3 ms·

I’m arguing that willfully experimenting on people with bio weapons without their consent is illegal and immoral. It’s a war crime per the Geneva Convention. I

I’m arguing that willfully experimenting on people with bio weapons without their consent is illegal and immoral. It’s a war crime per the Geneva Convention. I don’t even know what a violation of “personal rights” means. Is that a legal term? You tried to “well actually” the acts this article is talking about, spreading bacteria to people via crushing lightbulbs in the subway. Well actually they didn’t infect people with this, they just crushed lightbulbs full of it in a crowded subway without getting anyone explosed’s consent. Then I presented a similar action, where they didn’t just spread the bacteria in a subway and measure the air, which I suppose someone could argue wasn’t trying to infect people with this bacteria if you’re a literal minded child… no, they spread it in fog and MEASURED THE PEOPLE. The point was to infect people. This negates your point about the govt not trying to infect people in the busy subway and just measure the air, because it’s clear they tried to infect people in SF and then measure that infection. People being infected was the point. So, now your next point is well actually, many years after the man was killed by a remarkable and rare UTI cluster in SF directly after the bacteria was released to the SF population, and this man and a few others contracted this rare illness but this man died from an infection right afterwards, actually the SUPREME COURT of the United States said that the family of this man didn’t prove that he was killed by this experiment. Years after the fact. Years after he was dead and gone, and it was next to impossible to link his death with this disease beyond. Reasonable doubt because of the government’s negligence in performing this experiment without gaining people’s consent. How would his doctors have known to look for this or try to treat it right? But, now you’ve fallen back to a position where the tenor of the argument isn’t how you want to discuss things, and you’re linking some dumb ass article about formatting arguments in a manner that doesn’t make you seem quite as wrong. but sure. It’s clickbait. Everyone is wrong except you. Calling out your nonsense is not conducive to good discussion. Never mind the fact that you compared some pretty no nonsense comments I made about actions the government took and admits to now to Covid, vaccine, and nuclear misinformation. Not sure how you think that isn’t a logical fallacy and conducive to “better discussion”. But go off. You’re on a roll

crazydoggers 3y ago
You’re still arguing against me on a position I agree with. It’s very possible that the man died of these actions. Also I stated the actions were unethical. So why are you upset? However, neither you or I have proof of that, which is the point. Because without it, without facts, people won’t learn and make better decisions. One side can always conjecture about things, as there’s no proof. Just like there was no proof provided in the article (even though we can make assumptions, that doesn’t make it fact, and is a dangerous road to follow even if we feel morally justified in doing so). The point which you are avoiding is that the article does a very poor job making your case (as does your arguments here). As I agree with the premise that these things were unethical and dangerous, I take offense with an article that does a disservice to the topic for the purpose of clicks. I also take offense to your string of arguments, using morality posturing, and citing cases that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, trying to point out where the US court has fouled up, to prove that MUST have done so here, which does not follow. (This is a slippery slope and composition/division fallacy, ie.. because the court screwed up in your specific cases, it MUST be guilty in the other) > You tried to “well actually” the acts this article is talking about > you’re linking some dumb ass article about formatting arguments in a manner that doesn’t make you seem quite as wrong My comment has always been about the quality of the article. And the link is not an article about formatting arguments, so I have to assume you didn’t actually read or check the link. It’s a link outlining logical fallacies and biases, to help with better critical thinking skills, both in writing, and in evaluating content that we read / listen to / debate, etc. Here’s a Wikipedia link instead, since you posted a number of Wikipedia links. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies I urge you to read through them, and note where your arguments and thinking are at fault. I do on a regular basis, and it’s helpful. The link I posted links to posters and card that can aid in remembering them. Also worth reading, a discussion on the dangers of moral posturing in debate as discussed by Socrates. https://qz.com/1599699/socrates-shows-why-moral-posturing-on-social-media-is-so-annoying https://qz.com/1599699/socrates-shows-why-moral-posturing-on... And virtual signaling as discussed by Aristotle: https://fee.org/articles/virtue-signaling-isnt-virtuous-and-actually-makes-political-tribalism-worse/ https://fee.org/articles/virtue-signaling-isnt-virtuous-and-... “Human societies require people who disagree to cooperate and trust each other. They must also allow for disagreement and productive discussion of competing views. Yet, virtue signaling undermines all of this.” (not mentioning Socrates and Aristotle to prove something or lend weight, only to show these concerns on how we discuss moral and ethical topics go back a very long time)

crazydoggers 3y ago

You’re still arguing against me on a position I agree with. It’s very possible that the man died of these actions. Also I stated the actions were unethical. So why are you upset? However, neither you or I have proof of that, which is the point. Because without it, without facts, people won’t learn and make better decisions. One side can always conjecture about things, as there’s no proof. Just like there was no proof provided in the article (even though we can make assumptions, that doesn’t make it fact, and is a dangerous road to follow even if we feel morally justified in doing so). The point which you are avoiding is that the article does a very poor job making your case (as does your arguments here). As I agree with the premise that these things were unethical and dangerous, I take offense with an article that does a disservice to the topic for the purpose of clicks. I also take offense to your string of arguments, using morality posturing, and citing cases that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, trying to point out where the US court has fouled up, to prove that MUST have done so here, which does not follow. (This is a slippery slope and composition/division fallacy, ie.. because the court screwed up in your specific cases, it MUST be guilty in the other) > You tried to “well actually” the acts this article is talking about > you’re linking some dumb ass article about formatting arguments in a manner that doesn’t make you seem quite as wrong My comment has always been about the quality of the article. And the link is not an article about formatting arguments, so I have to assume you didn’t actually read or check the link. It’s a link outlining logical fallacies and biases, to help with better critical thinking skills, both in writing, and in evaluating content that we read / listen to / debate, etc. Here’s a Wikipedia link instead, since you posted a number of Wikipedia links. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies I urge you to read through them, and note where your arguments and thinking are at fault. I do on a regular basis, and it’s helpful. The link I posted links to posters and card that can aid in remembering them. Also worth reading, a discussion on the dangers of moral posturing in debate as discussed by Socrates. https://qz.com/1599699/socrates-shows-why-moral-posturing-on-social-media-is-so-annoying https://qz.com/1599699/socrates-shows-why-moral-posturing-on... And virtual signaling as discussed by Aristotle: https://fee.org/articles/virtue-signaling-isnt-virtuous-and-actually-makes-political-tribalism-worse/ https://fee.org/articles/virtue-signaling-isnt-virtuous-and-... “Human societies require people who disagree to cooperate and trust each other. They must also allow for disagreement and productive discussion of competing views. Yet, virtue signaling undermines all of this.” (not mentioning Socrates and Aristotle to prove something or lend weight, only to show these concerns on how we discuss moral and ethical topics go back a very long time)