Playing the semantic game as opposed to looking at the functional relation between objects is just stupid. Whether we categorize it as a disease or not is not important, the fact remains that people are better off without it and it’s the shortest and the most straightforward solution to longevity. You’re not very bright are you.

1

a4mula t1_j3sgtw5 wrote

Aging also allows for us to exist.

You cannot exist without aging.

It's not the problem.

The problem is that there are biological (and mechanical, teeth, broken bones, a fucking safe landing on your head) processes that tend to be activated as we age.

Solve those.

1

MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3sh5jl wrote

> Aging also allows for us to exist.

Wrong

> You cannot exist without aging.

Wrong

> It's not the problem.

And wrong, nice try.

1

a4mula t1_j3shs1x wrote

At this point, I'm just going to ignore you. I'm tempted to block you as a user entirely. I've never done that in my entire history here, hell I'd have to look it up, and I'm fucking lazy. But I'm tempted to.

Because you show more willful ignorance than any human I've ever interacted with on this site, and that number has to be at least in the tens of thousands at this point. Maybe more.

1

MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3sm248 wrote

Sure, I’M the one who’s willfully ignorant. Keep on living in your own bubble buddy, clearly no one agrees with you.

0

a4mula t1_j3smfw7 wrote

It's not that, you were just too quick to find the first thread you could tug on.

Your laziness and unwillingness to think for yourself got the right one though.

Because with my threads come logic, rational, and someone that can not only outthink you by large margins but has the word skills to made it obvious to all.

You can keep tugging, or maybe you should read a little more and find out just what the fuck it is I'm saying, why I'm saying it, and what happens to others if they don't take the easy route to it.

1

MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3stfka wrote

Here r/iamverysmart go back where you came from. You can throw some of your brainless pseudo-intellectual argument over there instead.

1

a4mula t1_j3stotx wrote

lol. Look around friend. This aint world news. If you're not bright, why are you here?

1

MassiveIndependence8 t1_j3sttff wrote

Oh I am, you’re just too stupid to understand.

1

a4mula t1_j3sudzv wrote

Let's start the process. Shall we. It's almost like surgery, but don't worry, I'm gifted with cutting.

You're bright? That's your claim? Because there aren't too many bright folks slumming in subs whose only goal is to mock logic and rationale.

That's not the way being bright works. So, is there anything else you've brought to the table, because bath water warm threats of exposing my intelligence?

They don't bother me.

edit: Are you that vacuous that it takes an hour to establish the merit of your claim? If so, that's alright take all the time you need. I'll pick it back up next time I'm around. That's the beauty of Reddit, it works on my time schedule.

1

sumane12 t1_j3lqgmw wrote

>Can you cure puberty

I stopped there. Nothing you can say after this has merit.

2

InUniverse t1_j3mos3n wrote

> Perhaps you say, but why in the fuck would you ever want to?

This sounds to me like a faliure of creativity on your part. "I can't think of a reason why someone would want to not go through puberty, so nobody should ever be allowed to do it!"

And if we follow through the comparison to the other side: "I can't think of a reason why people would want their bodies to not gradually break down and become unusable"? L O fucking L, that's all I can say.

2