3 ms·

And by your reasoning, you should get locked away the second your research can get weaponized. Shockingly, it's not a black and white world with many layers of

And by your reasoning, you should get locked away the second your research can get weaponized. Shockingly, it's not a black and white world with many layers of gray in between, which is what I was trying to show. That a lot of research can get twisted for evil. In your earlier post, you claimed there was "no upside". That's patently false, since these started with the ideal of getting rid of pests more efficiently. Yes, there's a point where it turns from this generic research to weaponizing, but that might not be immediately obvious at the time, nor what the repercussions might be 50 years later.

jacquesm 10y ago
> And by your reasoning, you should get locked away the second your research can get weaponized. No, the second people start weaponizing your research you have the option to stop participating. > Shockingly, it's not a black and white world with many layers of gray in between, which is what I was trying to show. That a lot of research can get twisted for evil. Chemical weapons research is pure evil, I don't doubt that at all. > In your earlier post, you claimed there was "no upside". Yep. > That's patently false, since these started with the ideal of getting rid of pests more efficiently. Yes, there's a point where it turns from this generic research to weaponizing, but that might not be immediately obvious at the time, nor what the repercussions might be 50 years later. It was obvious within the lifetime of the scientists involved because they were the ones to help weaponize it. And for that there are no excuses. I really don't understand why you're twisting so much to come up with excuses for these people here, their role and position in all this is pretty well documented. If not for the Germans fear that allies would be able to retaliate in kind that stuff would have been used. This is one of the best documented era in the history of mankind, there are people who deserve the benefit of the doubt but this particular group isn't one of those.
- TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
  > No, the second people start weaponizing your research you have the option to stop participating. I want to agree with this, but I'm not certain how I would act if I knew my options where a) continue weaponisation research or b) get shot in the face.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Let's hope you never find out.
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    Crucially, option b) is actually "get shot in the face and then someone else weaponises the research". Making a principled stand is only useful when it stands a non-zero chance of accomplishing something.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      Or 'well shoot your wife and kids first if you don't cooperate'.

jacquesm 10y ago

> And by your reasoning, you should get locked away the second your research can get weaponized. No, the second people start weaponizing your research you have the option to stop participating. > Shockingly, it's not a black and white world with many layers of gray in between, which is what I was trying to show. That a lot of research can get twisted for evil. Chemical weapons research is pure evil, I don't doubt that at all. > In your earlier post, you claimed there was "no upside". Yep. > That's patently false, since these started with the ideal of getting rid of pests more efficiently. Yes, there's a point where it turns from this generic research to weaponizing, but that might not be immediately obvious at the time, nor what the repercussions might be 50 years later. It was obvious within the lifetime of the scientists involved because they were the ones to help weaponize it. And for that there are no excuses. I really don't understand why you're twisting so much to come up with excuses for these people here, their role and position in all this is pretty well documented. If not for the Germans fear that allies would be able to retaliate in kind that stuff would have been used. This is one of the best documented era in the history of mankind, there are people who deserve the benefit of the doubt but this particular group isn't one of those.

TheSpiceIsLife 10y ago
> No, the second people start weaponizing your research you have the option to stop participating. I want to agree with this, but I'm not certain how I would act if I knew my options where a) continue weaponisation research or b) get shot in the face.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Let's hope you never find out.
- semi-extrinsic 10y ago
  Crucially, option b) is actually "get shot in the face and then someone else weaponises the research". Making a principled stand is only useful when it stands a non-zero chance of accomplishing something.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Or 'well shoot your wife and kids first if you don't cooperate'.