Well first you’re talking about a different situation than the article.
In addition, in the San Francisco case you link, it was not established that the bacteria caused the death you are referring to.
> The lower court ruled against them primarily because the bacteria used in the test was unproven to be responsible for Nevin's death. The Nevin family appealed the suit all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to overturn lower court judgments
Again, blankets statements rather than facts don’t help discuss the issue. Nuance is best.
I for one think they should not have done any of these tests, and that they crossed clear ethical boundaries. But I’m not going to create misinformation, “beg the question”, appeal to emotion, or point to false cause to convince someone that it’s a wrong and immoral thing to do.
These types of arguments are why we had so much confusion, and lack of educated discussion around Covid and vaccines, the pros and cons of nuclear power, etc etc.
I'm responding directly to the parent comment, but I'd argue that spreading this same bacteria by smashing lightbulbs in a subway full of people, and spreading it in a fog in SF, a city full of people, then seeing if those people had the bacteria in their bodies is essentially the same type of situation as the article. What do you see as differences?
So the US government didn't prove in a court of law that the US government killed someone with the US government's illegal experiment, that it didn't even admit was happening? This is the standard of proof here? If so, I'm going to guess the other atrocities the US has committed and not taking full and complete responsibility for can't be discussed either? When the system in power refuses to accept blame for it's actions, we just have to take its word or it's misinformation? Come on. Let's think about some other cases the highest court in the land got obviously wrong and then consider your argument.
- Dread Scott v Sanford. held the U.S. Constitution did not extend American citizenship to people of black African descent, and thus they could not enjoy the rights and privileges the Constitution conferred upon American citizens. [0]
- Buck v. Bell, is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [1]
- Korematsu v. United States, decision by the Supreme Court of the United States to uphold the exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II. [2]
- Plessy v. Ferguson, which the Court ruled that racial segregation laws did not violate the U.S. Constitution as long as the facilities for each race were equal in quality, a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal" [3]
(Oh, and since I don't want to only talk about civil rights cases, since that might not carry much weight for you, how about property rights:)
- Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),[1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. [4]
I could go on but I don't feel like going through all these horrible cases. How will we ever square this perfect arbiter of truth, the Supreme Court's multiple fuckups with our examination of truth? I'd recommend using your eyeballs and sound judgement. How am I creating misinformation by quoting wikipedia and then linking to it so anyone can read the source material? To compare this with COVID misinformation is egregious.
I think you misunderstand my issue or the argument here.
You are arguing what? That spreading bacteria, even one that was believed to be benign, is a violation of personal rights? Well I agree with you 100%, and if that’s surprising, then the point has been missed.
The issue I have is an article that serves only the purpose of inflaming without informing. We can all claim moral outrage, and then point “look.. horrible things.. horrible people”. What purpose does that serve? It has become the standard of communication on social media. How does it serve this discussion to point out all the way the US government and the courts have failed us? Your list is tiny compared to the true scope. Ask any Native American.
Does that prove in this case a person was killed by the actions of spreading bacteria by light bulbs? Clearly it cannot. So then what’s the goal of the argument? Slippery slope fallacy? Appeals to emotion?
Instead give me an article with substance and facts, and nuanced discussion. Why were those choices made in the past. Did those people believe they were doing good, and not doing harm? What lead to that occurring? How to we prevent it from occurring again? How do we educate ourselves so we don’t make equally well intentioned but harmful decisions.
If an article claims a bacteria is pathogenic, and harmed people by its use, then I require it prove it to me. Otherwise it’s conjecture. If so, treat it as such, and say “let’s all look into this further”. If an article won’t, then it’s immediately suspect, and its conclusions can’t be trusted.
Moral outrage is no path towards truth, fairness, and equality. Those things require more from us. More from our discussions. Arguments appealing to emotion (even ones that are well researched linking to wikipedia) don’t help. The comparison to Covid discussion is apt, since many people linked to Wikipedia or other sources, citing all sorts of things, in order to bolster their logically incomplete, or entirely emotional arguments.
Imagine instead an article that said “possible benign bacteria used to study germ contamination”. Then went on to discuss the facts, facts such as opportunistic infections, or even questions about the case you brought up and wether that was a fair trial and if not, what evidence supports it not being (other than “US court bad corrupt”) and then, it asked my questions above.
The problem is that media today needs ad money to operate, and “pathogenic bacteria released on citizens” gets a LOT more clicks. And then the moral outrage that follows make everyone feel good, but doesn’t make the world a better more educated place.
If we don’t do better in our journalism, and in our discussions, then your list above is doomed to get longer and longer as time goes on.
For those interested in how to have better discussions, and write better articles, check out the following:
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
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.
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.
“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)
In addition, in the San Francisco case you link, it was not established that the bacteria caused the death you are referring to.
> The lower court ruled against them primarily because the bacteria used in the test was unproven to be responsible for Nevin's death. The Nevin family appealed the suit all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to overturn lower court judgments
Again, blankets statements rather than facts don’t help discuss the issue. Nuance is best.
I for one think they should not have done any of these tests, and that they crossed clear ethical boundaries. But I’m not going to create misinformation, “beg the question”, appeal to emotion, or point to false cause to convince someone that it’s a wrong and immoral thing to do.
These types of arguments are why we had so much confusion, and lack of educated discussion around Covid and vaccines, the pros and cons of nuclear power, etc etc.