Let's stop the derail from the science thread.
ethics - Google ·j´M
And the people who decide what is ethical in science is the international scientific consensus and community.
Also the only reason I responded is because Cad responded.
Godwin's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No one is glibly comparing someone else to Hitler or the Nazis. No Godwinning of anything has occurred.Godwin has stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics.
Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. "Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust", Godwin has written.
Last edited by hodj; 04-24-2015 at 02:41 PM.
Let's stop the derail from the science thread.
How is talking about the ethical implications of biomedical research a derail from the sciences?
Summation of the argument:
Cad: "Governing bodies determine what science is and isn't definitionally ethical, therefore a body that has no authority on a group of scientists can not define what is ethical for them."
Hodj: "Here are some bodies who have no authority on these groups of scientists. Therefore what they did is definitionally unethical."
Last edited by Tuco; 04-24-2015 at 02:43 PM.
Hodj, you have claimed that ethics are universal. I don't agree with this or perhaps I am not understanding your pov.
I mean, in practice, there is some sort of consensus on ethics. However, it isn't universal in that it changes over time and will change in the future as more things become possible and we see possible benefits to risky procedures (or perhaps discover that things are doing now are riskier than we thought). It seems these standards are malleable and will be malleable. I don't really think this is a bad thing. As rational human beings, we can have discussions and move what is ethical and what isn't as we get more information.
Who are we to say what is or isn't a crime against humanity in another country? Isn't that country a sovereign? We can choose to place trade restrictions on them to influence them, or we can invade them to militarily impose our ethics on them, but that doesn't make what they did per se unethical. It means we won, and we won the right to impose our ethics on them.
If people in another country choose to follow their own ethical guidelines that do not mesh with ours, how do we have the stones to say "no, *OUR* ethics are correct, yours are wrong!" These are all matters of opinion.
I'm still stuck at why you think ethics has mystical power. I think it's unethical that there's basically indentured servants making products in Asian countries for me, but fuck if I'm going to pay $25 for a plain t-shirt so I guess pragmatism wins out. Loomers gotta loom.
We're human beings who aren't going to just sit by and watch human rights be violated on a daily basis without saying something. We're people with a sense of morality and fairness, and justice. Or at least, some of us are. The others are what we define as sociopaths. People incapable of empathyWho are we to say what is or isn't a crime against humanity in another country?
No. North Korea putting its citizens in concentration camps for folding the newspaper the wrong way such that the crease falls on the face of Dear Leader, is unethical. Their sovereignity is irrelevant. In fact, nations are artificial lines we've drawn on a planet that are arbitrary and ultimately meaningless. We are one species.Isn't that country a sovereign?
No, what makes it unethical is that it is a violation of basic standards and guidelines which are followed for the purpose of best protecting the stakeholders involved.We can choose to place trade restrictions on them to influence them, or we can invade them to militarily impose our ethics on them, but that doesn't make what they did per se unethical.
Your layman's understanding of how ethics in the sciences works is the real issue here.
How do you handle human remains in archaeological excavations, Cad? Can you tell me? Well I'll tell you, if we can tie those remains back to any populations, be they Native, be they African American, be they White, etc. we contact the stakeholders, and get their input before moving forward with the exacavation. This can stop an entire excavation for weeks or months. The teams of lawyers, legal counsel, federal, state and local governments, representatives for the communities/families/etc involved all get to come in and have their voices heard. Then a decision is made as a group.
The sciences are generally very well self regulated. Places like China are the wild west, but that doesn't make their conduct ethical, moral, or good, just because they are engaging in that research in a place with no accountability. In fact the lack of accountability is the single best argument for why the research is unethical in the first place.
Last edited by hodj; 04-24-2015 at 03:01 PM.
Hodj trying to connect the is to the ought and failing.
And when someone else disagrees with you, how do you resolve which ethical system is the one true system? Burn the heretics?Our sense of morality, fairness and justice is a result of mutually beneficial positive selection for pro social behavior, actually.
Is a group of people who lived and died almost 200 years prior to the events under discussion?There are a lot of people who consider retroactively applying our laws and feelings on people as we did at Nuremberg and calling it "crimes against humanity" patently unfair.
El. Oh. Fucking. El.
The Nuremburg Code isn't a law. Its a code of ethics. And it isn't ex post facto. Everyone knew what the Germans were doing at the time, and the Japanese, it was no secret, and it wasn't considered ethical or moral by anyone except the Eugenicists movement.
Two wrongs fallacyInterestingly, we do all the time! See: any recent genocides in Africa. See: Genocide in China prior to Japan attacking us. See: the Cultural Revolution in China or the purges in the USSR. "We will not sit by and watch..." ... unless it doesn't happen to coincide with a world war that we had to wage for other reasons. Then we absolutely will sit by and watch! Happy genociding!
Two wrongs fallacyAnd we've done what to stop North Korea from doing that?
Proof by assertion fallacyWell thats a hand-waving fucking vague standard if I ever heard one.
What we derive our ethics from is our mutually beneficial positively selected evolutionary paths for pro social behavior. And I already said that so everything you say after this is lolworthy tripe.What I want you to do is define ethics such that I can see what it draws from.
No. Shoot and bomb them. Burning isnt humane or ethical. Gosh.
it's funny that hodj thinks the academics are ultimately in charge.
yeah and who pays for your research? cause it's not the academics. The hand that feeds is always above the hand that receives.
No, the funny thing is that you're not addressing the actual issue, which is who decides what is ethical and who enforces that.
You're basically saying, Western Science decides whats ethical, and sure, nobody can enforce it, but it's still unethical for them to do it!
According to our standards, yes. What about according to their standards?
Hodj is either incapable of understanding your point, or unwilling to respond to the core issue.
The funny thing is you have not a single person you can name that agrees with you claim that there are lots of people who think what the Germans did was ethical or that it was wrong for us to label their actions as unethical retroactively (I can name a group of people who most definitely think what the Germans did was ethical, but I really don't think you mean them, or want to side with them, since, you know, they're all literally Neo Nazis). There were lots of people screaming to the world that what the Germans and the Japanese were doing was immoral, unethical, a violation of every human right and every concept of scientific and medical ethics, including the Hippocratic Oath, which has existed in one form or another for thousands of years.
No, there is no "Western Science" and "Eastern Science" just like there isn't "Your logic" and "My logic"You're basically saying, Western Science decides whats ethical, and sure, nobody can enforce it, but it's still unethical for them to do it!
There's just "Science" and there's just "Logic".
There is no "our standards" and "their standards". There's just "Standards".According to our standards, yes. What about according to their standards?
Further, my position is the position of the broad body of scientists globally
So the only people misunderstanding here is you, and Cad.
Last edited by hodj; 04-24-2015 at 03:28 PM.
It is unethical for them to do it. Yes, Reasonable Men can differ... but then on the other hand kill all gooks.
While the governing body should not dictate the ethics, in science research, the body potentially controls the money. Thus inadvertently controls the ethics. By controlling what is funded.
Say you as a researcher has a topic you was to research, that is contrary to the consensus about the subject... But you think you are right... The body does not Grant the money, hindering the science. The research gets done, your research confirms your supposition, you publish... And get thrown to the wolves by the consensus.... Get tossed in an insane asylum for years....
Years later your career ruined.... Your research that got you ruined.... Is proved correct, and the consensus wrong...
Ethically you were right, you did sound research, which was right. ethically, the people who ruined him, thought they were right, because "everyone" knew that research was wrong .... Who wins then... The person was ruined... Yet according to consensus, both parties, were ethical.
Btw that research was about sterilization of surgical instruments.
Its time for you to put up or shut up with some names of some people who think "retroactively calling what the Germans did unethical is wrong".
However you want to phrase it. You made the claim. Your "Evidence" was to cite the fucking Founding Fathers.
My issue is that you can state: "X is unethical." and substantiate it with "Plus, these guys agree with me" until you're blue in the face but if the Chinese scientists say ("lol no") then there really is no discussion to be had. Appealing to some objective codification of ethics in science based on some idea of "well we think this is best for society" is exactly what any other man or group can do, is doing, and will do. It's a pointless argument; why not just fast-forward to consequential ethics?
"You guys shouldn't do that, it's bad for these reasons..."
"Okay, well, then I'm going to stop you." OR "Well, we'll be really upset about it. Btw can you share your results?"
This appeal to some lofty international idea of ethics is just absurd -- when has the world ever been united on a question like: ("What is right and what is wrong?") All I parse when I'm reading your posts is that you're introducing the idea that a group (maybe the majority) has tentatively agreed on some issues of right/wrong and therefore it objectively encompasses the whole of human behavior in this field? What the fuck? This is typically the realm of JDI theists.
Nuremberg trials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here ya go Cad, I found someone who agrees with your claim that the Nuremburg trials were wrong because they ex post facto applied ethical standards to past conduct
You'll see. A few years from now the lawyers of the world will condemn this trial. You can't have a trial without law.
—Joachim von Ribbentrop
20 November 1945
Joachim von Ribbentrop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ulrich Friedrich Wilhelm Joachim von Ribbentrop (30 April 1893 – 16 October 1946) was Foreign Minister of Nazi Germany from 1938 until 1945. A successful businessman, he was appointed German Ambassador to London in 1936.
Now I can legitimately Godwin this discussion because we literally have Cad repeating the arguments made....by the Nazis....for why they shouldn't be able to be held accountable...for their crimes against humanity.
Last edited by hodj; 04-24-2015 at 03:39 PM.
Nuremberg: A Fair Trial? A Dangerous Precedent - The Atlantic
EJIL: Talk! Was Nuremberg a Violation of the Principle of Legality?
The Nuremberg Trial: Landmark in Law | Foreign Affairs
The Nuremberg Trial: A Beautiful Idea Murdered by Ugly Facts?
This is easy hodj, because criminal law has such standards. If you want to convict people of crimes, a LOT of conditions have to be met. Nuremberg was nothing more than Victor's Justice, applying our laws to their conduct. Had the Germans won, they would have executed our leaders too, so no biggie. Just so you realize, thats all it was.
Last edited by fanaskin; 04-24-2015 at 03:41 PM.
Not to mention, the Allies had plenty of so-called "war crimes" as well. Hodj is just going to say "TWO WRONGS FALLACY LOLOL" but it shows that Nuremberg was nothing more than making sure the losers were punished for losing.
You can reduce any ethical argument down to: X pisses me off, Y really pisses me off. If you do X I'll be mad. If you do Y I'll go stop you. It's all a matter of opinion until you invoke some objective derived-from-God set of rules.
See also my edit to my previous post where you are now simply regurgitating the arguments made...by the Nazis...to defend themselves.
Hodj is now trying to deflect from his original indefensible position and will argue the minutia of Nuremberg and other war crimes. Classic Tanoomba tactic.
WHEN WILL HE ADMIT IT WAS ABOUT HITMAN. FUCK.
Nuremberg: A Fair Trial? A Dangerous Precedent - The Atlantic
Your very first link contradicts you. Should I continue?Before I come to the discussion of the legal and political questions involved, let me make it clear that nothing I may say about the Nuremberg trial should be construed as a suggestion that the individual Nuremberg defendants or others who have done grievous wrongs should be set at liberty. In my opinion there are valid reasons why several thousand Germans, including many defendants at Nuremberg, should either by death or by imprisonment be permanently removed from civilized society. If prevention, deterrence, retribution, nay even vengeance, are ever adequate motives for punitive action, then punitive action is justified against a substantial number of Germans. But the question is: Upon what theory may that action properly be taken?
It is sometimes said that there is no international law of war crimes. But most jurists would agree that there is at least an abbreviated list of war crimes upon which the nations of the world have agreed. Thus in Articles 46 and 47 of the Hague Convention of 1907 the United States and many other countries accepted the rules that in an occupied territory of a hostile state "family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious conviction and practice, must be respected. Private property cannot be confiscated. Pillage is formally forbidden." And consistently the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that rules of this character are part of our law. In short, there can be not doubt of the legal right of this nation, prior to the signing of a peace treaty to use a military tribunal for the purpose of trying and punishing a German if, as Count 3 charges, in occupied territory he murdered a Polish civilian, or tortured a Czech, or raped a Frenchwoman, or robbed a Belgian. Moreover, there is no doubt of the military tribunal's parallel right to try and to punish a German if he has murdered, tortured, or maltreated a prisoner of war.
In connection with war crimes of this sort there is only one question of law worth discussing here: Is it a defense to a soldier or civilian defendant that he acted under the order of a superior?
The defense of superior orders is, upon the authorities, an open question. Without going into details, it may be said that superior orders have never been recognized as a complete defense by German, Russian, or French law, and that they have not been so recognized by civilian courts in the United States or the British Commonwealth of Nations, but they tend to be taken as a complete excuse by Anglo-American military manuals. In this state of the authorities, if the International Military Tribunal in connection with a charge of a war crime refuses to recognize superior orders as a defense, it will not be making a retroactive determination or applying an ex post facto law. It will be merely settling an open question of law as every court frequently does.
The refusal to recognize the superior-order defense not only is not repugnant to the ex post facto principle, but is consonant with our ideas of justice.
EJIL: Talk! Was Nuremberg a Violation of the Principle of Legality?
Did you read these links at all Cad, yes or no?Was Nuremberg a Violation of the Principle of Legality?
his is, remarkably, the question raised by yesterday’s judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Kononov v. Latvia, App. No. 36376/04. In short, the applicant was a former Soviet partisan convicted by a Latvian court for war crimes, because during World War II he and the unit under his command killed a group of Latvian villagers who collaborated with the Germans. The case raised many issues of the law of armed conflict/IHL, such as combatant and civilian status – but importantly, how the law applied inter-temporally, i.e. what the law was in 1944, when the alleged crime was committed.
The Chamber 4:3 judgment in favour of Kononov was much criticized for various methodological reasons, and not just for its ultimate result. The Grand Chamber reversed the Chamber’s judgment, finding in favour of Latvia by 14:3, and is technically of significantly better quality. The ultimate result of the case and some nitpicking I would have with certain elements of the Grand Chamber’s reasoning aside, what interests me the most is its basic approach, and the broader implications that it might have....
So, would it have been? Logically, the London Charter was either declaratory of pre-existing custom, or a substantive retroactive imposition of criminal responsibility. The position of the IMT itself on this point is ambiguous, as it both stated that the Charter ‘it is the expression of international law existing at the time of its creation,’ and that nullum crimen was a ‘principle of justice’ that was satisfied merely on the count that the defendants knew that what that they were doing was wrong – IMT judgment, at 38-40. In effect, the IMT held that nullum crimen did NOT necessarily mean what the Latin says – that there has to be law criminalizing specific conduct at the time of the offense. This, however, is not an interpretation of the principle that seems to be open under Art. 7 ECHR – and therein lies the rub.
There has always been a tension in international criminal law between the requirements of strict legality and considerations of substantive justice. Time and again, the positive law has proven inadequate precisely when it was most needed. This, in turn, lead judges either to downgrade nullum crimen to a mere ‘principle of justice,’ as was arguably done by the IMT, that would be satisfied even by a showing that the perpetrators of heinous acts knew that what they were doing was wrongful – if not illegal – or to creatively ‘discover’ supposedly pre-existing law to fill in the gap between the factual and the normative, as was done on so many occasions by the ICTY and the ICTR.
The Nuremberg Trial: Landmark in Law | Foreign Affairs
The Nuremberg Trial: A Beautiful Idea Murdered by Ugly Facts?The defendants at Nuremberg were leaders of the most highly organized and extensive wickedness in history. It was not a trick of the law which brought them to the bar; it was the "massed angered forces of common humanity." There were three different courses open to us when the Nazi leaders were captured: release, summary punishment, or trial. Release was unthinkable; it would have been taken as an admission that there was here no crime. Summary punishment was widely recommended. It would have satisfied the immediate requirement of the emotions, and in its own roughhewn way it would have been fair enough, for this was precisely the type of justice that the Nazis themselves had so often used. But this fact was in reality the best reason for rejecting such a solution. The whole moral position of the victorious Powers must collapse if their judgments could be enforced only by Nazi methods. Our anger, as righteous anger, must be subject to the law. We therefore took the third course and tried the captive criminals by a judicial proceeding. We gave to the Nazis what they had denied their own opponents -- the protection of the Law. The Nuremberg Tribunal was thus in no sense an instrument of vengeance but the reverse. It was, as Mr. Justice Jackson said in opening the case for the prosecution, "one of the most significant tributes that Power has ever paid to Reason."
The function of the law here, as everywhere, has been to insure fair judgment. By preventing abuse and minimizing error, proceedings under law give dignity and method to the ordinary conscience of mankind. For this purpose the law demands three things: that the defendant be charged with a punishable crime; that he have full opportunity for defense; and that he be judged fairly on the evidence by a proper judicial authority. Should it fail to meet any one of these three requirements, a trial would not be justice. Against these standards, therefore, the judgment of Nuremberg must itself be judged....
What really troubles the critics of Nuremberg is that they see no evidence that before 1945 we considered the capture and conviction of such aggressors to be our legal duty. In this view they are in the main correct, but it is vitally important to remember that a legal right is not lost merely because temporarily it is not used. What happened before World War II was that we lacked the courage to enforce the authoritative decision of the international world. We agreed with the Kellogg Pact that aggressive war must end. We renounced it, and we condemned those who might use it. But it was a moral condemnation only. We thus did not reach the second half of the question: What will you do to an aggressor when you catch him? If we had reached it, we should easily have found the right answer. But that answer escaped us, for it implied a duty to catch the criminal, and such a chase meant war. It was the Nazi confidence that we would never chase and catch them, and not a misunderstanding of our opinion of them, that led them to commit their crimes. Our offense was thus that of the man who passed by on the other side. That we have finally recognized our negligence and named the criminals for what they are is a piece of righteousness too long delayed by fear.
We did not ask ourselves, in 1939 or 1940, or even in 1941, what punishment, if any, Hitler and his chief assistants deserved. We asked simply two questions: How do we avoid war, and how do we keep this wickedness from overwhelming us? These seemed larger questions to us than the guilt or innocence of individuals. In the end we found an answer to the second question, but none to the first. The crime of the Nazis, against us, lay in this very fact: that their making of aggressive war made peace here impossible. We have now seen again, in hard and deadly terms, what had been proved in 1917 -- that "peace is indivisible." The man who makes aggressive war at all makes war against mankind. That is an exact, not a rhetorical, description of the crime of aggressive war.
Thus the Second World War brought it home to us that our repugnance to aggressive war was incomplete without a judgment of its leaders. What we had called a crime demanded punishment; we must bring our law in balance with the universal moral judgment of mankind. The wickedness of aggression must be punished by a trial and judgment. This is what has been done at Nuremberg....
It is this principle upon which we must henceforth rely for our legal protection against the horrors of war. We must never forget that under modern conditions of life, science and technology, all war has become greatly brutalized, and that no one who joins in it, even in self-defense, can escape becoming also in a measure brutalized. Modern war cannot be limited in its destructive methods and in the inevitable debasement of all participants. A fair scrutiny of the last two World Wars makes clear the steady intensification in the inhumanity of the weapons and methods employed by both the aggressors and the victors. In order to defeat Japanese aggression, we were forced, as Admiral Nimitz has stated, to employ a technique of unrestricted submarine warfare not unlike that which 25 years ago was the proximate cause of our entry into World War I. In the use of strategic air power, the Allies took the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Germany, and in Japan the destruction of civilian life wreaked by our B-29s, even before the final blow of the atomic bombs, was at least proportionately great. It is true that our use of this destructive power, particularly of the atomic bomb, was for the purpose of winning a quick victory over aggressors, so as to minimize the loss of life, not only of our troops but of the civilian populations of our enemies as well, and that this purpose in the case of Japan was clearly effected. But even so, we as well as our enemies have contributed to the proof that the central moral problem is war and not its methods, and that a continuance of war will in all probability end with the destruction of our civilization.
International law is still limited by international politics, and we must not pretend that either can live and grow without the other. But in the judgment of Nuremberg there is affirmed the central principle of peace -- that the man who makes or plans to make aggressive war is a criminal. A standard has been raised to which Americans, at least, must repair; for it is only as this standard is accepted, supported and enforced that we can move onward to a world of law and peace.
I'm not even going to read past that on the fourth link. You're citing a students essay for their final undergraduate project. Please. Spare me.THIS CONTENT WAS WRITTEN BY A STUDENT AND ASSESSED AS PART OF A UNIVERSITY DEGREE. E-IR PUBLISHES STUDENT ESSAYS & DISSERTATIONS TO ALLOW OUR READERS TO BROADEN THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE WHEN ANSWERING SIMILAR QUESTIONS IN THEIR OWN STUDIES.
Last edited by hodj; 04-24-2015 at 04:00 PM.
Is this the new Kentucky thread?
Originally Posted by Noodleface
When you guys realize that you've laid your gauntlet down on a topic that your best defense of is to appeal to fucking Goering and Ribbentrop's appeals to the invalidity of the international Nuremburg trials to judge them, let me know.
I'm gonna take a break now, and let Cad pick up the pieces of his shitty and unsupported opinion.
Hodj, you'd do a lot better if you understood Cad's argument.
actually nuremburg is a perfect example of why hodj is wrong now that I think about it, the top nazi's like goring and Hess ect HAD to be dealt with and were rightly dealt with, but all the mid level nazi scientists and intelligence or military officers that america needed to compete with Russia were spirited away to america via things like operation paperclip. Or put in power in europe like the former gestapo officers stationed in france who was hired to head anti communist intelligence in france because alot of communists were former french partisans, 0% ethics involved. Same with the former SS troops that truman supported in ukraine because they were a thorn in the soviets side. What caused this lapse of ethics? scientific/military/economic necessity exactly like has been argued. Those aren't the only cases either there's ALOT of former nazi's hired to do for the west the same or almost the same thing they did for the nazi's.
Last edited by fanaskin; 04-24-2015 at 04:28 PM.
The point of my articles was that there has been a lot of scholarly discussion and disagreement regarding ex post facto applying our laws or "international law as we agree to it" to wartime acts in another country.
But just like he won't admit that ethics are a relative creation, he won't admit that either.
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
This will be my last post in this thread.
BYE! I swear Hodj has the emotional maturity of a 5 year old.
Originally Posted by Noodleface
And truly today hodj learned what it was to be Tanoomba. Literally EVERYONE in the thread disagrees with him, but HOLY FUCK DOUBLE DOWN ON HOW FUCKING WRONG EVERYONE IS and claim victory
Truly, today sir you are A Moon Bat.
Tuco, request Hodj's title be set to "A Moon Bat Impersonator"
Also I'm willing to bet that won't be his last post...
Last edited by Cad; 04-24-2015 at 04:21 PM.
If Hodj's moderation were as bad as his posts in this thread I'd have stripped him of all lands and titles.
Jesus Christ. I can't imagine what it must be like to live like that. Is this what Assburgers is like?
Since hodj seems to have inexplicably taken the high road against you heathen rabble I suppose it's up to me to step in.
Tuco is like Littlefinger on these forums. Makes Hodj a mod for punishment cause Kentucky rage quit, he knows people will bust Hodj's balls over it. At the same time he basically takes care of his Tanoomba problem with no blood on his hands. Bravo.
Originally Posted by Noodleface
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.
I called it in the science thread, I saw the Tanoomba tactic emerge post fucking one on this topic when he countered Cad by asserting ethics are absolute. In CHINA, lol.
I enjoyed many of hodj's posts in the Atheist thread.
No I negged Tuco earlier. I just negged you and Abe and Eidal.
And now you're going to claim "You were right" that I would post in the thread again.
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.
Further, it won't change the fact that when you lose a debate, the first thing you do is cry about me being made a moderator.
I am no troll. I debate vigorously, but I debate honestly. I attempt to support my position with reason, facts and evidence. I do my best to not insult people, and I certainly don't go whining to Tuco or the other mods to save me.
The reality here is that your actions have clearly demonstrated you lost this debate. So there really wasn't a reason to respond any more. When you start crying that I was made a moderator, against my will and have multiple times offered to have it rescinded, including right this second where I'll do it again, then you have clearly lost the debate.
Tuco is free at any time to rescind my moderatorship. Draegan too. Teljair as well. I didn't ask for it, didn't want it, and so far, have tried my dead level best to be a decent moderator, including sending people pm warnings when someone reports a post by them that might get them an infraction, so as to avoid them getting infracted.
I am done posting in this thread. I am done debating with you when you are such a pathetic coward that the best rebuttal you can come up with is to argumentum ad populum and insult and demean and cry about my moderatorship, as if I had anything to do with that decision. Its stupid, infantile antics that demonstrate quite clearly how hard you've lost this debate.
And a good day to you sir.
Hodj, the Southern Unethical Scientist from Kentucky.
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.
Didn't neg me. Yall suckahs just upset. rectum wrecked.
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?
Because we only stand for being owned and used for profit by our own. Rererolled.org
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.
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.
Last edited by hodj; 04-25-2015 at 02:01 AM.
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.
They may be relative to a certain extent, but there is a strong biological underpinning to them also. That is what Hodj is arguing.
Ethics aren't even a thing unless there's no guns or money involved.
Right. I'm not saying its magic, or like a god or some shit.
Spoilering this post for its length
This guy is a good example of that from the news recently
BERLIN: Auschwitz guard offers Germans something rare: A Nazi who admits what he did | Europe | McClatchy DC
Even though he lived in a society that led him to have to shut down a lot of his empathy towards the suffering he witnessed, he still has a detached, but very real, understanding of the horrors. Its sorta being stuck in a rock and a hard place, we will adapt, because humans will adapt to almost any conditions, but we still recognize that shit was fucking wrong on a fundamental level.
Last edited by hodj; 04-25-2015 at 03:37 AM.
On the other hand, there is certainly a biological underpinning to empathy and protection of children (among others). Which could, indirectly, make a scientist stop doing research or make a culture decide collectively to stop doing something.
I just now figured it out. As retarded as hodj is, I must give him credit for being consistent in his views, unlike most of you. Just like gayness, there is no doubt some biological underpinning to ethics. Our genetics make us into the creatures we are. That said, society, experience and our own situations also mold us. Take two genetically identical twins, raise one with wolves and the other with a christian family. They will end up having wildly different personalities and forms of ethics.
Much like someone's propensity to be gay, ignoring the influence of our life on what makes us is a purely asinine view on the way the mind developes. Ethics you believe and the propensity to follow them are a choice, just like gayness.
What's the biological underpinning that makes people start doing horrible shit to each other? Especially when it passes the boundary of survival needs. Serious question.
Because we only stand for being owned and used for profit by our own. Rererolled.org
However, not shocked to see you say this. The only thing you have been "consistent" on is defining choice however you want to try and prove that everything is a choice. Even elementary particles. I'd think you were a troll but I think it is just more likely that you really are that stupid. However, I am sure you "decided" at some point on being stupid, so even that fits.
Meanwhile the Chinese give no fucks whatsoever and cause Hodj to drink.
Last edited by Palum; 04-25-2015 at 03:01 AM.
There no doubt is a mixture of biology and life experience that come together in cruel people, and I don't think we have the knowledge to specifically say how much each contributes. Hodj would tell you that it is purely biological, which I think is retarded.
The interesting thing about homo sapiens is how we resemble, in actions, both chimpanzees and bonobos at times. Chimpanzees are more aggressive, more tribalistic, more territorial. Their males are more isolationist, taking tribes of females and driving out competing males, while bonobos are less aggressive, more socially cognizant, males are more willing to share territory and females are more accepting of both females and males, even from other groups, moving in and joining their social structure (females actually tend to dominate bonobo social circles, in opposition to chimpanzees).
You have to think like the first earliest homo erectus that spread out in the first real wide ranging dispersal patterns around the globe probably didn't have much competition. But then came along archaic homo sapiens, and they started outcompeting them for the same territory. Then, as they spread out from Africa into Europe and elsewhere, they started to come into contact with other groups, like the Neanderthals and Denosivans. There's some evidence of interbreeding between these populations (some small percentage of the human genome is probably derived from both Neanderthal and Denosivan populations, for instance) but mostly we drove them north into colder climes, the Ice Age ended, disrupting the Neanderthal and Denosivan ways of living, and we just sorta out competed them.
That's sorta the foundations of intertribal conflicts, usually, some sort of competition for resources.
We see it even now, though less so since so many of the hunter gatherer and more archaic populations have either been subsumed or wiped out by modernity, but these groups end up on marginal territory, eeking out a living while the larger social communities take up all the best land and resources for themselves.
Last edited by hodj; 04-25-2015 at 03:06 AM.
I think that general concept sets the stage for understanding, in any case. Not that it perfectly explains every act of violence in human history, just that it is a real thing that species compete within themselves. It is one of the main arguments against the idea of 'group selection' in evolution.
But the funny thing is that because that one knocked the weaker, slower one down, the rest of the herd probably escaped, so one could argue that its sorta a glass half full/half empty thing. Selfish gene versus altruism. One dies so the rest may live, or in this case, one is sacrificed so the rest can survive.
Last edited by hodj; 04-25-2015 at 03:17 AM.
Anywho, I've said my part. Feel free to claim I literally think gays are hitler, despite the fact I choose to be gay myself. Let me show hodj how it's done. I'm done with this thread faggots.
Cad and Hodj arguing ethics?
Last edited by Siddar; 04-25-2015 at 12:43 PM.
Back around 2000 I was at the University of Minnesota which was on a federally mandated massive Science Ethics kick. Why federally mandated? Well because the University's medical school and associated hospital had been caught selling unapproved anti-rejection drugs to transplant patients for decades. In fact this research bankrolled the University hospital which then had to be sold to pay the massive fine and the U of MN was then put on "special" status with the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation which required extra scrutiny to any and all grant applications.
Even though all the ethics transgressions landed solidly in the lap of the medical school the restrictions and emphasis of the ethics education hit everyone and so we were all made to go to a seemingly interminable series of ethics training courses, symposiums, colloquia, etc.
The truly amazing thing, to my view, was that the ethics training was aimed mostly at the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, engineering) rather than the bio sciences or anything at all related to the social sciences. The social scientists all considered themselves immune to ethics training because they were all naturally-born ethical researchers by virtue of being social scientists and believed that any member of the hard sciences were all monsters who were out to destroy the planet with our doomsday machines. When I pointed out that we already had ethics in our curriculum BEFORE this mandate hit (dealing with Oppenheimer for physics, Dow Chemical for Chemistry, the Challenger Accident for Engineering) and asked exactly where ethics had been discussed in their departments they just sputtered and stomped off.
Social sciences don't have to worry about ethics because nothing they do matters anyway.
Physics and engineering makes an atom bomb, chemistry makes agent orange, social scientists lock some students in a fake jail and make other students be the keepers while one guy is ordered to electrocute everyone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)