₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
Hmmm, this is a tough one with a lot of layers it will require some thought to adequately do justice.

i appreciate your honest reply. by this, you can easily deduce my argument on your similar thread.

Anyway, we can still have some insightful contribution on this thread. What do you think? I mean your opinion.

Hhenryy:
This assertion doesn't make sense. Let me ask you a simple question, do you have any memory of your past life?

Not directed at me but feel like answering....it make sense, it just that you are yet to understand it.With regards to your question....the recall of past life invent is closer to reconstruction. Memory naturally fade, degrade and even upgrade but never deleted. Just like a formatted computer. the old operating system can still be retrieved with the aid of retriver software. Well, merge of cluster of related memories can become the present. Such memory of island appear forgotten until an association connected to the island and bring back a whole word. So in human, finding the trace of forgotten memmory is like an archaeologist trying to reconstruct the ancient Greek city of troy which was built over and over until it was finally abandoned. Though it is possible, Google past life regression . Go learn it.

If you cant remember, then what is the essence or rationale for making someone suffer from what he/she has no knowledge of? How does he/she feel remorseful and make corrections and leave a better life?

Go learn it, it is possible. Well the Yoruba reincarnation analogy is not similar to that of India which you are quoting. Have you heard of atavism – well it is a latin word. Atavism means the reappearance in an individual of characteristics of some remote ancestor that have been absent in intervening generations – do Google checking to learn more.

On the other way around, if it's inform of a compensation, how will the individual appreciate it? When the individual doesn't even know what he/she did to warrant it

The europoid understand this very concept very well(although appear christain),that is why they try to build and accumulate wealth that is sufficient enough to be enjoyed by more than 10 generation after they pass on. They knew they they are still coming back to enjoy it..

The idea of reincarnation doesn't make sense because it has a lot of flaws, the above example is one of its numerous flaws.

it make sense, it just that you are yet to understand it....

I will like to see you pointing to any flaws again...

Do you think scientist can ethically and morally justify the inventions of weapons that can kill and harm?


*What do you think*?

Let's exercise a civil and polite debate.....

I think this debate will favour and justify the war fought both in the bible and quran accordingly......since it is base on moral and ethical ground....


LordReed, budaatum and the rest........

Trustme2:
Yea. They are

Evidence pls.......make sure your proposition Is true or valid.

Is it not the Same Gambia where one of their female pastor converted to Islam during one of Dr Zakir naik pseudologic lecture?

DeSepiero:
Sorry for your inability.

while I am also sorry for your incapacity to proceed ....

DeSepiero:
Response is clear enough for the question though.

I can't pick up anything meaningful in what you are trying to convey or dismiss in the headline....and I need you to further clarify it. If you can not go ahead . No qualms.

DeSepiero:
Question has some ambiguity.
Ethics and morality is holding scientists back NOT science.

can you elucidate?

Bumb

NOT the magical way most people think of them. The concept of a curse derives from the fact that people realized that some people seemed controlled by an external force. They tried to explain this phenomena as a magical "curse." IFA: Orisa Spirituality explains that it is not a curse, instead it is a mental virus. This mental virus derives from social programming that are designed to encourage you to behave in a way detrimental to yourself.

Certainly, mainstream society can encourage mental-viruses (especially thru media programming), but the strength of a mental-virus comes from your local community and family. While mainstream society can promote the virus, it is your local community/family that must solidify it for it to take root.

Most mental-viruses thrive because many people refuse to acknowledge that the people they trusted most (their family and local neighborhood) are the ones that implanted the mental-virus.

This post is not intended to insult your family, but to make you aware of how mental-viruses are passed. They are not passed from strangers. It requires introduction from someone a child trusts for the mental-virus to truly take root in their mind and grow.

The reason we must address how mental-viruses are passed is because only then can we know what measures to take to stop its spread.


While this is bad news because it makes you realize that your neighborhood and family are the reason you are infected with the Eurocentric-Memetic Virus, the good news is that now that you know it is passed on this way, YOU CAN STOP it from spreading to your children



From ""Awogbemi salami"".

hopefulLandlord:
@vaxx, what's the Yoruba TR's view on fate?

well, all I know is that IFA teaches one thing about faith. Which i called self awareness. Like i am the pilot of my own plane every decision i made or fail to make triggered a course of action that forced the materialization of the reality (Experiences). In essence, ifa teaches that we are all creators of our reality(ori), and we do this without being aware that we are doing it. All it takes is perfect alignment of orisha + self + Emotion.

i am aware when we attempt to consciously create our desired in reality most people fail. but the failure those not reflect a lack of capacity to create your reality. Whatever you desire of this life it is yours to have.

You can do a Google search on odu ifa ogbe irete iwapele, ogbe orosun for further reading...

hopefulLandlord:
I asked you a question, seems you missed it

ooh my bad, I will respond asap.

budaatum:
Please be fair. According to the person you responded to, if the babies give consent they can be used as test subjects!

Before you begin to commit further fallacy.....have you heard of institutional reveiw board ? A goggle search should enlight you.

budaatum:
Thankfully, other people can form their own opinion regarding wordism having read all that has been written.

I'm going to mention this all the same. It seems you see discussions with me as some sort of competition that needs to be won. I noticed this in our conversations about subjectivity and in the one about the four noble truths, where even in your own words, you argue against yourself! Below is an example of you doing similar on here (provided my understanding is not incorrect).



I'm not certain, but in the above where you say that animals, who happen to "share our capacity for emotions, joy, pain and love" and therefore "should not be viewed as inferior beings who have no rights", I understand you to mean that they should be treated with ethical consideration, which they just happen to be as shown by the ethical code I gave a link to (though I can't understand the addition of your "they never want it anyway", tagged onto the end). Yet, the entire premise of your argument on this thread is the removal of those ethical moral guidelines for the advancement of science because, according to you, "Every outcome of an experiment is a knowledge" and "morality and ethics can stop science progress which is very bad to the betterment of every society aiming to develop".

Indeed, every outcome of an experiment may well be knowledge. But not all science is for "the betterment of every society aiming to develop" ! Some experiments can be very bad even if they benefit certain societies and most especially if they are detrimental to other societies. After all, while the experiments of slavery benefitted some society and helped their development, we can't claim slavery should not have been stopped by ethics and moral guidelines. Or would we? Do you prefer a dog eat dog world where only the fittest survive?

I see the conversations we have here as experiments, and that in having them, knowledge is acquired and for the betterment of all. And that means one must go about one's experiment with moral guidelines and the consideration of ethical rules pertaining to the experiment. One should not allow one's blinding egotistical need to appear as a winner be the sole consideration of these experiments. Rather than a win-lose outcome, a win-win one is an option. You, yourself once noticed this in buda when you informed someone that buda, though an atheist, does not necessarily go about insulting and attacking Christians.

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention my observation from the experiments you and I have been performing here. Ethics are there as moral guidelines to temper the "egotistical tendency" of some humans to put their desires and needs above everyone and everything else's. And the more intelligent humans fight for the fairer treatment of everyone and everything by ensuring there are moral guidelines that must be followed. And if it those moral guidelines hold back 'science' or the 'acquisition of knowledge' (and wealth, which is really the underlying goal of the egoist in this context), then so be it. No one is currently legally allowed to sacrifice others for their own (societies) "betterment"!

For anyone interested in an example of a list of foundational ethical moral guidelines that many humans live by, please refer to the ten given here.

ignoratio elenchi fallacy...

budaatum:
Sorry vaxx, but you appear to think plenty wordism will get you out of this, while in reality it just shows how muddled your reasoning is on this issue.

Scientific experiments are done in a society. That society cares about its living organisms, be they rats or humans or chickens or goats, so it creates rules about how they shall be treated when experimented on.

Those rules, where they include the welfare of the living organism concerned, whether the experiment is to save their lives or for them to be eaten, are based on our ethical conduct, and hence there are moral principles created by us humans that relate to the concerned activity.

A clear example is that we shall not cause undue distress to the goat we slaughter. Some others, where humans are concerned, are that we shall only perform experiments that have social and clinical value, are scientific valid, with favorable risk-benefit ratio, which shall be Independently reviewed, upon participants fairly selected, and with their Informed consent and whom we shall respect.

Now, these principles are not laws, but moral guidance. We however, as a society, feel so strong about these ethical standards that we have decided that they shall be legal requirements and enforced by the law. And we do this because we are human beings who care about the life of other beings, especially when they are incapable of fighting for themselves. We are in fact so advanced these days that we do not even allow unethical experiments to be performed on the environment and now have environmental ethical guidance on what is acceptable!

Now, I know you are going to throw some accusation like "democratic", "shift the post", "top-downward" or "bottom upward", and "confuse “law” with “morality"” at me, but I hope I've clearly made my point, that the scientist in Lordreed's op is not being fair, is being unethical and committing a criminal offence. And no, I would not behave in such a way that my need to know, or eat meat, would be done unethically even if thos might 'eat' give their consent!

The search for knowledge must be done ethically. We have not always applied moral guidance to experiments done in the past and have seen where it got us. We don't wish to give free rein to egocentric and barbaric nature, hence ethics, at every level that we can impose it.

ignoratio elenchi spotted


You accused me of wordism which you yourself is doing.... Buda """": how ethical is this?

budaatum:
I have not claimed there is anything democratic about ethics! India, today, decriminalised homosexuality but I bet if they had to vote on it, it would still be a crime!

it is not until when you claim it, it is the way you apply it that matter . Your application of ethics is similarly to that of democracy where every principle in decision making is cut across equally or perhaps agree with majority., hence fixed.

To India their cup of coffee........

budaatum:
It is not a political argument at all, but a societal one. The society as a whole decides its ethics, and not just the people directly involved! Animals killed in slaughterhouses after all, have never campaigned for their humane treatment and killing, yet society has imposed ethics on how these procedures may legally be done!

Yes, they have. They are living beings like us, they share our capacity for emotions, joy, pain and love and therefore they should not be viewed as inferior beings who have no rights. Life is life. Whatever difference it is claimed, it's only for man's egoistical advantage. therefore slaughter ethics do not go in alingment with animal decision....they never want it anyway.

I don't post shift, vaxx. You seem to want to discuss ethics as it relates to experiments on living things as if only one perspective, that of the direct participants or the scientist alone should be considered, when in reality, it involves the whole society where the ethics actually prevail.

The relationship between the society and politics is the same as that of a measurement between compass and it's ship. You can't seperate them. Hence I say this is political argument and not scientific decision. Ok let me shift the post to accommodate your argument.

There is political spectrum with two poles. One pole is “top-downward” government in which oligarchs reign with supposedly-unlimited power over society, while others have no authority except for what they’re delegated from moment to moment.in this case science in such society decline because it is incapable of advancing its research in such society due to its conduct of governance And what it terms as law. And anothe pole is the bottom upward which is the direct opposite.

For example, societies that enjoy “bottom-upward” government also enjoy freedom of inquiry and speech and such, freedom for people to achieve their greatest potential, and constant innovation in both efficiency and effectiveness that results in ever-rising standards-of-living for everyone, leaving ever-more income available beyond . In this society , science and human consent are treated with ultimum respect. I think my present society is getting closer to that stage.

You should be able to see the difference.

No one can claim consent allows them to perform any experiment whatsoever if said experiment is outlawed. The outlawing itself is an ethics issue.

I hope we are clear on that.

You eventually push me into political disscussion instead of scientific one. First, understand ethical issues and not law related issues. Ethics is about making decision on what you should do or not do, while law details what you must do or not do. Science confirm to law but on the case of ethics , it is a total ball game.

budaatum:
But we still have ethics surrounding how we may treat them while alive, and how we are permitted to kill them! People go to jail for the unethical slaughter of animals intended for consumption! Or don't they have such laws where you are?

Laws exist to protect/sustain/promote/improve human society.

This is separate (though there is overlap) to the the ethics of killing humans versus killing animals.

Never confuse “law” with “morality”.i can see you are doing it a lot here.

I'm beginning to think you are misusing the word "ethics". I did give a definition when asked!

Ethics are moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

I have repeated in number how this definition contain a loopholes.....and you keep on repeating it.

There clearly are moral principles that govern the conduct of clinical experiments, and there are moral principles that apply to the conduct of slaughtering animals for consumption. Those moral principles are what are commonly referred to as the "ethics" of the field that they apply to. Where I live, if you are caught circumventing moral principles of slaughter houses, or clinical experiments, you would have committed a crime and could go to jail. And claiming you had consent would not absolve you of the crime.

You keep on repeating this moral principle as if it is law by itself.. Well, for the sake of argument if you have meant laws to be equal to morals. I we correct you that most of law are created not purely out of logic, but out of public opinion. If 99% of the people believe killing animal is very wrong, then it would become a law even if there isn’t any logic to back it up (there is, but assuming there isn’t any it would still be a law). This why I said science is much pragmatic and does not follow opinion but evidence.

If i show you a dead cow and a dead human, naturally you will have more remorse for the dead human and not much to the dead cow. Becuse by nature we do not have much empathy for them like our own race. So slaughter ethics exist to please our egocentric as I mention before and not base on sciencetific decision.

budaatum:
I am not giving you any democratic answer. What I gave is repeated below!



And here's a link to the moral principles relating to slaughterhouses in UK

Nothing democratic at all, please!

Democracy answer imply that there is fixed definition that support this priniple of ethics which is totally wrong because ethics cannot be subject to evidence ,it is not scientific correct to do so. Therefore leveraging one against the other is too wrong ." (To do so is the equivalent of using water to define the shape of air.).

budaatum:
But we still have ethics surrounding how we may treat them while alive, and how we are permitted to kill them! People go to jail for the unethical slaughter of animals intended for consumption! Or don't they have such laws where you are?

I'm beginning to think you are misusing the word "ethics". I did give a definition when asked!

Ethics are moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

There clearly are moral principles that govern the conduct of clinical experiments, and there are moral principles that apply to the conduct of slaughtering animals for consumption. Those moral principles are what are commonly referred to as the "ethics" of the field that they apply to. Where I live, if you are caught circumventing moral principles of slaughter houses, or clinical experiments, you would have committed a crime and could go to jail. And claiming you had consent would not absolve you of the crime.

I just ask a simple question , what are this moral principle? And you are given me a democratic answer....

Ethics is simply about making decision or call it choices... Am off ....gonna write more on this tommrrw

budaatum:
Even where the procedure itself has not been deemed ethical in the relevant society?

what is the definition of experiments here -? How do we make an ethical decision in regard to it? well let say , for an experiment to be truly valid, we have to different groups experimented upon, one being a group that does not know what exactly the experiment is for, or what the researchers expect to see as results. You know, group A is given a drug, group B is given a placebo, group C is given nothing but told they are, group D is given nothing and told they are given nothing. Something like that. How do define ethics in this scenario?And where we ethics play its role? Waiting for your reply

vaxx, are you saying that with the consent of those experimented on, it is not illegal to perform Stem cell research using the human embryo for example in Germany?

this is political argument and not scientific decision. NOT GOING TO SHIFT POST.

budaatum:
You keep repeating this as if by so doing it becomes true!

Consent is not the only code that needs to be satisfied before experiments can proceed. There are others, and which carry equal, if not more, weight that come into question too. And why you fail to see this completely alludes me.

consent is the most important factor in ethics.......without it, it will be illegal to carry out scientific experiment on human. YET TO SEE ANY ETHICAL RULES THAT OUTWEIGHT THIS. IF ANY PROVIDE IT.

budaatum:
I hardly see how this is related! In a homicidal death, post-mortems are usually carried out as a legal requirement, consent or not. In deaths where there is no suspicion as to the cause of death, there might not be. It is pretty straight forward.

you could not see how it related but you were able to ask a similar question.....well it is not important but it is neccasry for the analysis, cause of individuals death either natural or unnatural. At least to take proactive measure.

budaatum:
It doesn't mean that because you have consent you can go ahead and perform unethical procedures! If the procedure itself is considered unethical, you can't perform it legally even with consent of the person being experimented on.

Any experiment done on a human without his consent is unethical. And be sure that the person has the ability to understand enough to give informed consent. The possible outcomes should be knowable and known and the human must understand the possible outcomes for it to be ethical, meaning concernt determine if it is ethical or not . Example a new drug trials on HiV patients.

Current issues related to this is the argument we're having over here about canabinoids. No doctor can currently prescribe it even if they want to except illegally, or the law is changed or you're given special dispensation by the home secretary. (MuttleyLaff informs me this is changing soon).

Another is abortions over a certain gestation period after which you can't get a normal abortion,

I just don't see the reason why you insist that consent is a waiver for ethics in experimental procedures, vaxx. That's what you seem to be saying. If so, you are very wrong.

All this depends on the country pushing the agenda. Science itself depends not on political law to function....it is even a case against human right as some party demonstrate. A proactive country like Germany is setting standard for this bull-shit.....

As long as the subject involved demonstrate, in accordance with Nuremberg law. The experiment is consider valid as some party stated. What we have here is political argument and not a sciencetific decision ....

MuttleyLaff:
All you've been doing from #36 is running after shadows
Hopping from Machiavelli to fairky objective morality, then to and fro one poxy snide remark and the other or obsession with a fictional wall

Why didnt you leave a disclaimer saying you do not hold it as true?
Why were you trying to get me involved with fairky objective morality?

Idle hands are the devil's workshop, that's how the devil always finds some mischief for idle hands to do.

You're a recently certified mischief maker,
thats why lately you've been opening up Religion thread topics upandan the place that has no substance, head and/or tail

i like the way you pushed the question back to him....

budaatum:
I don't know where you get your "emphasis" from! Consent is after all only one of many principles, and nowhere is it said that one can perform any experiment on living things just because they give consent!

it is written bodly in Nuremberg code.....and at the same time WHO attested to it. Consent is the most important agreement before carry out any scientific experimentation on human.

Just think. Say a person wants to perform an experiment about the chewiness and flavour of cooked human flesh. Can the consent of the individual experimented on make the experiment ethical?

have you ever wonder how postmoterm is carry out....do the dead body required pre-informed notice or from the relatives?

budaatum:
First you claim they don't exist, now you've shifted to "they are not implemented", which is just not true! It's a criminal offence to perform unethical procedures and experiments on common rats, not to talk of on human beings!

The debate goes on because new unthought of procedures are constantly being considered.

what i claim is they don't have value/weight on scientist performing the experiment unless for society reasons. And no where do I say they don't exist. If i were claiming so, I would not brought out the code.

budaatum:
It's not about whether there are loopholes in them or not, but whether they exist, are applied and adhered to, which they are, and where or when they are not, they should, are, and would be, enforced.

And ehnnn buda"" ethics as a whole is not a democracy and treating it as such is absurd.

It’s about making decisions. Choice is subjective. That doesn’t mean there is not logical, and rational choices. That doesn’t mean “ethics” is up in the air or need to follow a particular standard .....

Do you believe that strictly objective things only have precedence, validity/weight? Even with food, isn’t a burnt plate “bad”?

In IT . (Not every programming language is object-oriented )...

budaatum:
What question?

Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity.

what are this moral principle? You will begin to see the loopholes yourself.

budaatum:
Nothing gives humans the right to "test on a defenseless animal". You know what we are like acting like gods and assuming? So ethical standards are imposed to limit that "right". At least, to impose standards you must adhere to and limit what you can do under your assumed " right".

That further begs the question.....how do you define ethics? I do not want to push you to the wall.

budaatum:
And this, 'egocentric', is the reason why there are ethical standards that apply to clinical research! We refuse to allow your egocentric nature the freedom to do as it might like! The imposition of ethical standards is how we reign your egocentric nature in.

what is the essence of ethics that regard consent even when experimentental procedure is way risky? That is even the reasons the standard are not yet implemented or allowed in any country. Well it is still regarded as one of the most brillant idea ever created in medical research.

It is still a big debate anyway.

Please be aware, not all humans have an "egocentric nature" as such. Some, do not place their ego at the forefront when taking decision

Humans revolve around themselves...it's a survival trait...in a live or die situation, it's everyone for himself...and those very few who do not, are not the survival exception, if they choose to die to save someone else, it will be because they chose their survival. To extend their survival possibilities humans became social, gathered in groups, being stronger as a group rather than alone. That has peaked until now, the 21st Century where the family cells and the grouping of individuals is becoming weaker and weaker, because in this 21st Century humans now need less of each other to survive. Thus, now society as a whole is becoming more egocentric, and of course individuals.