6 ms·

the guidance helps in considering whether it is ethically appropriate to question a social group’s right to freedom or cultural rights Somebody want to explain

the guidance helps in considering whether it is ethically appropriate to question a social group’s right to freedom or cultural rights Somebody want to explain to me what the heck "cultural rights" are and how publishing data could interfere with them?

systemvoltage 4y ago
- causality0 4y ago
  It's not 1984 style authoritarianism. It's a religion, plain and simple. There is dogma, heretics, original sin, and atonement.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    It seems in many cases they forgot the atonement part.
reb 4y ago
Sure: the LDS church teaches that pre-marital sex is a sin, and engaging in it is grounds for the termination of a variety of spiritual privileges, depending on the judgement of a local church leader. The legal freedom to live by that belief makes it a cultural right afforded to any practicing LDS person in the US. A scientist could perform research investigating the impact of those teachings. They might find that it negatively impacts the ability of LDS adults to form healthy sexual attachments with their spouses, even though marriages are prized by the church. They could then publish those findings in a credible journal. An anti-LDS government official in control of education in some state (say, California) could take those findings and use them to justify a new policy that all LDS children are required to attend sex-ed classes in school, and threaten parents with visits from child protection services if they refuse. Depending on the local governmental structure and voter demographics, this could pass into law relatively quickly. Thus, a researcher's decision to publish has led to interference with LDS people's cultural rights. There aren't many examples of human behavior this sequence of events couldn't apply to, if local powers (or distant ones) were so inclined. Do you think it's irresponsible for scientists to consider that?
- TulliusCicero 4y ago
  > could take those findings and use them to justify a new policy that all LDS children No, they couldn't. Your proposed scenario here is insane. This would be blatantly unconstitutional.
  - reb 4y ago
    Sure, and it could then be challenged in court. And depending on the alignment of the courts, they might find in favor of the policy, setting a precedent for future law. Do you really not understand how things work in this country?
    - TulliusCicero 4y ago
      I do, and I understand that something this blatantly unconstitutional (and widespread enough to be notable) would get slapped down by the courts super hard before being actually acted on. Do you understand how things work in this country? When's the last time there was a statewide policy like this that explicitly targeted people of one particular religion? Especially kids going to state schools?
      - reb 4y ago
        It wouldn't target a particular religion, it would be a general policy protecting all children's right to education. LDS people being impacted would be an unfortunate side effect, not the promoted intention of the policy. I genuinely can't tell if you're being disingenuous here. I'm not personally stressed about the rights of LDS people, but the procedural scenario I'm describing isn't even remotely far-fetched.
        TulliusCicero 4y ago
        > It wouldn't target a particular religion This makes it sound like it is indeed targeting a particular religion: > An anti-LDS government official in control of education in some state (say, California) could take those findings and use them to justify a new policy that all LDS children are required to attend sex-ed classes in school If what you meant was "all children, including LDS children" I think it could've been phrased a bit more clearly, because it sounds very targeted. That's the part I objected to. But yeah if you mean, "secretly/implicitly targeting" like the hijab ban in France that's nominally a religious symbol ban, I could see that happening.

systemvoltage 4y ago

causality0 4y ago
It's not 1984 style authoritarianism. It's a religion, plain and simple. There is dogma, heretics, original sin, and atonement.
- bombcar 4y ago
  It seems in many cases they forgot the atonement part.

reb 4y ago

Sure: the LDS church teaches that pre-marital sex is a sin, and engaging in it is grounds for the termination of a variety of spiritual privileges, depending on the judgement of a local church leader. The legal freedom to live by that belief makes it a cultural right afforded to any practicing LDS person in the US. A scientist could perform research investigating the impact of those teachings. They might find that it negatively impacts the ability of LDS adults to form healthy sexual attachments with their spouses, even though marriages are prized by the church. They could then publish those findings in a credible journal. An anti-LDS government official in control of education in some state (say, California) could take those findings and use them to justify a new policy that all LDS children are required to attend sex-ed classes in school, and threaten parents with visits from child protection services if they refuse. Depending on the local governmental structure and voter demographics, this could pass into law relatively quickly. Thus, a researcher's decision to publish has led to interference with LDS people's cultural rights. There aren't many examples of human behavior this sequence of events couldn't apply to, if local powers (or distant ones) were so inclined. Do you think it's irresponsible for scientists to consider that?

TulliusCicero 4y ago
> could take those findings and use them to justify a new policy that all LDS children No, they couldn't. Your proposed scenario here is insane. This would be blatantly unconstitutional.
- reb 4y ago
  Sure, and it could then be challenged in court. And depending on the alignment of the courts, they might find in favor of the policy, setting a precedent for future law. Do you really not understand how things work in this country?
  - TulliusCicero 4y ago
    I do, and I understand that something this blatantly unconstitutional (and widespread enough to be notable) would get slapped down by the courts super hard before being actually acted on. Do you understand how things work in this country? When's the last time there was a statewide policy like this that explicitly targeted people of one particular religion? Especially kids going to state schools?
    - reb 4y ago
      It wouldn't target a particular religion, it would be a general policy protecting all children's right to education. LDS people being impacted would be an unfortunate side effect, not the promoted intention of the policy. I genuinely can't tell if you're being disingenuous here. I'm not personally stressed about the rights of LDS people, but the procedural scenario I'm describing isn't even remotely far-fetched.
      - TulliusCicero 4y ago
        > It wouldn't target a particular religion This makes it sound like it is indeed targeting a particular religion: > An anti-LDS government official in control of education in some state (say, California) could take those findings and use them to justify a new policy that all LDS children are required to attend sex-ed classes in school If what you meant was "all children, including LDS children" I think it could've been phrased a bit more clearly, because it sounds very targeted. That's the part I objected to. But yeah if you mean, "secretly/implicitly targeting" like the hijab ban in France that's nominally a religious symbol ban, I could see that happening.