KENFERDYOORI:


At this point I leave you to broaden your perspective....

Thanks

vaxx:
.Have you heard of Mutual assured destruction?
(Google up)is one of the critical way human have use to limit the invention of more nuclear weapons, I am not a pacifist so I do not totally subscribe to the idea of weapon anihilation. But I believe we can get there and we are evolving at a speedy rate. More pragmatic decision are being taken to avoid what We will have turn up to a global war. Check out how north Korea was able to balance just about to be busted war between them and USA. Interesting right?


your argument is similar to a culprit who is sentenced to life jail, who will he blame? The constitution, the lawyer that adjudicate over his case or the crime he comited ? Rationally I don't think the rockets engineer will be blame rather those people who use what the engineer built negatively on them. If you are to hit by a car on a highway, do you blame the car manufacturer or the driver of the car?



Beautiful opinion. .



You are welcome.

An interesting video for your viewing pleasure:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8klLyDu-EUE

LordReed:


An interesting video for your viewing pleasure:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8klLyDu-EUE

Christopher Columbus must be a babalawo.......lol

vaxx:
Christopher Columbus must be a babalawo.......lol

LoL

agboola363:
question is "are all these inventions worth the lives and properties
they've claimed?".

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.

vaxx:
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.

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:
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.

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!

budaatum:

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!

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

vaxx:
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.

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?

budaatum:



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!

?

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.

vaxx:
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.

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.

budaatum:

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 to read and educate yourself.

budaatum The pussy cat, stop.ranting , I will buy you chocolate

vaxx:
budaatum The pussy cat, stop.ranting , I will buy you chocolate

O poor you. See what you have resorted to. It's such a pity. We had hope for you vaxx. A great pity indeed.

budaatum:

O poor you. See what you have resorted to. It's such a pity. We had hope for you vaxx. A great pity indeed.

loolllllll. Manage the chocho, strawberry will soon be added

vaxx:
Even before clinical research, auto cash are payed and some hospital even insured you should be incase it goes opposite.

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.

budaatum:

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.

The vaxx library is luck till further notice.

vaxx:
The vaxx library is luck till further notice.

"Lucky" vaxx library.

The buda library is never locked so you are in luck.

budaatum:

"Lucky" vaxx library.

The buda library is never locked so you are in luck.

I know when to say stop.

vaxx:
I know when to say stop.

You do? Then say "stop" to vaxx and let's see!

budaatum:

"Lucky" vaxx library.

The buda library is never locked so you are in luck.

budaatum

You are a mischievous fellow. LMFAO!

LordReed:


budaatum

You are a mischievous fellow. LMFAO!

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.

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.

vaxx:
Do you think scientist can ethically and morally justify the inventions of weapons that can kill and harm?


*What do you think*?

Let's exercise a civil and polite debate.....

I think this debate will favour and justify the war fought both in the bible and quran accordingly......since it is base on moral and ethical ground....


LordReed, budaatum and the rest........

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.

LordReed:


budaatum

You are a mischievous fellow. LMFAO!

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.

vaxx:
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.

1 you just said he is Seeking attention

2 just said he has an usual behavior that needs urgent attention

And lastly you silently said if f all of the above can be excluded, he should get evaluated by pediatrician for behavioral disorder.

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.

EVarn:
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.

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.

vaxx:
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.

See, a temporary flash of intelligence, but would your actions be consistent with what you write? Of course not, you hypocrite!

vaxx:
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.

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.

vaxx:
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.

He understood what I meant and I am glad he did.

EVarn:
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.

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.

LordReed:


He understood what I meant and I am glad he did.

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.....

vaxx:
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.....

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.