4 ms·

This is how things should be... But the whole point in posting a link to that wikipedia page is not condemning ethical and risk free human experimentation but t

by MrBra 14y ago

This is how things should be... But the whole point in posting a link to that wikipedia page is not condemning ethical and risk free human experimentation but the following: are sure that in this exact moment the american government isn't carrying on any other crazy human experimentation? I would spend a minute thinkin about that, instead of playing with words... (not trying to be offensive, but the topic is of such importance that this whole argumentation just feels redundant...) Again, think about what the goverment (togheter with private entities) could be doing RIGHT NOW.

dalke 14y ago
By not including the important word - Unethical - in the original title you weaken that argument, because you commingle ethical and unethical experimentation. Most human experimentation is done under rules to help keep them ethical. By focusing only on the "human experimentation" part, it is you playing with words. I gave a link to an example of how a private company RIGHT NOW might be doing things which are not ethical, under the rules for academic and pharmaceutical research.
- MrBra 14y ago
  Quoting myself (you seem to have missed a part of what I said): Implicitness through common sense. "Human Experimentation" commonly evokes something wrong, and guess why? That's exactly because of what you can read in the article I linked. __So I guess there is nothing wrong in titling something for what's commonly expected to refer to.__ --- I am not weakening it, because the expression "human experimentation" is commonly already firing an alarm-bell given what happened and the resonance it's getting. So I'm sorry but get your mind over it.. while your terminology is, in its whole, perfectly appropriate to describe the subject we are discussing, times have changed in a way that simply dropping off word from it doesn't weaken the message it's sending, at least to a generic audience, which also makes up for a context (HN not being a niche-academic-medical-research website). So given humans interpret things based on context, I'd guess that the majority of HN readers would get along with that title, again given the moment in time we are living. But there is much more... and I thank you for letting me think about it: I came to the conclusion that the most big and implicit reason that made me avoid the "unethical" word is that even in a civil and modern society, ethics is questionably subjective, to an extent. So adding that word I could have put off some readers whose ethics threeshold is lower than average, who could have then not given enough attention to the article, thinking: "yea, here comes another human rights hippie.." Instead, whoever does not consider these experiment unethical is to my eyes not an human being, so yea, no need to add "unethical"... it's clear already that these experimentations are so, and you (any reader) should agree with that. Otherwise I made you waste 10 seconds of browsing for something you didn't want to by tricking you, because you need to learn. My deepest worry is: I hope that in your arguments there isn't a little black spot in where you are trying to hide the fact that part of you (maybe due to professional figure, are you a medical researcher?) tends from time to time to be a bit more tolerating toward some borderline experimentation.. and a bit pissed off by those "human/animal right hippies".. (or a given IRB resolution) If that's the case, say it clear, don't be scared... Don't turn around with words, make your full and whole point about this matter... Of course, if you think it's good for you... If that's not the case, IMO the first part of my argument is still valid to explain how a word can be omitted and still point to its original meaning, based on social events affecting the meaning of words, and context.

by MrBra 14y ago

dalke 14y ago

By not including the important word - Unethical - in the original title you weaken that argument, because you commingle ethical and unethical experimentation. Most human experimentation is done under rules to help keep them ethical. By focusing only on the "human experimentation" part, it is you playing with words. I gave a link to an example of how a private company RIGHT NOW might be doing things which are not ethical, under the rules for academic and pharmaceutical research.

MrBra 14y ago
Quoting myself (you seem to have missed a part of what I said): Implicitness through common sense. "Human Experimentation" commonly evokes something wrong, and guess why? That's exactly because of what you can read in the article I linked. __So I guess there is nothing wrong in titling something for what's commonly expected to refer to.__ --- I am not weakening it, because the expression "human experimentation" is commonly already firing an alarm-bell given what happened and the resonance it's getting. So I'm sorry but get your mind over it.. while your terminology is, in its whole, perfectly appropriate to describe the subject we are discussing, times have changed in a way that simply dropping off word from it doesn't weaken the message it's sending, at least to a generic audience, which also makes up for a context (HN not being a niche-academic-medical-research website). So given humans interpret things based on context, I'd guess that the majority of HN readers would get along with that title, again given the moment in time we are living. But there is much more... and I thank you for letting me think about it: I came to the conclusion that the most big and implicit reason that made me avoid the "unethical" word is that even in a civil and modern society, ethics is questionably subjective, to an extent. So adding that word I could have put off some readers whose ethics threeshold is lower than average, who could have then not given enough attention to the article, thinking: "yea, here comes another human rights hippie.." Instead, whoever does not consider these experiment unethical is to my eyes not an human being, so yea, no need to add "unethical"... it's clear already that these experimentations are so, and you (any reader) should agree with that. Otherwise I made you waste 10 seconds of browsing for something you didn't want to by tricking you, because you need to learn. My deepest worry is: I hope that in your arguments there isn't a little black spot in where you are trying to hide the fact that part of you (maybe due to professional figure, are you a medical researcher?) tends from time to time to be a bit more tolerating toward some borderline experimentation.. and a bit pissed off by those "human/animal right hippies".. (or a given IRB resolution) If that's the case, say it clear, don't be scared... Don't turn around with words, make your full and whole point about this matter... Of course, if you think it's good for you... If that's not the case, IMO the first part of my argument is still valid to explain how a word can be omitted and still point to its original meaning, based on social events affecting the meaning of words, and context.