Slashdot Mirror

"I was just following orders." -- Adolph Eichmann

Well, I wasn't aware of the separation of the Peace and Economics prizes from the other original prizes awarded in Stockholm.
Still, even knowing that, I have a hard time taking anything labeled Nobel seriously as long as the Peace prize is being handed out for political reasons instead of merit.
The fact that Al Gore got the prize for a documentary that convinced no one of anything they didn't already believe instead of someone who risked their life for no other reason than that it was the right thing to do.
Irena Sendler for example.
And shit, I think I've done more for the cause of peace than Yasir Arafat.

We have concluded that the allegations of research misconduct, related to plagiarism, misuse of other's work and fabrication, have sufficient merit to warrant further inquiry.
. ...
The Standing Committee also will be asked to inquire into whether Professor Churchill committed research misconduct by misrepresenting himself as an American Indian to gain credibility and authority for his work.

As to those in the World Trade Center: Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire--the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved--and they did so both willingly and knowingly. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

Are you sure?

A quick google search found this -> http://auschwitz.dk/Denmark.htm

seems to tell a different story....

My question has always been "Why stop science because a bunch of people don't like it?". Science is science is science and will always be science. The Germans, though misguided in their science, were leaps and bounds ahead of us during World War 2, discovering new things at an astounding rate simply because they told their scientists that they didn't care, they just wanted it done, and they wanted it done yesterday.

Some of those scientific discoveries were made by use of human subjects. So is it OK for science to start experimenting on "the aged, insane, incurably ill, or deformed children" just because it is science? I mean, our knowledge of disease would be greatly advanced if we just bypassed the animal expermiments and went straight to humans. How about making people suffer through Syphilis while telling them they are treating them all the while just letting them die and observing the progression of the disease.

Science should exist for the benefit of man, not man for the benefit of science. Science should not be worshipped like a religion where the ultimate goal of man is its advancement. That is why it is political issue.

I suggest you do some research of your own. I have found that if you do not dismiss out of hand what other people have to say but still hold to firm convictions of human culpability versus capability most world conflicts will work themselves out to a story of the haves vs the have nots. Care to guess who is deprived of basic health care, education, and livliehoods by the other party? Why are there Jewish Groups that stand by Palestinians but not vice versa? It seems to me that people like Schindler and the like were on the rightous side, agreed? When women who help

I believe my friend can do what he wishes. He does not need your opinion on what is 'orthodox' and what is not to continue happily in his spiritual life. Anyone that follows age old proclamations of such arbitrary nature as certain types of clothing, sexual division of labor, and the like with no concern for their percieved value in living a 'good life' in accordance with the moral stipulations of the faith is not a good human even if they may be considered a good mormon, jew, or arab. Let me explain, these small differences that one chooses to mark one's self as this or that serve only to bring contempt from those who would also seek to differentiate themselves. Soon everyone escalates into prepostrous schemes of mantaining the religion at all costs to the point where children that question are turning to outsiders to leave the silliness behind.

I imagine their reason has nothing to do with being really evil and wanting to eliminate freedom, so don't even throw that one in the ring.

Their "reason" is religious fantacism. Amazing parallels can be drawn between the current crop of Muslim facists and the Catholic church for much of the early and mid-2nd millenia. Fortunately for us, we got over most of our "kill the non-believers" faze about 200-300 years ago. In truth they do want to curb freedom, mainly the freedom of religion, and the rights of women.

Nobody is really evil, just greedy and motivated by their own self-interests.

You're right. Hitler was just misunderstood.

There are plenty of evil people out there.

Yet, it is Man using vaccines and antibiotics incorrectly that is causing us the greater problems today. We have incorrectly weakened vaccinations causing infections in children, including polio. We have drug resistant strains of bacteria, because humans can't be trusted to follow orders, and either undermedicate or overmedicate with the wrong phage, leading to even more powerful versions of bacteria like strep.

I don't have anything against stem-cell research, but I do have a strong objection to fetal stem-cell research that involves the destruction of embryos. Even more so when there is evidence that we can take cells from adults, and culture stem cells out of those, with no loss of life, and no donor rejection problems. It is the ethically sound choice given the current options available to us.

I would argue to you that research done in spite of ethics does not legitimize it as the preferred course of actions. Religions were developed as guidelines for societies by early cultures for how to behave among each other; I could kill you, and there's nothing you could do to stop me, but if I believe "something" is out there powerful enough to take vengence on me, I wont do it. Yet its not the religion that's important, it's the not killing part... what I'm trying to say is, we need to separate "religion" from "ethics" and recognize that there are things out there that are just wrong to do (no, I do not support moral relativism). I see fetal stem cell research as one of those things, violating the rights of the fetus to survive, and that wonton destruction in the name of science, with no regards for ethics, only legitimizes other more horrible "studies" in the name of science.

Stop trying to make excuses for your country's evil past. You have no excuse. Stop trying to say it wasn't your fault. It was your fault.

This is insightful?

Are you responsible for the slave trade? Are you responsible for the genocide against Native Americans? What is the moral distinction between genocide against Native Americans and genocide against Jews?

Every nation has in its history events of shocking and unforgivable inhumanity. But no-one now posting on Slashdot took part in the massacre at Wounded Knee; no-one now posting on Slashdot guarded the camp at Balsen.

So it is not his fault.

It was Denmark:

The legend says that when the Germans ordered Jews in occupied Denmark to identify themselves by wearing armbands with yellow stars, King Christian X of Denmark and non-Jewish Danes thwarted the order by donning the armbands themselves. A popular version of the legend has King Christian sporting an armband as he makes his daily morning horseback ride through the streets of Copenhagen, explaining to citizens that he wears the Star of David as a demonstration of the principal that all Danes are equal. And non-Jewish Danes respond to their king's example by wearing the armband as well, thus preventing the Germans from identifying Jewish citizens and rendering the order ineffective.