Stats: 3,192,151 members, 7,946,855 topics. Date: Thursday, 12 September 2024 at 08:28 AM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And (4356 Views)
When They Tell You That Konji Can Kill You / Man Posts Bottle Of Beer And Bible Verse To Justify His Drink (Photo) / What Situation Can Justify You Telling A Lie? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply) (Go Down)
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 7:24pm On Sep 11, 2018 |
KENFERDYOORI:Thanks |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by LordReed(m): 12:23pm On Sep 12, 2018 |
vaxx: An interesting video for your viewing pleasure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8klLyDu-EUE 2 Likes 1 Share |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 12:31pm On Sep 13, 2018 |
LordReed:Christopher Columbus must be a babalawo.......lol |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by LordReed(m): 12:44pm On Sep 13, 2018 |
vaxx: LoL 1 Like |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 7:53pm On Sep 13, 2018 |
agboola363:Good question I must say, I often also think about this? But let's take another look at it ...using the two sides of coin, during clinical research. Every symptom a person has must be written as a side effect, even if the two incidents are clearly unrelated. For example, if you're in a medication trial, and you die in a car wreck, death will be put as a side effect of that medication, even though it clearly wasn't the medicine itself. And again lets consider milk intake that will be consider a food, I for instance has no problem digesting this food, but they are people who takes this food and develop serious dioahoreh immideatly, do.you think taken of milk is evil in general. Let me gist you how a Muslim named bilahi Philip justify suicide bomber , ""When you look at the mind of the suicide bomber, it's a different intention altogether ... The [enemy] is either too heavily armed, or they don't have the type of equipment that can deal with it, so the only other option they have is to try to get some people amongst them and then explode the charges that they have to try to destroy the equipment and to save the lives of their comrades. So this is not really considered to be suicide in the true sense. This is a military action and human lives are sacrificed in that military action. This is really the bottom line for it and that's how we should look at it"" I am not advocating for this , but once you look at the premise of his argument from another angle, you may conclude that he has a point ( arguably ). At least looking at it pragmatically innovation that kills and save can be justify, at least car innovation has eased movement and connect longer city very fast and at the same times it has send million to early grave . When you focus so much on the negativity of this innovation, you may actually not appreciate it's purpose. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 3:41pm On Oct 01, 2018 |
vaxx:Why do you lie so much! It is not true that if a person is in a "medication trial, and you die in a car wreck, death will be put as a side effect of that medication" ! Science does not work that way! vaxx:Speak for yourself. Go ask the Palestinians how many people see their side, and they are people who could possibly claim justification for it! Most people would never see justification in suicide bombing! |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 4:44pm On Oct 01, 2018 |
budaatum:Have you ever be involve in clinical trials? Have you ever read and update yourself on what involves in clinical trials? Have you ever seen a documented report of clinical trials? Do you honestly aware of medical procedure regarding clinical trials?. If not, then you are the liar, if yes, provide evidence that refute my claim in any science journal even if it is unsound. I will acknowledge it. But before then, let me chip in some enlightment, in A clinical trial, the record and informatiin gather during that perioud is very important because the researchers are gathering statistics. For example ff five of the test subjects die within a week, does that mean the drug is unsafe? You should know how they died. Was it a car accident or old age? Did they have a known or unknown medical condition? Or These are recorded to evaluate whatever relate to the cost of death. These are what will be listed as side effect before the drug can be branded. It is when branding that appropriate recommendation will be attached to it (I.e) the one that seems close. Speak for yourself. Go ask the Palestinians how many people see their side, and they are people who could possibly claim justification for it! Most people would never see justification in suicide bombing!myopic level of reasoning, inabilty not fathon or deduce the content of argument. Who is siding or justifying suicide bombing? Looking at the premise of bilal Philip argument there is enough reasons to consider the logic a sound argument ( there are lot of sacrifice in millitary )Except you mind is not well trained to accommodate simple deductive reasoning, which determines whether the truth of a conclusion can be determined for that rule, based solely on the truth of the premises. And this what bilal Philip had presented. Yes it can be refuted, but this is an example I made here for the moniker to see the point of blaming scientists from another angle |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 5:22pm On Oct 01, 2018 |
vaxx:No you wouldn't acknowledge it vaxx. You have never acknowledged it in the past so I'm not going to bother thinking you would this time. You have a record of not acknowledging any position that opposes yours! But just so you don't mislead others, if a person was participating in clinical trials and dies in a car wreck, an autopsy would be performed to determine the cause of death. If the cause of death is unrelated to the medical trials, like say a drunk driver just drove into one, it would not be listed as a side effect of the unrelated clinical trial! Just imagine walking out of the trial and someone off the streets stabs you to death. How does you stabbed to death relate to the clinical trial such that it becomes a side effect? If it were, then one could just go ahead and sue the clinical trial people and not the person who caused the car wreck or stabbed you! Besides, there must have been drugs that got to market which during clinical trials, someone on it died of a car wreck. Please tell me how many drugs have "car wreck" listed as a side effect!? As to the rest of your twaddle, we've done this to death, and you couldn't even accept that scientists are bound by ethics, and for a reason. Or did I not ask you what stops scientist engaging in stem cell research in Germany? |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 5:30pm On Oct 01, 2018 |
budaatum:Even before clinical research, auto cash are payed and some hospital even insured you should be incase it goes opposite. As i said provide a science journal to validate my premises is wrong, if not I consider what you put up there as someone speaking from ignorance. I have chipped in what clinical trials is all about, but if you care to know. Read again. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 5:52pm On Oct 01, 2018 |
vaxx:You can assert as much as you want and assume buda is ignorant (as if this would be the first time!) People ain't that stupid vaxx! In the meantime, stop lazily assuming you are the font of knowledge on here and go find journals to read and educate yourself. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 5:59pm On Oct 01, 2018 |
budaatum:budaatum The pussy cat, stop.ranting , I will buy you chocolate
|
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 6:01pm On Oct 01, 2018 |
vaxx:O poor you. See what you have resorted to. It's such a pity. We had hope for you vaxx. A great pity indeed. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 6:11pm On Oct 01, 2018 |
budaatum:loolllllll. Manage the chocho, strawberry will soon be added |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 1:26pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
vaxx:See yourself? You make it sound like "automatic cash" is paid to people participating in clinical trials, when the thread of discussion would make anyone think you actually meant to write "automobile crash". But trust you to be unclear so you have wriggle room. Even "automatic cash" would be a misstatement though clinical trial participants are compensated for their participation. No clinical trial pays anyone for an unrelated automobile crash, vaxx, and dying in an unrelated automobile crash is not a side effect of a clinical trial, per se. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 1:38pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
budaatum:The vaxx library is luck till further notice. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 1:41pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
vaxx:"Lucky" vaxx library. The buda library is never locked so you are in luck. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 1:43pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
budaatum:I know when to say stop. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 1:55pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
vaxx:You do? Then say "stop" to vaxx and let's see! |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by LordReed(m): 1:59pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
budaatum: budaatum You are a mischievous fellow. LMFAO! |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 2:19pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
LordReed:Don't mind me jare. Vaxx is a very knowledgeable person, but his arrogant ignorance just clouds his understanding. I'd overlook it, except he bullies and insults and thinks the strength of his assertions would shut me up! Imagine vaxx calling buda 'pussy'! Ẹni radarada ti wọn kọ nile ti ko gba, ita la ti ma kọ. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 2:21pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
Pity is, he gets in the way of intelligent conversations with the likes of you, Lord, just like his sidekick scienceblind! But the apologies are mine for letting him. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by EVarn(m): 2:48pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
vaxx:I think inventions of weapons is not really about right or wrong. Weapons are made as a means of survival, for example, the U.S needed a weapon that would stop Imperial Japan and end WW2 quickly, Oppenheimer produced the first atomic bomb. It is as simple as that. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 3:16pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
LordReed:i think you just insult him by the way, and you need to tender an apology, if only he comprehend what you just did. Let me number what you are literarilly telling him. 1You just said he is Seeking attention 2 You just said he has an unusual behavior that needs urgent attention And lastly, you silently said if all of the above can be excluded, he should get evaluated by pediatrician for behavioral disorder. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 3:25pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
vaxx:Poor vaxx. No wonder you go off on the wrong end so often. Could you possibly consider that you, in all ways possible, understood wrong? Hopefully, Lord would let you know if you understood him correctly. I personally do not think he insulted me or even has a reason to. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 3:32pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
EVarn:right, this option had been pointed out by LordReed, and I position this veiw to him. Firstly it has shows evidence that man by nature want to dominate and survived .Hence we can say waepons is basically build to save us while eradicating our enemy. And as the world evolve Do men still needs this idea? Why do We steed needs to go choose what We want, because by nature we appear more capable than animal. We have evolve to the stage that we can live freely among ourselves. With human ability of problem solving . We can easily separate basic problem solving from internal conflict. With problem solving, we are able to consider many paths to a solution, using our imagination, follow them down to what appears to be the best option. I don’t consider weapons as a means of survival now. There should simply be balance means of settling conflict without the necessary needs of building weapons. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by budaatum: 3:38pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
vaxx:See, a temporary flash of intelligence, but would your actions be consistent with what you write? Of course not, you hypocrite! |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by EVarn(m): 4:29pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
vaxx:I believe your idea is very interesting, but sadly unfeasible. The human species, like most other social species, is inherently competitive. This is due to many factors including the spontaneous and erratic dynamics of existing "social myths" (such as religion, culture, law, governance, economy etc), organic diversity in race, geographical dispersion and anatomical variations, presence of limited natural resources necessary to maintain individual social dynamics etc. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by LordReed(m): 5:15pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
vaxx: He understood what I meant and I am glad he did. |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by LordReed(m): 5:23pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
EVarn: I refuse to accept that humans are inherently competitive. Unless we are able to test this by putting a new generation of babies in an environment that has abundance of everything, my view remains that humans are competitive simply because resources are limited. As our societies advance and we learn to be more efficient technologically and possibly find new resource caches out in space, I think we will change and be less competitive. Maybe we'll never have a true utopia but I think we will get as close as possible. 1 Like 1 Share |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by vaxx: 5:28pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
LordReed:mind is multi dimension of thoughts and emotion and words are point to that ...i just express my mind towards the deeper meaning of your words..... |
Re: Do You Think Scientist Can Justify The Inventions Of Weapons That Can Kill And by LordReed(m): 5:32pm On Oct 03, 2018 |
vaxx: There is no deeper meaning unless you are attributing one. budaatum understood the meaning I intended to convey and it was clear my assessment was correct. 1 Like 1 Share |
"Why Are There So Many Denominations?" / Shiloh 2016 - 2017 Prophetic Declaration And Activity Line Up / Check Your Future And Destiny Using Numerology
Viewing this topic: 1 guest(s)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 74 |