3 ms·
You've grossly mischaracterized my argument. I'm not sure you understood my argument. Normally I'd not reply or reply rather dryly, but given that you've taken
by oneJob 11y ago
You've grossly mischaracterized my argument. I'm not sure you understood my argument. Normally I'd not reply or reply rather dryly, but given that you've taken to implying that I'm "sticking my head into the ground" and avoiding the "more important and harder to defend" question, decision, and so I'll take a moment here to answer your points individually.
I argued that they are not mutually exclusive and therefore must be balanced, which requires a decision, which is very much not sticking one's head in the ground. It is explicitly taking responsibility for any actions or decisions made from having weighed the, at times conflicting, issues / interests involved.
"Ethics as generally portrayed costs lives and increases misery in part by preventing useful studies from being done, but also though overhead from review boards."
This is an overly general statement (I'm not sure by what evidence you feel comfortable or on what basis you claim the authority to make such a claim on how ethics is generally portrayed) and not sure how you've calculate the overhead costs versus the overhead benefits (in situations where review boards prevent misery).
As to your reply, it makes a poor attempt at a "straw man" strategy, but even then lacks any evidence to support your counter-argument. You then proceed to the strategy of an "ad hominem argument", nakedly, and come across petty doing so, given the weight of the issue and the lack of seriousness with which you've treated the discussion up to that point. Finally, you've basically clumsily reworded a portion of the argument I put forth, betraying the fact that you either didn't understand my argument or are purposely trying to misconstrue my argument, while not engaging with the rest of what I put forth.
The chimpanzees are living creatures. Humans are living creature. This is an important and sober issue for many, many people. Please don't interject petty personal attacks into the conversation.
- Retric 11y agoEthics can't increase the rate of scientific advancement. (Feel free to disagree but your going to need a lot of evidence.) It can and has slowed things down when review boards rejected some research on ethical grounds. Q.E.D. Technically I only need two example studies. But fetal tissue research does not cause direct suffering or death and has benefits. It also involves significant review processes even when approved.
- oneJob 11y agoGood talk.