Hmmm... well, let's use reciprocity of argument, then. You have made a whole truckload of conditions when you consider something fake new or not and ask for an example, and when someone delivers it, you say it was only an opinion.
Well, it always is, until it's actually proven in court, isn't it?
So let's turn it around: give me one example where RT has made 'fake news' that should be considered so with my own conditions, and where I personally can decide whether it's a good example or not.
Mind you that your or a journalists' opinion is not proof, but an opinion. As is that of everyone else, especially if I say deem it so. Under these same conditions, I dare you to give an example I find valid as well. you'll not be able to provide one.
IMHO, you're far too naïve. The truth is, both sides use propaganda - deliberately, and knowing it's BS - to the audience they want to convince.
The number 3 is an underestimation, if anything. At least if you're looking at cars (EV) vs. hydrogen cars. that's because it's very inefficient to first produce hydrogen with solar (electrolysis), then put them in fuelcells of cars, which in turn have to use the energy of those cells (and have additional loss at the conversion once again).
It's simple to see that directly using electricity to and from batteries are far more efficient.
That would be a strange interpretation of having the right on free speech. In that case, china could say to someone criticizing the regime: "Well, you DO have free speech, but we put you in jail for it." (aka, that are the consequences)
It doesn't make sense, does it? If there is no protection from the consequences of free speech, and one is shot dead - legally - after when one said something (against the regime, for instance), it would still be free speech, following your reasoning. The whole point of calling such dictatorships and consequences as being antithetic to free speech, is exactly because one is NOT protected from the consequences. Ergo; with truly free speech, one may truly say anything.
The fact this is being limited, even in the West, is a sign that there is no true free speech, thus. The consequences, thus, are a direct result of dictatorial traits, not free-speech traits. The level on which this is applied (or rather, the severity of the consequences) is what is different, but only in degree/level, not on the principle of the matter. What we, therefor, see as having 'free speech', is, in reality, only a less severe form of dictatorship and censure. And it's because of THAT we're not protected from the consequences.
----> "Borders tend to be stretchy and vague, but in many cases there's cases that are clearly on one side or another."
Well, maybe you just wanted to give general truths, then, a bit like saying "the earth revolves around the sun"... in the middle of a debate that clearly was discussing a specific topic.
I know where this is going; in a while, you're going to argue about semantics, and what this word or that word means to you versus what it means to me, in endless repeat. I had experience enough with people who continued into pedantry to not already note the signs. These sort of debates never go anywhere.
"except that I didn't claim that"
As said in my former post; I was answering the parent poster. Even when I was answering you afterwards, I first thought it was the same person (aka, that you were the parent poster). Whether you claimed the original statement or not, does nothing to the fact the parent poster DID claim it, and it was to THAT which I made my argument, which is an argument of reciprocity, nothing else.
You are misinterpreting the argument. The fact that there is not a defining border was not an argument pro or con the experiment itself, it was to establish the fact the parent poster did not give an objective reason why a certain size would matter. It is relevant, therefor, to establish the size was arbitrarily chosen. Yet, his argument to not see an ethical issue in it, was based on the fact it was of "an insects' size" - a size he arbitrarily chose (or at least, to which he didn't give any objective reasons for) and which he then claims, 'therefor, it is not an ethical issue'.
My point is and remains: if he can choose an arbitrary size to claim something is an ethical issue or not, why can't another, with the same validity, choose another size - equally arbitrary, for instance; of even one cell, to claim it *IS* an ethical issue?
You should note that it was not me that started with any slope - slippery or not about the size - but the parent poster did. I wasn't using a slippery-slope argument (btw, I've found that there is also an anti-slippery-slope-fallacy being used these days, as if it has somehow been proven a slippery slope argument can never be correct, which is obviously false as well), but I was using reciprocity of argument.
The point of the matter is and remains, that giving an arbitrarily chosen size without any rational reasoning or clarification of why that size is chosen apart from a personal whim, is not a valid argument to argue it is, or isn't, an ethical issue.
I already tried to explain this in my last post. You tried to counter it with saying there are cases that are clearly on one side or another, but since this is not such a case - the comments here, and the fact the lab itself put it on hold because of the ethical ramifications indicate this - this is *also* not an argument, in this particular instance, to claim it isn't an ethical issue.
Now, it may be you didn't put that forth the original statement, but the parent poster *did*, and it was to him I was responding, to which you butted in (I first thought you were the original poster though, so maybe that caused the confusion of whom put forth what).
In any case, just saying "it's that (arbitrarily chosen) size,so it isn't an ethical issue", is, without substantiating it with a rational reasoning or logic argumentation, a completely worthless statement. In that case, anyone has the same right to chose any size and claim it is, or isn't, an ethical issue as well. Reciprocity of argument, as I said: if one gives oneself the right to base a conclusion on arbitrarily chosen criteria, than so may any other do the same, on *their* arbitrarily chosen criteria. As far as one can consider it an argument 'pro', thus, I find it severely lacking.
" If you have no idea of what you want to have happen, you can't be pragmatic about it. "
That's not necessarily true. One could leave the goal to others, even. Or one can give the best solution to whatever goal it is.
For instance, take someone who doesn't take a stance on it himself, but just say: "Well, you have a group of people there: 1)if you want to eliminate them the fastest, you should proceed such and such, 2)if you want to save the most of them, you should do such and such."
It is, thus, perfectly possible to come up with the best working solution for ANY given outcome, without taking a stance on the matter itself. Granted, that would mean one would be amoral (in contrast to being immoral, or moral), but the point is, there is no inherent necessity to have an ideology to offer the best pragmatic solution to something.
I think you're both right to some extend. If your claim is, that no-one is outside the human experience, this is right. And yes, that also means humans can never FULLY extract themselves from ALL ideological or subjective considerations.
However, it's also true that a specific claim, for instance "Atheism is also a religion" is still invalid. Having no religion is not a religion, just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
It's also true that, while it's mayhaps impossible to completely avoid any ideology influencing ones' behavior or thoughts, this does not mean that there isn't differing level of it, nor no way of discerning an ideological one from a non-ideological one. The best tool we have for that, is the scientific methodology. You yourself already gave a hint into the juxtaposition of this with the rest, and I agree. This means, however, that 'outside' your box of ideology, there is the realm of science - as a description of reality. This also means that, even though humans - at least as we are now - may never be able to completely go outside the box, it's also true that people being atheist (and more to the point, people accepting what science tells them even to the detriment of their ideologies - as was the case with the parent poster) are more to the fringes and borders of that box than anyone else.
I think it's from that that what you describe as 'looking down from some immaculate heaven' comes from. However, you seem to indicate this is unwarranted, while it's more likely to be warranted to some extend. IT's just *because* one is at the outer rim, that one can look more easily to the inside, and see the clusterfuck of people with strong(er) ideologies in there. One is 'above', in the sense that the vast majority of the populace is in the center, much like it's easier to see the center of our galaxy from a spiral arm, than from within the center itself.
And just like in that analogy, you can make easier and more correct statements, or derive more correct information from 'the outer ring', then when you're in the middle of it. So it's not completely unwarranted that most people who are atheist/pragmatic/scientifically-minded, are, in fact, on a higher plain of intelligence, though the statement itself is made a bit hyperbolic by you. For instance, no scientific-minded person will argue that only his own minds counts regardless of 'any evidence that exists outside' of it; on the contrary; they will accept science-based evidence, EVEN if it contradicts their own mind on the subject. That's the whole point of it. Neither do such people argue that 'no-one else is able or unwilling' to ascend to a less-ideologically motivated plane/region. That is absurd, and you only put that in there as a form of hyperbole, let's be honest.
Remains the fact that those people think they're 'better' in discerning the true working of the world than people who are not scientifically minded. You seem to think that is in error; but I think that is, in fact, correct. They are, can and do. For the simple reason that, the more you accept the scientific methodology and the more you are prepared to let your ideologies go in favor of the results that this gives you, the closer you come to a valid description of the observable reality. Since things based on reality work better than things that don't, it is, to all intents and purposes, indeed 'better'. Considering yourself to be better at something, when you are, in fact, better at it, is no mistake or delusion, but a correct assessment. It's not because one merely *thinks* one is better, mind you, but because the things one does or states actually are more in line with reality (they work better and give better results) than those of whom merely wallow in ideologies.
Agreed as a matter of fact statement, but of course, that shouldn't stop us from mitigating it as much as we can. The only proper tool we have for that, is the scientific methodology - and more broadly, indeed, logic.
This was a bit what I meant with my comment "offering nothing is not an argument on itself" as well. The question here, was if there can be some validity in finding the experiment an ethical/moral issue. Claiming it is definitely not, because one can't imagine other alternatives, is a very weak argument. Would it become unethical the moment another alternative is discovered, then? Even if it had *no* (as was claimed) ethical dimension at all before? This seems absurd.
And if one takes the very same premise, and say "well, we need to test out this deadly parasite in living humans; there are no alternatives, since it's a human-specialized parasite" is one agreeing this poses no ethical issue, since "there are no alternatives"?
Both cases show that 'there being no alternatives', and finding something an ethical/moral problem, have nothing to do with each other.
Cases that are clearly on one side or another are cases where a general consensus exist, or that can be logically and objectively argued from a commonly accepted premise. The former - seen all the comments - is clearly not the case here, and for the latter I'm still waiting to hear your first logical reasoning why an insects' size would not matter, but a walnuts' size (etc.), for instance, would. So the point remains you didn't argue in a logical way why your criteria would be the only valid one, and why, if you remain arbitrary in yours, others can't do the same with the same validity.
Because neurons are essential to the process of thinking itself, while liver-cells etc. don't. I'm not saying I personally see an issue here, but I DO understand why (some) people find an ethical/moral issue in it.
After all, what one (well, you) do here, is subjectively and arbitrarily deciding a certain size to be a moral issue, and when not. Is a 'clump' the defining standard to speak of an ethical issue? What about two clumps? What about 10? 100? 10 million? Can you give objective criteria from what size, exactly, an ethical issue might occur?
"Sentience" you say: but there isn't a clear definition of that neither. Do you mean self-aware? Or sentient in the manner that one can feel pain? If this tissue is connected (neurologically) to the brain of the rat, and the rat itself is sentient (feels pain), doesn't that create an ethical issue? What if it feels more/better the pain, now? Or is a 'higher' kind of sentience needed? But then; there are handicapped persons with severe genetic braindefects that aren't sentient in a higher context neither; isn't there a moral dilemma experimenting on these kind of handicapped people neither?
From a clinical viewpoint, if the 'clump' of cells and neurons have any painreceptors, they can already 'feel' pain, even if they can't communicate any of it. It's impossible, I think to objectively come to a certain amount of 'clumps' from where an ethical/moral issue arises, and when not. Given that, it's not necessarily invalid that people see an ethical issue in it when it's only a clump-size you do not have any problems with. No doubt, you have people that won't see an issue with a clump the size of a whole brain neither.
So... what clearly defined, scientific and objective criteria do you have to prove that a certain size (and which size?) of clumps poses an ethical issue, and when not? And if you agree it is, ultimately, arbitrarily chosen, then why can't other people with as much validity choose other criteria arbitrarily as well?
However, there is no denying there is *some* moral/ethical issue at play here, whether one likes it or not. I note you like C.Sagan's works too, so I'll go easy and not evoke the Nazis, but...
At some point, you do have ethical issues. You bring up alternatives like 'higher cephalic animals', but surely you're aware there already is an ethical/moral issue there as well? One can say: it's too small to be of any importance. But how small is too small? When does it become an issue? I'd like to note that there are handicapped people with severe (genetic) braindistortions - for instance, lacking the higher brains. They can never get the higher functions of a normal brain, and are bound to live a life that is in essence not much more than of a animal - less than of an ape, in fact.
So... is it now ok to experiment on such handicapped people? After all, they don't have most of the brainparts we have (theyre actually missing), and lack the capacity to think.
No bigger than an insect-brain, you say... Is that an objective measurement from when it does or doesn't become an ethical issue? What about if it was as big as a walnut? As big as the brain of a raven, one of the smartest birds around? As big as an orange? As big as the part that is left to the severally brain-handicapped people I spoke off?
Surely, you must see that there is not a defining border or limit to it. So, what it comes down to, is you - subjectively - finding no issue with it, because of it's size and lack of fully functional abilities like our brain. Another might find it's still no issue if it's as big as an orange. Or as big as a newborns'. Or as big as a toddlers'. Etc. and some might feel there is already an ethical issue when it's as big as an insects'.
Point is, if you can't set objective criteria for when it is and isn't (or shouldn't) be considered an ethical issue, you can't fault anyone for finding an issue with it - not even on logical arguments. Because your own defining criteria isn't inherently logical (being of a given, arbitrary size), unless one wants to argue that there is no issue with it until it has the size of a fully grown adult. But I think you'd left most people behind with that moral stance, by then.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you that testing this is a good or bad thing. I'm just acknowledging some people might have moral issues with it, and they might be valid. There is actual reason why one might see this being a moral/ethical issue; since your or mine (or doctor Mengele's;-p) criteria for what constitutes a moral/ethical dilemma isn't the same. Unless you come up with clearly defined, objective criteria that define when there's a moral/ethical issue and when not, I don't think you can claim another's' ethical dilemma is wrong, per sé. Having a 'certain', arbitrary chosen size isn't a good criterion in this regard.
What something which is legal is used for, even if it's for something not legal, isn't the fault of the legal program, though. The supreme court has been pretty clear about this: if it has legal uses, and it doesn't effectively promote illegal use, it is and remains legal.
This is an unrealistic counterargument. The point is, if you know the human nature, you also know the vast majority of the populace wants entertainment, wants it as cheap as possible, and wants it in an easy, accessible way. They want that, whether it's legal or not, and a considerable part of that same populace will try to get it, legally or not.
that's just a fact. One can come up with all sorts of legalities and moral judgements, but it still is and remains a fact. That's why the 'war on drugs' never succeeds as well: even with steep fines and prison-sentences, drugs are still being used. human nature, as said.
Now then. realising this, one should think about what is the best way to remedy this as much as possible. Is it by being more harsh, higher fines, more prison time? No. That never works.
The most effective way IS, indeed, as the parent poster said, providing it at a cheap price, in an easy way, and being very accessible everywhere.
I see. Are you one of those people that, when asked by someone "Can you tell me where the postoffice is?" just answers with "yes" and walks away, satisfied you answered the question?
Most people understand what is meant without it being literally spelled out. There are only two kinds of people that don't: trolling twats, or people who lack the ability to read something comprehensible.
Let's be honest here: you understood perfectly what the parent poster meant. So don't be an autistic ass about it.
shanga, c'mon, you're doing this deliberately. You understood quite perfectly what the actual meaning of his analogy was. An analogy is never meant to be taken literally btw, that's why it's an analogy: it uses different examples to make the underlying reasoning more clear. Are you one of those guys that, when asked "Could you tell me where I can find the postoffice?" you just say "yes, I could." and walk away, satisfied you've correctly answered the question?
If you really didn't understood it, you might have some problems in reading comprehensively.
If food costs $20 in the first, and $0,02 in the latter, the latter is better off. Idem for housing and what not. (these are *examples*, to show you the basic reasoning, namely:)
The basic point of the parent poster was, that absolute numbers are meaningless (in fact, he opened his comment with that, so you should certainly have understood). If you earn $50 in one country, and $5 in another, one might claim the first is ten times better off than the latter. But that is false, because it depends on the living expenses in each country.
There is little sense to refute this basic premise, since it's true.
Hmm... You have some good point, but also some erroneous ones. this reflects in your last sentence too, for instance: what's going on in Venezuela is the direct result of socialism, not free market.
People like Trump being elected is due to the poor education and typical red-neck mentality. Unless one wants to argue poor people are inherently too stupid to choose a better president.
Which leaves social unrest, which, indeed, will not get better with a widening gap of rich and poor. that said, as the Romans have showed for hundreds of years: if you give panem et circenses to the masses, you can keep them reasonably pacified and tranquil.
My point was rather that, if people are going the 'It's the Russians' fault', they clearly do not see the deeper issue, here. The USA have been steadily more and more polarized, long before Trump or this Russian sidetracking stuff. Even Europe gets more polarized, and it has nothing to do with Russians. It's simply the old divide between left and right that gets more and more pronounced, additionally flavored with progressive or conservative, libertarian or authoritarian, etc.
Trump is only the latest prime example of a result of that, and the Russians a minor insignificant issue in it. If the Russians wouldn't have been there, sooner or later it would have resulted in such a thing anyway, if not with Trump, than with another. The appeal (and popularity) is getting more and more to the extremes, be it right, like with Trump, Andrzej Duda and others, or to the left, with Sanders, Corbyn, etc. (Hillary in this respect didn't score high with the grass-roots populace on either side). The Russians, in the bigger scheme of things, really don't matter.
And even if one wants to focus on it, trivial as it might be, one can see in the comments it goes anyway one can imagine. Maybe they meddled, but did they meddle more than the USA did in other countries? (Russia has always blamed the USA of interference in the 'revolution' in the Ukraine, after all, and they may be right as well.) Maybe they didn't meddle. Maybe they have tr0lled in the 'pro-camp'. Maybe they have tr0lled in the 'against camp' to give it a backlash. (We see both claims being made in the posts here). Maybe they made some fake news to support Trump. Maybe they made fake news, so Trump could denounce it. Maybe the claims of fake news were fake news. Maybe the claims that the claim of fake news was fake news was fake news. Ad infinitum. Maybe Russian tr0lls are dividing Slashdot. Maybe that claim on itself is from a Russian troll, so he could stir up things. Or maybe no Russian tr0lls whatsoever are here... but just regular tr0lls?
I don't know if I got my point across, but basically, with such wild claims one can go ANYWAY one want. Whether you're for, or against, whether the pro-Hillary crowd and leftists discredited themselves or not, or there are genuine supporters of Trump, or they're Russian puppets... one can claim whatever one wants, and one still claim it are the Russians or the exact reverse. It's a never ending wave of immer more absurd claims. If the left discredits oneself, they say it's a Russian troll.. simple, ain't it? Sure, the right does the same... but not with accusation of Russians, at least.
And it doesn't even matter in the long run.
People should focus on the real underlying problem, and finally get over the whole 'the Russians did it' meme. It's been going on for over a year now, and what has it accomplished, except more polarization?
How long is it going to last? 8 years? 20? And every time a president is elected one doesn't like? And how is one going to prevent it? It's not illegal to pay politically active groups, after all, even if they are provocateurs. If I donate money to or against some group that support a president I like, is that illegal? And when I do the same but I live abroad, is it then illegal? If you want ones' populace to be less gullible, or don't vote for an idiot as president, the only solution is to educate them better. So start with the educational system. Don't concentrate on the ('Russian') symptoms, which are so vague they always lead to the same conclusion of the same disease, because one wishes to interpret it that way. Or else: yes, it's all the fault of the Russians, always. And now what?
My point was rather that, if people are going the 'It's the Russians' fault', they clearly do not see the deeper issue, here. The USA have been steadily more and more polarized, long before Trump or this Russian sidetracking stuff. Even Europe gets more polarized, and it has nothing to do with Russians.
It's simply the old divide between left and right that gets more and more pronounced, additionally flavored with progressive or conservative, libertarian or authoritarian, etc. Trump is only the latest prime example of a result of that, and the Russians a minor insignificant issue in it. If the Russians wouldn't have been there, sooner or later it would have resulted in such a thing anyway, if not with Trump, than with another.
The appeal (and popularity) is getting more and more to the extremes, be it right, like with Trump, Andrzej Duda and others, or to the left, with Sanders, Corbyn, etc. (Hillary in this respect didn't score high with the grass-roots populace on either side).
The Russians, in the bigger scheme of things, really don't matter. And even if one wants to focus on it, trivial as it might be, one can see in the comments it goes anyway one can imagine. Maybe they meddled, but did they meddle more than the USA did in other countries? (Russia has always blamed the USA of interference in the 'revolution' in the Ukraine, after all, and they may be right as well.) Maybe they didn't meddle. Maybe they have tr0lled in the 'pro-camp'. Maybe they have tr0lled in the 'against camp' to give it a backlash. (We see both claims being made in the posts here). Maybe they made some fake news to support Trump. Maybe they made fake news, so Trump could denounce it. Maybe the claims of fake news were fake news. Maybe the claims that the claim of fake news was fake news was fake news. Ad infinitum. Maybe Russian tr0lls are dividing Slashdot. Maybe that claim on itself is from a Russian troll, so he could stir up things. Or maybe no Russian tr0lls whatsoever are here... but just regular tr0lls?
I don't know if I got my point across, but basically, with such wild claims one can go ANYWAY one want. Whether you're for, or against, whether the pro-Hillary crowd and leftists discredited themselves or not, or there are genuine supporters of Trump, or they're Russian puppets... one can claim whatever one wants, and one still claim it are the Russians or the exact reverse. It's a never ending wave of immer more absurd claims. If the left discredits oneself, they say it's a Russian troll.. simple, ain't it? Sure, the right does the same... but not with accusation of Russians, at least.
And it doesn't even matter in the long run.
People should focus on the real underlying problem, and finally get over the whole 'the Russians did it' meme. It's been going on for over a year now, and what has it accomplished, except more polarization? How long is it going to last? 8 years? 20? And every time a president is elected one doesn't like? And how is one going to prevent it? It's not illegal to pay politically active groups, after all, even if they are provocateurs. If I donate money to or against some group that support a president I like, is that illegal? And when I do the same but I live abroad, is it then illegal?
If you want ones' populace to be less gullible, or don't vote for an idiot as president, the only solution is to educate them better. So start with the educational system. Don't concentrate on the ('Russian') symptoms, which are so vague they always lead to the same conclusion of the same disease, because one wishes to interpret it that way. Or else: yes, it's all the fault of the Russians, always. And now what?
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm... well, let's use reciprocity of argument, then. You have made a whole truckload of conditions when you consider something fake new or not and ask for an example, and when someone delivers it, you say it was only an opinion.
Well, it always is, until it's actually proven in court, isn't it?
So let's turn it around: give me one example where RT has made 'fake news' that should be considered so with my own conditions, and where I personally can decide whether it's a good example or not.
Mind you that your or a journalists' opinion is not proof, but an opinion. As is that of everyone else, especially if I say deem it so. Under these same conditions, I dare you to give an example I find valid as well. you'll not be able to provide one.
IMHO, you're far too naïve. The truth is, both sides use propaganda - deliberately, and knowing it's BS - to the audience they want to convince.
*sigh*
What has Slashdot come to? :-/
https://www.wattfuelcell.com/d...
The number 3 is an underestimation, if anything. At least if you're looking at cars (EV) vs. hydrogen cars. that's because it's very inefficient to first produce hydrogen with solar (electrolysis), then put them in fuelcells of cars, which in turn have to use the energy of those cells (and have additional loss at the conversion once again).
It's simple to see that directly using electricity to and from batteries are far more efficient.
That would be a strange interpretation of having the right on free speech. In that case, china could say to someone criticizing the regime: "Well, you DO have free speech, but we put you in jail for it." (aka, that are the consequences)
It doesn't make sense, does it? If there is no protection from the consequences of free speech, and one is shot dead - legally - after when one said something (against the regime, for instance), it would still be free speech, following your reasoning. The whole point of calling such dictatorships and consequences as being antithetic to free speech, is exactly because one is NOT protected from the consequences. Ergo; with truly free speech, one may truly say anything.
The fact this is being limited, even in the West, is a sign that there is no true free speech, thus. The consequences, thus, are a direct result of dictatorial traits, not free-speech traits. The level on which this is applied (or rather, the severity of the consequences) is what is different, but only in degree/level, not on the principle of the matter. What we, therefor, see as having 'free speech', is, in reality, only a less severe form of dictatorship and censure. And it's because of THAT we're not protected from the consequences.
"Proof by blatant assertion."
----> "Borders tend to be stretchy and vague, but in many cases there's cases that are clearly on one side or another."
Well, maybe you just wanted to give general truths, then, a bit like saying "the earth revolves around the sun"... in the middle of a debate that clearly was discussing a specific topic.
I know where this is going; in a while, you're going to argue about semantics, and what this word or that word means to you versus what it means to me, in endless repeat. I had experience enough with people who continued into pedantry to not already note the signs. These sort of debates never go anywhere.
"except that I didn't claim that"
As said in my former post; I was answering the parent poster. Even when I was answering you afterwards, I first thought it was the same person (aka, that you were the parent poster). Whether you claimed the original statement or not, does nothing to the fact the parent poster DID claim it, and it was to THAT which I made my argument, which is an argument of reciprocity, nothing else.
You are misinterpreting the argument. The fact that there is not a defining border was not an argument pro or con the experiment itself, it was to establish the fact the parent poster did not give an objective reason why a certain size would matter. It is relevant, therefor, to establish the size was arbitrarily chosen. Yet, his argument to not see an ethical issue in it, was based on the fact it was of "an insects' size" - a size he arbitrarily chose (or at least, to which he didn't give any objective reasons for) and which he then claims, 'therefor, it is not an ethical issue'.
My point is and remains: if he can choose an arbitrary size to claim something is an ethical issue or not, why can't another, with the same validity, choose another size - equally arbitrary, for instance; of even one cell, to claim it *IS* an ethical issue?
You should note that it was not me that started with any slope - slippery or not about the size - but the parent poster did. I wasn't using a slippery-slope argument (btw, I've found that there is also an anti-slippery-slope-fallacy being used these days, as if it has somehow been proven a slippery slope argument can never be correct, which is obviously false as well), but I was using reciprocity of argument.
The point of the matter is and remains, that giving an arbitrarily chosen size without any rational reasoning or clarification of why that size is chosen apart from a personal whim, is not a valid argument to argue it is, or isn't, an ethical issue.
I already tried to explain this in my last post. You tried to counter it with saying there are cases that are clearly on one side or another, but since this is not such a case - the comments here, and the fact the lab itself put it on hold because of the ethical ramifications indicate this - this is *also* not an argument, in this particular instance, to claim it isn't an ethical issue.
Now, it may be you didn't put that forth the original statement, but the parent poster *did*, and it was to him I was responding, to which you butted in (I first thought you were the original poster though, so maybe that caused the confusion of whom put forth what).
In any case, just saying "it's that (arbitrarily chosen) size,so it isn't an ethical issue", is, without substantiating it with a rational reasoning or logic argumentation, a completely worthless statement. In that case, anyone has the same right to chose any size and claim it is, or isn't, an ethical issue as well. Reciprocity of argument, as I said: if one gives oneself the right to base a conclusion on arbitrarily chosen criteria, than so may any other do the same, on *their* arbitrarily chosen criteria. As far as one can consider it an argument 'pro', thus, I find it severely lacking.
" If you have no idea of what you want to have happen, you can't be pragmatic about it. "
That's not necessarily true. One could leave the goal to others, even. Or one can give the best solution to whatever goal it is.
For instance, take someone who doesn't take a stance on it himself, but just say: "Well, you have a group of people there: 1)if you want to eliminate them the fastest, you should proceed such and such, 2)if you want to save the most of them, you should do such and such."
It is, thus, perfectly possible to come up with the best working solution for ANY given outcome, without taking a stance on the matter itself. Granted, that would mean one would be amoral (in contrast to being immoral, or moral), but the point is, there is no inherent necessity to have an ideology to offer the best pragmatic solution to something.
See my response at https://science.slashdot.org/c...
I'm another person, btw, not the one you told to have the last reply too. ;-) Just thought I would chime in, since the topic is rather interesting.
I think you're both right to some extend. If your claim is, that no-one is outside the human experience, this is right. And yes, that also means humans can never FULLY extract themselves from ALL ideological or subjective considerations.
However, it's also true that a specific claim, for instance "Atheism is also a religion" is still invalid. Having no religion is not a religion, just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
It's also true that, while it's mayhaps impossible to completely avoid any ideology influencing ones' behavior or thoughts, this does not mean that there isn't differing level of it, nor no way of discerning an ideological one from a non-ideological one. The best tool we have for that, is the scientific methodology. You yourself already gave a hint into the juxtaposition of this with the rest, and I agree. This means, however, that 'outside' your box of ideology, there is the realm of science - as a description of reality. This also means that, even though humans - at least as we are now - may never be able to completely go outside the box, it's also true that people being atheist (and more to the point, people accepting what science tells them even to the detriment of their ideologies - as was the case with the parent poster) are more to the fringes and borders of that box than anyone else.
I think it's from that that what you describe as 'looking down from some immaculate heaven' comes from. However, you seem to indicate this is unwarranted, while it's more likely to be warranted to some extend. IT's just *because* one is at the outer rim, that one can look more easily to the inside, and see the clusterfuck of people with strong(er) ideologies in there. One is 'above', in the sense that the vast majority of the populace is in the center, much like it's easier to see the center of our galaxy from a spiral arm, than from within the center itself.
And just like in that analogy, you can make easier and more correct statements, or derive more correct information from 'the outer ring', then when you're in the middle of it. So it's not completely unwarranted that most people who are atheist/pragmatic/scientifically-minded, are, in fact, on a higher plain of intelligence, though the statement itself is made a bit hyperbolic by you. For instance, no scientific-minded person will argue that only his own minds counts regardless of 'any evidence that exists outside' of it; on the contrary; they will accept science-based evidence, EVEN if it contradicts their own mind on the subject. That's the whole point of it. Neither do such people argue that 'no-one else is able or unwilling' to ascend to a less-ideologically motivated plane/region. That is absurd, and you only put that in there as a form of hyperbole, let's be honest.
Remains the fact that those people think they're 'better' in discerning the true working of the world than people who are not scientifically minded. You seem to think that is in error; but I think that is, in fact, correct. They are, can and do. For the simple reason that, the more you accept the scientific methodology and the more you are prepared to let your ideologies go in favor of the results that this gives you, the closer you come to a valid description of the observable reality. Since things based on reality work better than things that don't, it is, to all intents and purposes, indeed 'better'. Considering yourself to be better at something, when you are, in fact, better at it, is no mistake or delusion, but a correct assessment. It's not because one merely *thinks* one is better, mind you, but because the things one does or states actually are more in line with reality (they work better and give better results) than those of whom merely wallow in ideologies.
Agreed as a matter of fact statement, but of course, that shouldn't stop us from mitigating it as much as we can. The only proper tool we have for that, is the scientific methodology - and more broadly, indeed, logic.
Exactly.
This was a bit what I meant with my comment "offering nothing is not an argument on itself" as well. The question here, was if there can be some validity in finding the experiment an ethical/moral issue. Claiming it is definitely not, because one can't imagine other alternatives, is a very weak argument. Would it become unethical the moment another alternative is discovered, then? Even if it had *no* (as was claimed) ethical dimension at all before? This seems absurd.
And if one takes the very same premise, and say "well, we need to test out this deadly parasite in living humans; there are no alternatives, since it's a human-specialized parasite" is one agreeing this poses no ethical issue, since "there are no alternatives"?
Both cases show that 'there being no alternatives', and finding something an ethical/moral problem, have nothing to do with each other.
Cases that are clearly on one side or another are cases where a general consensus exist, or that can be logically and objectively argued from a commonly accepted premise. The former - seen all the comments - is clearly not the case here, and for the latter I'm still waiting to hear your first logical reasoning why an insects' size would not matter, but a walnuts' size (etc.), for instance, would. So the point remains you didn't argue in a logical way why your criteria would be the only valid one, and why, if you remain arbitrary in yours, others can't do the same with the same validity.
Because neurons are essential to the process of thinking itself, while liver-cells etc. don't. I'm not saying I personally see an issue here, but I DO understand why (some) people find an ethical/moral issue in it.
After all, what one (well, you) do here, is subjectively and arbitrarily deciding a certain size to be a moral issue, and when not. Is a 'clump' the defining standard to speak of an ethical issue? What about two clumps? What about 10? 100? 10 million? Can you give objective criteria from what size, exactly, an ethical issue might occur?
"Sentience" you say: but there isn't a clear definition of that neither. Do you mean self-aware? Or sentient in the manner that one can feel pain? If this tissue is connected (neurologically) to the brain of the rat, and the rat itself is sentient (feels pain), doesn't that create an ethical issue? What if it feels more/better the pain, now? Or is a 'higher' kind of sentience needed? But then; there are handicapped persons with severe genetic braindefects that aren't sentient in a higher context neither; isn't there a moral dilemma experimenting on these kind of handicapped people neither?
From a clinical viewpoint, if the 'clump' of cells and neurons have any painreceptors, they can already 'feel' pain, even if they can't communicate any of it. It's impossible, I think to objectively come to a certain amount of 'clumps' from where an ethical/moral issue arises, and when not. Given that, it's not necessarily invalid that people see an ethical issue in it when it's only a clump-size you do not have any problems with. No doubt, you have people that won't see an issue with a clump the size of a whole brain neither.
So... what clearly defined, scientific and objective criteria do you have to prove that a certain size (and which size?) of clumps poses an ethical issue, and when not? And if you agree it is, ultimately, arbitrarily chosen, then why can't other people with as much validity choose other criteria arbitrarily as well?
However, there is no denying there is *some* moral/ethical issue at play here, whether one likes it or not. I note you like C.Sagan's works too, so I'll go easy and not evoke the Nazis, but...
At some point, you do have ethical issues. You bring up alternatives like 'higher cephalic animals', but surely you're aware there already is an ethical/moral issue there as well? One can say: it's too small to be of any importance. But how small is too small? When does it become an issue? I'd like to note that there are handicapped people with severe (genetic) braindistortions - for instance, lacking the higher brains. They can never get the higher functions of a normal brain, and are bound to live a life that is in essence not much more than of a animal - less than of an ape, in fact.
So... is it now ok to experiment on such handicapped people? After all, they don't have most of the brainparts we have (theyre actually missing), and lack the capacity to think.
No bigger than an insect-brain, you say... Is that an objective measurement from when it does or doesn't become an ethical issue? What about if it was as big as a walnut? As big as the brain of a raven, one of the smartest birds around? As big as an orange? As big as the part that is left to the severally brain-handicapped people I spoke off?
Surely, you must see that there is not a defining border or limit to it. So, what it comes down to, is you - subjectively - finding no issue with it, because of it's size and lack of fully functional abilities like our brain. Another might find it's still no issue if it's as big as an orange. Or as big as a newborns'. Or as big as a toddlers'. Etc. and some might feel there is already an ethical issue when it's as big as an insects'.
Point is, if you can't set objective criteria for when it is and isn't (or shouldn't) be considered an ethical issue, you can't fault anyone for finding an issue with it - not even on logical arguments. Because your own defining criteria isn't inherently logical (being of a given, arbitrary size), unless one wants to argue that there is no issue with it until it has the size of a fully grown adult. But I think you'd left most people behind with that moral stance, by then.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with you that testing this is a good or bad thing. I'm just acknowledging some people might have moral issues with it, and they might be valid. There is actual reason why one might see this being a moral/ethical issue; since your or mine (or doctor Mengele's ;-p) criteria for what constitutes a moral/ethical dilemma isn't the same. Unless you come up with clearly defined, objective criteria that define when there's a moral/ethical issue and when not, I don't think you can claim another's' ethical dilemma is wrong, per sé. Having a 'certain', arbitrary chosen size isn't a good criterion in this regard.
What something which is legal is used for, even if it's for something not legal, isn't the fault of the legal program, though. The supreme court has been pretty clear about this: if it has legal uses, and it doesn't effectively promote illegal use, it is and remains legal.
Indeed. It's clear he's a troll.
This is an unrealistic counterargument. The point is, if you know the human nature, you also know the vast majority of the populace wants entertainment, wants it as cheap as possible, and wants it in an easy, accessible way. They want that, whether it's legal or not, and a considerable part of that same populace will try to get it, legally or not. that's just a fact. One can come up with all sorts of legalities and moral judgements, but it still is and remains a fact. That's why the 'war on drugs' never succeeds as well: even with steep fines and prison-sentences, drugs are still being used. human nature, as said. Now then. realising this, one should think about what is the best way to remedy this as much as possible. Is it by being more harsh, higher fines, more prison time? No. That never works. The most effective way IS, indeed, as the parent poster said, providing it at a cheap price, in an easy way, and being very accessible everywhere.
I see. Are you one of those people that, when asked by someone "Can you tell me where the postoffice is?" just answers with "yes" and walks away, satisfied you answered the question? Most people understand what is meant without it being literally spelled out. There are only two kinds of people that don't: trolling twats, or people who lack the ability to read something comprehensible. Let's be honest here: you understood perfectly what the parent poster meant. So don't be an autistic ass about it.
"10 GB is enough for anyone" I would even say: 640 KB ought to be enough for everyone.
shanga, c'mon, you're doing this deliberately. You understood quite perfectly what the actual meaning of his analogy was. An analogy is never meant to be taken literally btw, that's why it's an analogy: it uses different examples to make the underlying reasoning more clear. Are you one of those guys that, when asked "Could you tell me where I can find the postoffice?" you just say "yes, I could." and walk away, satisfied you've correctly answered the question? If you really didn't understood it, you might have some problems in reading comprehensively. If food costs $20 in the first, and $0,02 in the latter, the latter is better off. Idem for housing and what not. (these are *examples*, to show you the basic reasoning, namely:) The basic point of the parent poster was, that absolute numbers are meaningless (in fact, he opened his comment with that, so you should certainly have understood). If you earn $50 in one country, and $5 in another, one might claim the first is ten times better off than the latter. But that is false, because it depends on the living expenses in each country. There is little sense to refute this basic premise, since it's true.
Hmm... You have some good point, but also some erroneous ones. this reflects in your last sentence too, for instance: what's going on in Venezuela is the direct result of socialism, not free market. People like Trump being elected is due to the poor education and typical red-neck mentality. Unless one wants to argue poor people are inherently too stupid to choose a better president. Which leaves social unrest, which, indeed, will not get better with a widening gap of rich and poor. that said, as the Romans have showed for hundreds of years: if you give panem et circenses to the masses, you can keep them reasonably pacified and tranquil.
I largely agree, with the caveat, alas, that for most people panem et circenses IS what brings stability in their lives.
My point was rather that, if people are going the 'It's the Russians' fault', they clearly do not see the deeper issue, here. The USA have been steadily more and more polarized, long before Trump or this Russian sidetracking stuff. Even Europe gets more polarized, and it has nothing to do with Russians. It's simply the old divide between left and right that gets more and more pronounced, additionally flavored with progressive or conservative, libertarian or authoritarian, etc. Trump is only the latest prime example of a result of that, and the Russians a minor insignificant issue in it. If the Russians wouldn't have been there, sooner or later it would have resulted in such a thing anyway, if not with Trump, than with another. The appeal (and popularity) is getting more and more to the extremes, be it right, like with Trump, Andrzej Duda and others, or to the left, with Sanders, Corbyn, etc. (Hillary in this respect didn't score high with the grass-roots populace on either side). The Russians, in the bigger scheme of things, really don't matter. And even if one wants to focus on it, trivial as it might be, one can see in the comments it goes anyway one can imagine. Maybe they meddled, but did they meddle more than the USA did in other countries? (Russia has always blamed the USA of interference in the 'revolution' in the Ukraine, after all, and they may be right as well.) Maybe they didn't meddle. Maybe they have tr0lled in the 'pro-camp'. Maybe they have tr0lled in the 'against camp' to give it a backlash. (We see both claims being made in the posts here). Maybe they made some fake news to support Trump. Maybe they made fake news, so Trump could denounce it. Maybe the claims of fake news were fake news. Maybe the claims that the claim of fake news was fake news was fake news. Ad infinitum. Maybe Russian tr0lls are dividing Slashdot. Maybe that claim on itself is from a Russian troll, so he could stir up things. Or maybe no Russian tr0lls whatsoever are here... but just regular tr0lls? I don't know if I got my point across, but basically, with such wild claims one can go ANYWAY one want. Whether you're for, or against, whether the pro-Hillary crowd and leftists discredited themselves or not, or there are genuine supporters of Trump, or they're Russian puppets... one can claim whatever one wants, and one still claim it are the Russians or the exact reverse. It's a never ending wave of immer more absurd claims. If the left discredits oneself, they say it's a Russian troll.. simple, ain't it? Sure, the right does the same... but not with accusation of Russians, at least. And it doesn't even matter in the long run. People should focus on the real underlying problem, and finally get over the whole 'the Russians did it' meme. It's been going on for over a year now, and what has it accomplished, except more polarization? How long is it going to last? 8 years? 20? And every time a president is elected one doesn't like? And how is one going to prevent it? It's not illegal to pay politically active groups, after all, even if they are provocateurs. If I donate money to or against some group that support a president I like, is that illegal? And when I do the same but I live abroad, is it then illegal? If you want ones' populace to be less gullible, or don't vote for an idiot as president, the only solution is to educate them better. So start with the educational system. Don't concentrate on the ('Russian') symptoms, which are so vague they always lead to the same conclusion of the same disease, because one wishes to interpret it that way. Or else: yes, it's all the fault of the Russians, always. And now what?
My point was rather that, if people are going the 'It's the Russians' fault', they clearly do not see the deeper issue, here. The USA have been steadily more and more polarized, long before Trump or this Russian sidetracking stuff. Even Europe gets more polarized, and it has nothing to do with Russians. It's simply the old divide between left and right that gets more and more pronounced, additionally flavored with progressive or conservative, libertarian or authoritarian, etc. Trump is only the latest prime example of a result of that, and the Russians a minor insignificant issue in it. If the Russians wouldn't have been there, sooner or later it would have resulted in such a thing anyway, if not with Trump, than with another. The appeal (and popularity) is getting more and more to the extremes, be it right, like with Trump, Andrzej Duda and others, or to the left, with Sanders, Corbyn, etc. (Hillary in this respect didn't score high with the grass-roots populace on either side). The Russians, in the bigger scheme of things, really don't matter. And even if one wants to focus on it, trivial as it might be, one can see in the comments it goes anyway one can imagine. Maybe they meddled, but did they meddle more than the USA did in other countries? (Russia has always blamed the USA of interference in the 'revolution' in the Ukraine, after all, and they may be right as well.) Maybe they didn't meddle. Maybe they have tr0lled in the 'pro-camp'. Maybe they have tr0lled in the 'against camp' to give it a backlash. (We see both claims being made in the posts here). Maybe they made some fake news to support Trump. Maybe they made fake news, so Trump could denounce it. Maybe the claims of fake news were fake news. Maybe the claims that the claim of fake news was fake news was fake news. Ad infinitum. Maybe Russian tr0lls are dividing Slashdot. Maybe that claim on itself is from a Russian troll, so he could stir up things. Or maybe no Russian tr0lls whatsoever are here... but just regular tr0lls? I don't know if I got my point across, but basically, with such wild claims one can go ANYWAY one want. Whether you're for, or against, whether the pro-Hillary crowd and leftists discredited themselves or not, or there are genuine supporters of Trump, or they're Russian puppets... one can claim whatever one wants, and one still claim it are the Russians or the exact reverse. It's a never ending wave of immer more absurd claims. If the left discredits oneself, they say it's a Russian troll.. simple, ain't it? Sure, the right does the same... but not with accusation of Russians, at least. And it doesn't even matter in the long run. People should focus on the real underlying problem, and finally get over the whole 'the Russians did it' meme. It's been going on for over a year now, and what has it accomplished, except more polarization? How long is it going to last? 8 years? 20? And every time a president is elected one doesn't like? And how is one going to prevent it? It's not illegal to pay politically active groups, after all, even if they are provocateurs. If I donate money to or against some group that support a president I like, is that illegal? And when I do the same but I live abroad, is it then illegal? If you want ones' populace to be less gullible, or don't vote for an idiot as president, the only solution is to educate them better. So start with the educational system. Don't concentrate on the ('Russian') symptoms, which are so vague they always lead to the same conclusion of the same disease, because one wishes to interpret it that way. Or else: yes, it's all the fault of the Russians, always. And now what?
:~(
Sad...