4 ms·

Well first you’re talking about a different situation than the article. In addition, in the San Francisco case you link, it was not established that the bacter

Well first you’re talking about a different situation than the article. In addition, in the San Francisco case you link, it was not established that the bacteria caused the death you are referring to. > The lower court ruled against them primarily because the bacteria used in the test was unproven to be responsible for Nevin's death. The Nevin family appealed the suit all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to overturn lower court judgments Again, blankets statements rather than facts don’t help discuss the issue. Nuance is best. I for one think they should not have done any of these tests, and that they crossed clear ethical boundaries. But I’m not going to create misinformation, “beg the question”, appeal to emotion, or point to false cause to convince someone that it’s a wrong and immoral thing to do. These types of arguments are why we had so much confusion, and lack of educated discussion around Covid and vaccines, the pros and cons of nuclear power, etc etc.

MarkMarine 3y ago
I'm responding directly to the parent comment, but I'd argue that spreading this same bacteria by smashing lightbulbs in a subway full of people, and spreading it in a fog in SF, a city full of people, then seeing if those people had the bacteria in their bodies is essentially the same type of situation as the article. What do you see as differences? So the US government didn't prove in a court of law that the US government killed someone with the US government's illegal experiment, that it didn't even admit was happening? This is the standard of proof here? If so, I'm going to guess the other atrocities the US has committed and not taking full and complete responsibility for can't be discussed either? When the system in power refuses to accept blame for it's actions, we just have to take its word or it's misinformation? Come on. Let's think about some other cases the highest court in the land got obviously wrong and then consider your argument. - Dread Scott v Sanford. held the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and thus they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens. [0] - Buck v. Bell, is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1] - Korematsu v. United States, decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II. [2] - Plessy v. Ferguson, which the Court ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal" [3] (Oh, and since I don't want to only talk about civil rights cases, since that might not carry much weight for you, how about property rights:) - Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),[1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. [4] I could go on but I don't feel like going through all these horrible cases. How will we ever square this perfect arbiter of truth, the Supreme Court's multiple fuckups with our examination of truth? I'd recommend using your eyeballs and sound judgement. How am I creating misinformation by quoting wikipedia and then linking to it so anyone can read the source material? To compare this with COVID misinformation is egregious. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
- crazydoggers 3y ago
  I think you misunderstand my issue or the argument here. You are arguing what? That spreading bacteria, even one that was believed to be benign, is a violation of personal rights? Well I agree with you 100%, and if that’s surprising, then the point has been missed. The issue I have is an article that serves only the purpose of inflaming without informing. We can all claim moral outrage, and then point “look.. horrible things.. horrible people”. What purpose does that serve? It has become the standard of communication on social media. How does it serve this discussion to point out all the way the US government and the courts have failed us? Your list is tiny compared to the true scope. Ask any Native American. Does that prove in this case a person was killed by the actions of spreading bacteria by light bulbs? Clearly it cannot. So then what’s the goal of the argument? Slippery slope fallacy? Appeals to emotion? Instead give me an article with substance and facts, and nuanced discussion. Why were those choices made in the past. Did those people believe they were doing good, and not doing harm? What lead to that occurring? How to we prevent it from occurring again? How do we educate ourselves so we don’t make equally well intentioned but harmful decisions. If an article claims a bacteria is pathogenic, and harmed people by its use, then I require it prove it to me. Otherwise it’s conjecture. If so, treat it as such, and say “let’s all look into this further”. If an article won’t, then it’s immediately suspect, and its conclusions can’t be trusted. Moral outrage is no path towards truth, fairness, and equality. Those things require more from us. More from our discussions. Arguments appealing to emotion (even ones that are well researched linking to wikipedia) don’t help. The comparison to Covid discussion is apt, since many people linked to Wikipedia or other sources, citing all sorts of things, in order to bolster their logically incomplete, or entirely emotional arguments. Imagine instead an article that said “possible benign bacteria used to study germ contamination”. Then went on to discuss the facts, facts such as opportunistic infections, or even questions about the case you brought up and wether that was a fair trial and if not, what evidence supports it not being (other than “US court bad corrupt”) and then, it asked my questions above. The problem is that media today needs ad money to operate, and “pathogenic bacteria released on citizens” gets a LOT more clicks. And then the moral outrage that follows make everyone feel good, but doesn’t make the world a better more educated place. If we don’t do better in our journalism, and in our discussions, then your list above is doomed to get longer and longer as time goes on. For those interested in how to have better discussions, and write better articles, check out the following: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

MarkMarine 3y ago

I'm responding directly to the parent comment, but I'd argue that spreading this same bacteria by smashing lightbulbs in a subway full of people, and spreading it in a fog in SF, a city full of people, then seeing if those people had the bacteria in their bodies is essentially the same type of situation as the article. What do you see as differences? So the US government didn't prove in a court of law that the US government killed someone with the US government's illegal experiment, that it didn't even admit was happening? This is the standard of proof here? If so, I'm going to guess the other atrocities the US has committed and not taking full and complete responsibility for can't be discussed either? When the system in power refuses to accept blame for it's actions, we just have to take its word or it's misinformation? Come on. Let's think about some other cases the highest court in the land got obviously wrong and then consider your argument. - Dread Scott v Sanford. held the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and thus they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens. [0] - Buck v. Bell, is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1] - Korematsu v. United States, decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II. [2] - Plessy v. Ferguson, which the Court ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal" [3] (Oh, and since I don't want to only talk about civil rights cases, since that might not carry much weight for you, how about property rights:) - Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),[1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. [4] I could go on but I don't feel like going through all these horrible cases. How will we ever square this perfect arbiter of truth, the Supreme Court's multiple fuckups with our examination of truth? I'd recommend using your eyeballs and sound judgement. How am I creating misinformation by quoting wikipedia and then linking to it so anyone can read the source material? To compare this with COVID misinformation is egregious. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

crazydoggers 3y ago
I think you misunderstand my issue or the argument here. You are arguing what? That spreading bacteria, even one that was believed to be benign, is a violation of personal rights? Well I agree with you 100%, and if that’s surprising, then the point has been missed. The issue I have is an article that serves only the purpose of inflaming without informing. We can all claim moral outrage, and then point “look.. horrible things.. horrible people”. What purpose does that serve? It has become the standard of communication on social media. How does it serve this discussion to point out all the way the US government and the courts have failed us? Your list is tiny compared to the true scope. Ask any Native American. Does that prove in this case a person was killed by the actions of spreading bacteria by light bulbs? Clearly it cannot. So then what’s the goal of the argument? Slippery slope fallacy? Appeals to emotion? Instead give me an article with substance and facts, and nuanced discussion. Why were those choices made in the past. Did those people believe they were doing good, and not doing harm? What lead to that occurring? How to we prevent it from occurring again? How do we educate ourselves so we don’t make equally well intentioned but harmful decisions. If an article claims a bacteria is pathogenic, and harmed people by its use, then I require it prove it to me. Otherwise it’s conjecture. If so, treat it as such, and say “let’s all look into this further”. If an article won’t, then it’s immediately suspect, and its conclusions can’t be trusted. Moral outrage is no path towards truth, fairness, and equality. Those things require more from us. More from our discussions. Arguments appealing to emotion (even ones that are well researched linking to wikipedia) don’t help. The comparison to Covid discussion is apt, since many people linked to Wikipedia or other sources, citing all sorts of things, in order to bolster their logically incomplete, or entirely emotional arguments. Imagine instead an article that said “possible benign bacteria used to study germ contamination”. Then went on to discuss the facts, facts such as opportunistic infections, or even questions about the case you brought up and wether that was a fair trial and if not, what evidence supports it not being (other than “US court bad corrupt”) and then, it asked my questions above. The problem is that media today needs ad money to operate, and “pathogenic bacteria released on citizens” gets a LOT more clicks. And then the moral outrage that follows make everyone feel good, but doesn’t make the world a better more educated place. If we don’t do better in our journalism, and in our discussions, then your list above is doomed to get longer and longer as time goes on. For those interested in how to have better discussions, and write better articles, check out the following: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/