First of all, quote me where I said that all cells can't reproduce indefinitely!

Second was Copernicus' theory wrong because the planets orbited the sun in an elliptical orbit? Or is the context important in that he got a really big part of it right (planets orbited the sun), even though some smaller details were wrong? Are you really going to argue that unless something is 100% correct, then it's false? Are you retarded? Your argument is completely a fallacy of composition, even though is built on a completely made up presumption.

This is the most facile exchange I've ever seen. You are making a point which has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm saying. So some cells reproduce indefinitely; what has this got to do with the fact that at ~90 years of age, the cells that can't reproduce indefinitely, will degrade a persons ability to live? This is the important context, which you seem to be happy to just completely brush aside.

I think a lot of the tech press have been too unforgiving with their differentiation between engineering design and industrial design. The Note 3 screen is a great example, where I really ask the question, who cares? Maybe some people from the fruity cult look at it as not holistic design that they so love, but the fact of the matter is it's early days for a reasonable attempt. Carmack in previous keynotes has made that point, previous attempts at VR were woeful. Now tech is getting good enough to have a decent go at it, which is clearly why he's on board with it. I'm sure like you pointed out, that he didn't push a competitor, but if he didn't see potential in the product, then he wouldn't be there, that's for sure.

In the context of aging, those cells can't keep reproducing. Now you're just trying to put words in my post which just aren't there. I think it's time you enrolled in an english language course.

The problem I have is, you're continually shifting the goalposts. You bring up irrelevant analogies, arguably, your explanation of 4 billion year old cells is highly misleading in itself, because you're poorly conflating a literal take on a cell, versus its cohabitation in an entirely new entity. This is essentially grandpa's axe, or in philosophical circles, the paradox of the ship of Theseus. While this applies to a single human, because our body structure does renew itself, I think it's going to an absurd level of detail, a technicality if you will. We don't go around changing our names after a predetermined amount of time because the majority of our cells are new, ergo we are still the same person.

You haven't refuted anything I've said, except that you've made the distinction that not all cells wear out, fair enough, but in the context of what was being discussed, it's irrelevant, because obviously, the cells that contribute to aging and are necessary in sustaining a single entities life, clearly do wear out. The point I'm making is, we're hitting the natural limit of how long we can live. You have failed to make any point which states otherwise.

The fallacy I referred to is a false analogy. All your analogies really have no bearing to what I've said. But you've also used false dichotomies, and fallacies of division. You've brought up all these issues, such as stem cell injections, but failed to recognise that I never made any points with respect to what you've taken umbrage upon. In other words, you're arguing with nothing, because everything you've said is irrelevant, or pointless, or off topic; whatever.

So what geneticists have said is a lie. Your cells don't wear out and die, your skin doesn't age, your organs don't fail, no one gets cancer... Like are you that obtuse? I think you're the one who's failing victim to your logic, since you're the one exhibiting the fallacy. When the topic of conversation is how long do people live, how can you make a statement that some cells last indefinitely, in the context of human life, where no one has lasted indefinitely? This isn't a case of 'mammals can't fly' it's a case of 'pigs can't fly', and you're saying 'but bats do', yes, they can, so what?

But it's irrelevant to the point. Like I have no idea why you're arguing? Like yea, the sky is blue but so what? English must be a second language for you, because I don't think you've understood what I've said.

That's an aside, and it isn't related to the topic we're dealing with. I understand your point, but making it commonplace or routine doesn't make it natural.

That's why I stated natural living. I'd argue that once you start pouring in fresh stem cells or do other significant things to counteract aging, you're no longer living a natural life, as it's quite clear there's some serious intervention going on. The point of my comment was that the person I responded to seemed to thing >100 was realistic, but from what I heard, 90 is more accurate as a statistical average for the upper limit, at least that's the opinion of science today.

Where did I imply that? I think you're making stuff up and behaving like a precious little snowflake. That or your command of English is woeful at best.

Geneticists will tell you that around 90, your cells start to have lots of problems. The current consensus is that your body will tend to be worn out around 90. When they did tests on some really old woman who died at a fairly ripe old age above 110, iirc, they found that she only had two stem cells (yes, 2) producing white blood cells. There is a limit on how many times these things can keep reproducing, and your body just eventually wears out. If you haven't had significant hardship that stresses your body, and good genes, then you'll be a few standard deviations above, poor mix, then you'll be below. All that's clear is that we're approaching the realistic limit of natural living.

I think the point is lost on you. These worst cases were people seeking treatment and got it, yet the treatment has failed.

As for where is the support for mental illness, well it's simple, there doesn't need to be any because for instances of depression, we have these wonder drugs called SSRI's that solve the problem. How much more support do you need when popping a few pills make the problem go away? That was sarcasm by the way.

I'm not saying that we should ban them, it's clear that to a large extent they help. But, there's also clear evidence that among a subset, they don't appear to help. The medical profession can hide behind "the treatment was a success but the patient died", but forgive me in saying that it's not good enough. This is a failure on one level, because even if it wasn't the drug, then you really have to question, why just about all the shooting rampages, for instance, the people were or recently had stopped taking SSRI's, are not getting sufficient treatment to stop them hurting other people, when they had to seek treatment from someone to get the prescription. It's a failure on numerous levels, and whichever way you look at it, not enough is understood about these drugs. Statistically they offer a net benefit, but that shouldn't make it a cure-all for depression.

I think this demonstrates a really poor approach to the problem. For one, it ignores the question why just about every single case of a shooting rampage, the perpetrator had either been on SSRI's or recently came off. I know correlation is not causation, but constantly have this message ignored, when, if these people are usually reclusive, yet they're not so reclusive that they go to a psychiatrist who is convinced that they justify a prescription for a SSRI. So you're really begging the question as to how and why these people are slipping through the cracks! If it was the person and not the drug, then you'd be seeing quite a few more instances where they weren't taking SSRI's.

Also, if your point that they're mentally deranged to begin with and therefore all get medicated, having to go to a psychiatrist to get a prescription, then how and why aren't they being spotted by medical professionals?

I don't place a stigma on those who take the drugs, as they're just seeking help. I think the problem is more with the medical and pharmaceutical industry who stand to lose significant amounts of money if adverse findings were made for these drugs.

Is figure out why so many who are on SSRI's or had recently stopped taking them, become suicidal or go on shooting rampages, or both.

I guess that means it's going to be a gradual phase in. Two years from now, 25% of devices, if history is any indicator.