A very powerful scientist who was so powerful he controlled the city he was in, was creating dog breeds. He had created all sorts of dog breeds. Some for intelligence, some for speed, some for hardiness and some a combination "super" breed. One day, one of the super breed dogs somehow got infected by a deadly strain of rabies and started infecting the other ordinary breed dogs. It managed to infect a third of the population of dogs before escaping out of the facility with the other infected dogs because it was kinda super smart for a dog.

Now out in the city, these dogs start to bite people and infect them with rabies. People are dying because this rabies strain acts fast and is quite fatal, the dogs are many and quite fierce so it was hard to fight them off. Now the scientist has a cure but says the time wasn't right for the cure to be released and because he was powerful and controlled the city, he says the dogs shouldn't be killed.

Do you think the scientist is being fair? If you were the scientist, would you behave in the same way?

Hmmm....

LordReed:
A very powerful scientist who was so powerful he controlled the city he was in, was creating dog breeds. He had created all sorts of dog breeds. Some for intelligence, some for speed, some for hardiness and some a combination "super" breed. One day, one of the super breed dogs somehow got infected by a deadly strain of rabies and started infecting the other ordinary breed dogs. It managed to infect a third of the population of dogs before escaping out of the facility with the other infected dogs because it was kinda super smart for a dog.

Now out in the city, these dogs start to bite people and infect them with rabies. People are dying because this rabies strain acts fast and is quite fatal, the dogs are many and quite fierce so it was hard to fight them off. Now the scientist has a cure but says the time wasn't right for the cure to be released and because he was powerful and controlled the city, he says the dogs shouldn't be killed.

Do you think the scientist is being fair? If you were the scientist, would you behave in the same way?

what if the scientist is being pragmatic and he is following pragmatic approach....

I just create a topic similar to this...

vaxx:
what if the scientist is being pragmatic and he is following pragmatic approach....

I just create a topic similar to this...

What is pragmatic about withholding the cure and stopping the disease vector from being destroyed?

LordReed:


What is pragmatic about withholding the cure and stopping the disease vector from being destroyed?

what if holding the cure will lead to a new discovery and unlock a new key to establishment of something much more beneficial. Scientists are much more pragmatic in thinking and not what about what society thinks at times.

vaxx:
what if holding the cure will lead to a new discovery and unlock a new key to establishment of something much more beneficial. Scientists are much more pragmatic in thinking and not what about what society thinks at times.

That is an unethical and immoral scientist that will allow disease and vector to run unchecked in a human population just to see what happens.

LordReed:


That is an unethical and immoral scientist that will allow disease and vector to run unchecked in a human population just to see what happens.

therefore morality and ethics can stop science progress which is very bad to the betterment of every society aiming to developed.....

vaxx:
therefore morality and ethics can stop science progress which is very bad to the betterment of every society aiming to developed.....

Yeah but why destroy the lives you want to save? There can be alternatives you know.

LordReed:


Yeah but why destroy the lives you want to save? There can be alternatives you know.

Every outcome of an experiment is a knowledge . Destroying the life's in this sense may be consider part of the experiment.therefore is is not a waste.science is about seeking to advance knowledge.

vaxx:
what if holding the cure will lead to a new discovery and unlock a new key to establishment of something much more beneficial. Scientists are much more pragmatic in thinking and not what about what society thinks at times.

Meanwhile, "People are dying because this rabies strain acts fast and is quite fatal, the dogs are many and quite fierce so it was hard to fight them off."

I guess when all the humans are dead, something can delight in the fact that "a new discovery unlock a new key to establishment of something much more beneficial" occurred. It just won't be humans, or the scientist though, since they might be dead too.

vaxx:
every outcome of an experiment is a knowledge . Destroying the life's in this sense may be consider part of the experiment.therefore is is not a waste.

What is the point of knowledge if there are no humans to benefit from that knowledge?

vaxx:
therefore morality and ethics can stop science progress which is very bad to the betterment of every society aiming to developed.....

I think you are wrong here, or I could claim my scientific experiment of enslaving some other race is very good for the betterment of my race because it is my race's aim to develop!

You might be tempted to claim "my scientific experiment of enslaving some other race" , is not scientific. But don't bother. According to my own morality and ethics, I say it is!

budaatum:

Meanwhile, "People are dying because this rabies strain acts fast and is quite fatal, the dogs are many and quite fierce so it was hard to fight them off."

I guess when all the humans are dead, something can delight in the fact that "a new discovery unlock a new key to establishment of something much more beneficial" occurred. It just won't be humans, or the scientist though, since they might be dead too.

in every scientific experiment, there is always tendency of negative implications at least what society will consider as such. But the negative implication is not absurd to science as it unluck a new doors to a new knowledge, yes to community at large it might be dangerous but to scientists, it is a new knowledge.


Emphasis on the knowledge, the main bone of scientific experiment.

budaatum:

What is the point of knowledge if there are no humans to benefit from that knowledge?

what do you mean by human? You mean homo sapiens? What if the purpose of the knowledge is done for the benefit of aquatic or reptiles? Even our natural habitat

vaxx:

Emphasis on the knowledge, the main bone of scientific experiment.

Not to the detriment of ethics, vaxx. Science in Germany during the second world war is a great lesson on this particular point.

_{Sorry for low-blowing.}

vaxx:
what do you mean by human? You mean homo sapiens? What if the purpose of the knowledge is done for the benefit of aquatic or reptiles? Even our natural habitat

Were "aquatic or reptiles" the scientists performing the experiments?

But ok, What if the purpose of the knowledge is done for the benefit of black people, or homosexuals, or atheists, or blue haired people? Do you see the point here?

budaatum:

I think you are wrong here, or I could claim my scientific experiment of enslaving some other race is very good for the betterment of my race because it is my race's aim to develop!

You might be tempted to claim "my scientific experiment of enslaving some other race" , is not scientific. But don't bother. According to my own morality and ethics, I say it is!

you see just like how USA consider building and housing nuclear waepon important for them and unethical for Iran to do so. You see how absurd is that?

budaatum:

Were "aquatic or reptiles" the scientists performing the experiments?

But ok, What if the purpose of the knowledge is done for the benefit of black people, or homosexuals, or atheists, or blue haired people? Do you see the point here?

scientific purpose can be done for any purpose at all. Yes homosapiens carry out scientific experiment, yet to see if other mammal do it as well.


Whatever the reason that activate the purpose of the experiment, it still does not invalidate that new knowledge can not be gain in it for whomever that will be available for. Even Michael faraday that inveted electricity do not live to enjoy it.

budaatum:

Not to the detriment of ethics, vaxx. Science in Germany during the second world war is a great lesson on this particular point.

_{Sorry for low-blowing.}

I think USA should then learn from this by apologizing to Iraq and Afghanistan when military operation was carry out on them....do you know USA use tactical weapons on Iraq and Afghanistan ? .

vaxx:
scientific purpose can be done for any purpose at all. Yes homosapiens carry out scientific experiment, yet to see if other mammal do it as well.


Whatever the reason that activate the purpose of the experiment, it still does not invalidate that new knowledge can not be gain in it for whomever that will be available for. Even Michael faraday that inveted electricity do not live to enjoy it.

Well, just don't expect me, your science lab rat, to be okay with you toasting me for acquisition of knowledge to the benefit of others.

If ethics and morality is a tool that I can currently use to stop you from being Lord Frankinstein, do expect me to use it!

vaxx:
I think USA should then learn from this by apologizing to Iraq and Afghanistan when military operation was carry out on them....do you know USA use tactical weapons on Iraq and Afghanistan?

No, they will not learn unless those whom they use it against, and the rest of the world, hold them to account. But currently, the benefit derived from associating with USA, stops us from criticising them. If Syria did what they did, we'd behave differently!

budaatum:

No, they will not learn unless those whom they use it against, and the rest of the world, hold them to account. But currently, the benefit derived from associating with USA, stops us from criticising them. If Syria did what they did, we'd behave differently!

USA is using their brand of recognition objectively well. Some country are waking up to challenge this and it is sending a signal of worries to them. Iran, Russia and China are typical example.

WHEN the brand become faded , we shall look at other option. And it is fading now.

vaxx:
USA is using their brand of recognition objectively well. Some country are waking up to challenge this and it is sending a signal of worries to them. Iran, Russia and China are typical example.

WHEN the brand become faded , we shall look at other option. And it is fading now.

"Objectively well" ? I think you are subjectively baiting me, as both words have no meaning here.

What USA is doing is exactly what science that is not tempered by ethics would do. USA is simply taking advantage of it's superior global position, and yes, "Iran, Russia and China" are a few of the nations standing up to them. Scientists, in a world that places 'life' above the acquisition of knowledge, would do exactly the same.

budaatum:

"Objectively well" ? I think you are subjectively baiting me, as both words have no meaning here.

What USA is doing is exactly what science that is not tempered by ethics would do. USA is simply taking advantage of it's superior global position, and yes, "Iran, Russia and China" are a few of the nations standing up to them. Scientists, in a world that places 'life' above the acquisition of knowledge, would do exactly the same.

what make them superior in the global world? Yes we could begin the argument, you will begin to post me the constraint or factor that are objectively acceptable to consider in placing them in such position. I choose my words carefully bro.


What USA is doing is purely science and had no consideration of ethics . USA first above anyone. USA is strengthen her economic position in the world by weaken less scientific incline country.

Building of sophisticated weapon to be sold to Saudi Arabia in fighting Syria is unethical but it financially rewarding.

vaxx:
therefore morality and ethics can stop science progress which is very bad to the betterment of every society aiming to developed.....

I've always seen you and butterflyl1on as people with psychopathic tendencies.

With this your logic, we should be using babies as test subjects.

No morality, no sense

JeromeBlack:



I've always seen you and butterflyl1on as people with psychopathic tendencies.

With this your logic, we should be using babies as test subjects.

No morality, no sense

Personal incredulity fallacy spotted. ""Your half bake exposure to logic do not let you know that all human are test subject. Google The Nuremberg Code . It is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation set as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War"".

LordReed:
A very powerful scientist who was so powerful he controlled the city he was in, was creating dog breeds. He had created all sorts of dog breeds. Some for intelligence, some for speed, some for hardiness and some a combination "super" breed. One day, one of the super breed dogs somehow got infected by a deadly strain of rabies and started infecting the other ordinary breed dogs. It managed to infect a third of the population of dogs before escaping out of the facility with the other infected dogs because it was kinda super smart for a dog.

Now out in the city, these dogs start to bite people and infect them with rabies.
People are dying because this rabies strain acts fast and is quite fatal,
the dogs are many and quite fierce so it was hard to fight them off.
Now the scientist has a cure but says the time wasn't right for the cure to be released
and because he was powerful and controlled the city, he says the dogs shouldn't be killed.

Do you think the scientist is being fair?
If you were the scientist, would you behave in the same way?

1/ How did the dogs start to bite people?
2/ What means did the dogs come through to bite people and infect them with rabies?
3/ Were the people not warned about dogs, especially the alpha male dog?

The scientist is being fair, if he knows the end from the beginning, and so therefore means, the end justifies the means
There definitely is a method in the scientist's madness

The scientist comes across as someone who knows perfectly well what he is doing,
comes across as someone who has everything under control
so I would certainly do the same, if I were to be the scientist and knowing everything the scientist knows

vaxx:
what make them superior in the global world? Yes we could begin the argument, you will begin to post me the constraint or factor that are objectively acceptable to consider in placing them in such position. I choose my words carefully bro.

You sure do. And that's why we discourse a lot.

What USA is doing is purely science and had no consideration of ethics . USA first above anyone. USA is strengthen her economic position in the world by weaken less scientific incline country.

True. They are the "fittest". So they survive more.
But we expect those not as "fit" as them, as you said, to fight back.

Ethics is one of the tools used in fighting against some "developments". Ethics is after all the consideration of what is beneficial to the peaceful existence of life. It's what being human is about. The nuclear treaties is a clear example of ethics tempering unethical "development". The plight of the Ogoni's is development where ethics was suspended. We are sometimes sows who just eat the weak, and even our own offspring, but someday, the offspring fights back.

Building of sophisticated weapon to be sold to Saudi Arabia in fighting Syria is unethical but it financially rewarding.

Tell me. See what's happening in Yemen!? And just for more money!

It is not acceptable, or, right! USA is behaving unethically!

vaxx:
Personal incredulity fallacy spotted. ""Your half bake exposure to logic do not let you know that all human are test subject.

I think I too must have this "half bake exposure to logic". I too don't know "that all human are test subject"!

"Subjects" of, or to, whom, if you don't mind me asking?

Google The Nuremberg Code . It is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation set as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War"".

The 10 points constituted the "Nuremberg Code," which includes such principles as informed consent and absence of coercion; properly formulated scientific experimentation; and beneficence towards experiment participants. It is thought to have been mainly based on the Hippocratic Oath, which was interpreted as endorsing the experimental approach to medicine while protecting the patient.

That sounds like the very opposite of "human are test subject", to me!

MuttleyLaff, you are funny!

budaatum:
MuttleyLaff, you are funny!

I thought its because of Laff in the moniker
but alas, Nooooo o, its because I am learning, fast, from the best. You!

MuttleyLaff:
I thought its because of Laff in the moniker
but alas, Nooooo o, its because I am learning, fast, from the best. You!

Its because of the Laff in your moniker
Oruko ni o n'ro e!