Science Ethics and Racism in Drug Enforcement Thread

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
People here are only now figuring out that he was the real troll all along. Smarter fellows like me realized and ignored him a long time ago. I can understand the forum mentality of support the side you believe no matter the logic, but that still gets decided into reasonable and thoughtful posters... and then incoherent rage babbling like hodj.
You calling anyone else a troll on scientific topics is pretty laughable.
 

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,588
11,904
Can't win on the substance? Posting a bunch of shitty fallacy laden arguments, quoting citations that actually refute the claim you're making?

That's okay! Just whine I was made a mod! That'll fix it

Pathetic.

This will be my last post in this thread.
....
 

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
First lithose broke hodj and now cad. You know he's lost it when he is going through negging anyone who posts in a thread.
 

Abefroman

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
12,588
11,904
But no matter how many people on this forum disagree with me on this subject, it still won't change the fact that I'm right, and I'm the one who hasn't devolved into petty insults. I am no troll.
sense.jpg
 

Dandain

Trakanon Raider
2,092
917
So just because I read this whole thing and I'm not 100% clear on both positions.

Hodj, is your argument built on the premise that ethics are a universal truth that all actions are measured against.

Cad, is your argument that people make up Ethics to justify whatever they want to do, therefore claiming someone's ethics are wrong is a false notion because there is no absolute ethic to measure against? Its just perspective?
 

Warrian

╰⋃╯ლ(´ڡ`ლ)
141
29
Who the fuck is this hodj fuckstain anyway? Does this guy live here like some goddamn forum hobo? This shit disappoints me. I'm looking at you, Tuco, and whoever else is responsible for this reckless cunt of a person.
 

1987

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
3,275
7,155
First lithose broke hodj and now cad. You know he's lost it when he is going through negging anyone who posts in a thread.
Cad aside. I typically find myself agreeing with Hodj. But, if you are on the other side an argument from Lithose, god be with you.
 

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
So finally I got around to watching the video Hodj linked on morals in animals. Pretty awesome. Some people believe strongly that only humans have ethics, morals, even a sense of fairness. This is pretty clearly bunk. Much like how people used to believe that only humans had emotions. Just kind of amazing that both of these opinions are so prevalent in a world where so many people have dogs, who clearly have highly emotional lives and very clearly show compassion and empathy.
 

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,963
94,029
So just because I read this whole thing and I'm not 100% clear on both positions.

Hodj, is your argument built on the premise that ethics are a universal truth that all actions are measured against.

Cad, is your argument that people make up Ethics to justify whatever they want to do, therefore claiming someone's ethics are wrong is a false notion because there is no absolute ethic to measure against? Its just perspective?
Hodj is saying "ethics/morals" are some type of universal fundamental force that everyone is bound to akin to gravity or electromagnetism. Cad and the rest of us are pointing its not and that nothing stops someone from acting "unethically".
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Hodj is saying "ethics/morals" are some type of universal fundamental force that everyone is bound to akin to gravity or electromagnetism.
No, and I've never once used the word fundamental. I said the term definitional, and I said that its a result of pro social adaptations in our species. When I used the word universal, I meant universal as in universal in the field of the sciences, not universal as in "Laid out in the stars and the heavens." None of those mean what you, or anyone else, interpreted them to mean, and in fact I even PM'd Dandain with an explanation so as to avoid having to come back into this thread, but I'm not going to let you all just sit here and strawman me in your attempts to redefine what I've said.
 

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,896
I feel like there is something almost cosmic about The Golden Rule and The Hippocratic Oath and other such ethical principles. So I sort of see that side. But actually, there is no magic. Ethics are just as malleable as the animals in which they reside.
 

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,963
94,029
No, and I've never once used the word fundamental. I said the term definitional, and I said that its a result of pro social adaptations in our species. When I used the word universal, I meant universal as in universal in the field of the sciences, not universal as in "Laid out in the stars and the heavens." None of those mean what you, or anyone else, interpreted them to mean, and in fact I even PM'd Dandain with an explanation so as to avoid having to come back into this thread, but I'm not going to let you all just sit here and strawman me in your attempts to redefine what I've said.
Morals and ethics are relative man, there no different than laws or constitutional freedoms. Why you think they magically transcend national/ideological/cultural boundaries is beyond every other person on this forum. Just because you happen to hold a certain set of beliefs and standards that does not mean someone in China or NK holds them as well.
 

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
They may be relative to a certain extent, but there is a strong biological underpinning to them also. That is what Hodj is arguing.
 

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,811
34,720
Ethics aren't even a thing unless there's no guns or money involved.
 

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,963
94,029
Ethics aren't even a thing unless there's no guns or money involved.
This. While not everyone is bad, a lot of people are kept in line not because any moral compass or sense of right and wrong but by the threat of force, whether it be legal, financial or physical.