Science Ethics and Racism in Drug Enforcement Thread
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
Argumentum ad naseum is yet another logical fallacy.
It doesn't matter how much you insult, insinuate, whine, bitch, cry about me being made a moderator, appeal to a tiny circle of people whose opinions on the subject are functionally irrelevant, try to compare me to some other poster you don't like, etc. none of that changes the fact that you're left here holding two demonstrable fallacies of logic as justification for your demonstrably fallacious opinion.
You'll need to do better than that. Its that simple.
The most important time to stand firm is in the face of those claiming that we should sell out our principles for a profit.
It doesn't matter how much you insult, insinuate, whine, bitch, cry about me being made a moderator, appeal to a tiny circle of people whose opinions on the subject are functionally irrelevant, try to compare me to some other poster you don't like, etc. none of that changes the fact that you're left here holding two demonstrable fallacies of logic as justification for your demonstrably fallacious opinion.
You'll need to do better than that. Its that simple.
The most important time to stand firm is in the face of those claiming that we should sell out our principles for a profit.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
You have two claims
1. Ethics in the sciences is a completely relative thing defined by national governments
You're definitionally incorrect on that point
2. I'm "Tanoomba-ing" the thread because several people agree with you
This is where you've made two demonstrably fallacious appeals to invalid logical structures. The argument from popularity, and the repetition fallacy.
Sorry I figured a lawyer could tell the difference between the two claims. Guess there was just too many words for you to keep up though.
1. Ethics in the sciences is a completely relative thing defined by national governments
You're definitionally incorrect on that point
2. I'm "Tanoomba-ing" the thread because several people agree with you
This is where you've made two demonstrably fallacious appeals to invalid logical structures. The argument from popularity, and the repetition fallacy.
Sorry I figured a lawyer could tell the difference between the two claims. Guess there was just too many words for you to keep up though.
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 29,845
- 83,130
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,847
- 50,774
Good thing I didn't say that!
You're tanoomba'ing the thread because you're furiously replying to everyone, while not addressing the issue of the thread. You're continually running down rabbit holes and ignoring the actual fucking issue. Meanwhile, when people get sick of replying to you, you claim victory in the most absolute terms.
Thats Tanoomba'ing. I thought you'd recognize it, because you know, you're the MOD in charge of rickshawing Tanoomba. The irony is just too juicy.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
I'm pretty sure Cad agrees that there is a biological tendency towards a certain moral structure.
I know Hodj agrees that there is a biological tendency towards a certain moral structure.
So I'm not sure what the disagreement is really about, if we get past the strawman armies.
I know Hodj agrees that there is a biological tendency towards a certain moral structure.
So I'm not sure what the disagreement is really about, if we get past the strawman armies.
Eidal
Molten Core Raider
- 2,001
- 213
Are you serious man? You were the one initially arguing that a specific set of guidelines applies to the Chinese researchers... because, reasons? How would I, a third party, determine whose guidelines are objectively correct between Hodj's and [chinese researcher_01]?
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,847
- 50,774
Oh its pretty simple Khalid, I think if you're experimenting on non-viable embryos, you could light them on fire and watch then burn for all I care. They are cells. They are not humans. Therefore whatever standards apply to human testing is moot. Hodj kinda-sorta acknowledged this and walked back his "definitionally unethical" stance, but then doubled down again later in the thread.
In general, there's going to be disagreement within the lines of that biological tendency towards a certain moral structure, but according to some posters in the thread, ethics are hard lines that apply the world over and there is one way that is correct. I disagree with that.
In general, there's going to be disagreement within the lines of that biological tendency towards a certain moral structure, but according to some posters in the thread, ethics are hard lines that apply the world over and there is one way that is correct. I disagree with that.
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
Hodj...
Do you think that Chinese medicine of using rhino's horn, and cat' nails, and other natural byproducts is also unethical?
Is it unethical in your view the almost entirety of eastern medicine?
After all they don't subscribe to the western ethical standards for medicine.
What about acupuncture, is it unethical as well?
Do you think that Chinese medicine of using rhino's horn, and cat' nails, and other natural byproducts is also unethical?
Is it unethical in your view the almost entirety of eastern medicine?
After all they don't subscribe to the western ethical standards for medicine.
What about acupuncture, is it unethical as well?
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,657
Yeah, but they came out of a human and they have the potential to become human. The reason they are non viable is because you are making them non viable. It is not a fundamental attribute. There's some doublethink going on there.
See, the Chinese just don't give a fuck. That line you're drawing is always going to be arbitrary. That's a problem in real science.
Please donate $3.50 to my Patreon for this blurbl of moral and ethical enlightenment.
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,847
- 50,774
So no, these didn't have the potential to become human, and non-viable is a fundamental attribute.The Article_sl said:
iannis
Musty Nester
- 31,351
- 17,657
That just pushes it back 1 step, Cad.
While absolving the researchers you have successfully pushed the responsibility onto the fertility clinicians.
That's a very good lawyer argument. You could probably convince 12/12 people of that one point. I will even agree with you about that 1 point.
But it reinforces the fact that these are non viable specimens as a matter of design, not happenstance.
While absolving the researchers you have successfully pushed the responsibility onto the fertility clinicians.
That's a very good lawyer argument. You could probably convince 12/12 people of that one point. I will even agree with you about that 1 point.
But it reinforces the fact that these are non viable specimens as a matter of design, not happenstance.
hodj
Vox Populi Jihadi
- 31,672
- 18,378
How do you know that evolution is a real phenomena? How do you know anthropogenic climate change is real? By listening to the experts and finding out what their consensus view is.
Pseudo scientific cures, like the entire homeopathy movement, driving endangered species to extinction to cure Chinese tiny penis erectile dysfunction disorders are all pretty unethical.
Acupuncture I don't know enough about. I thought it was useful as a cure for certain ailments, mostly muscle related.
To Cad:
There are three types of trisomy that are not "by definition" non viable. Chromosome 13, 18 and 21.
Anyway, how was my afternoon? Well, I watched a professor cause a student to collapse in class from berating her, went and filed a formal complaint against the professor for misconduct as a result. Pretty good all in all.
Now I'm gonna go address some very interesting questions posed to me in the Indiana thread.
Thanks for asking.
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
I personally have zero problem with anyone doing experiments on human cell's. I just don't know how can the outcome be tested in an ethical way.
I'm using ethics as "the outcome I don't want is a human embryo been born and then they realize, oh increase immunity also gives blindness." Because at that point you end up with a blind baby.
That is what i think more individuals draw the line. Even Cad when he says its not reason to worry "now". I'm on a similar the same boat, experiment away all you want, how it translates well see. Maybe splice DNA into living humans is a less damaging outcome, who knows.
I'm using ethics as "the outcome I don't want is a human embryo been born and then they realize, oh increase immunity also gives blindness." Because at that point you end up with a blind baby.
That is what i think more individuals draw the line. Even Cad when he says its not reason to worry "now". I'm on a similar the same boat, experiment away all you want, how it translates well see. Maybe splice DNA into living humans is a less damaging outcome, who knows.
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,847
- 50,774
No I think these are the embryos that didn't successfully put together viable DNA. They have a trisomy that will result in death. Thats not the "purpose" of creating them but when they are making embryos for IVF they make a bunch and then test them and implant the good ones. These are the not-good ones. I don't know what the design vs. happenstance thing is getting at, can you clarify?