11 ms·
I hesitated between flagging and upvoting the submission, flagging for the, unsurprisingly, bad comments. And upvoting for showing the topic on the front page,
by hef19898 3y ago
I hesitated between flagging and upvoting the submission, flagging for the, unsurprisingly, bad comments. And upvoting for showing the topic on the front page, because as all those ignorant comments show this discussion is necessary.
I settled for upvoting. But the take some peiple, I assume highly priviledged, people on HN have when it comes to short term damage done for potential, or even dubious, long term benefit is problemetic at best. Has something of Lord Farquart...
- munksbeer 3y agoI don't think I understand your comment. Are you saying that you are the moral judge of what is an acceptable take on the ethics of this or not, and people who disagree with your moral judgement are "bad comments" and should therefore result in the discussion being censored? I apologise if I've misunderstood, but if not then that is not a good stance at all. This is precisely the sort of thing that we do need to hear from all sides without censor.
- hef19898 3y agoI am surely not a moral judge, as I am not sitting on any ethics panel monitoring animal trials. What can easily be said so, is that those panel are necessary. And that there are practices aroind those panels, if a company ignores those that is a huge red flag. Same goes for slaughtering animals for meat, there are rules, lax as they may be, so if those bare minimum rules are ignored it also a red flag. In questions of doing illegal things or not, there are no two sides to be considered. As long as the laws came into being in a democratic process, but we are not discussing that particular can of worms here.