{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
5/13/2016 8:36:30 PM
24
-
Ad hominem.
-
Do you know what that means? Lol. He didn't insult you.
-
Not me. It's not me he's arguing against. It's science. He's calling science immoral without addressing the actual argument.
-
The argument being?
-
The validity of evolution.
-
As put forth by the OP? Lol.
-
Rather than ask for evidence, he chose his way. At that point, the legitimacy of my OP as an argument became irrelevant.
-
I meant that initially this was just an insult match, it doesn't seem like much of an argument. :P
-
Edited by Element Ninja: 5/13/2016 8:56:37 PMThis is true
-
Hypocrite. Your insults are just that. Science has dirtier hands. But "science" of today doesn't care. There is no right or wrong. Just survival.
-
Lmfao this is a joke right? Two things wrong with this statement. 1. Saying science is without morality is ignorance man. In the past, yes it was screwed up many experiments should not have been run regardless of the benefits but as of now, just to get permission to run psychological research alone is a hassle dude. I'm a researcher at my university, to get past the board I have to make it so 100% my research will have no negative impact on my participants. Took me 6 tries just to get my last one to past. That's rewriting a damn paper 6 times just for them to finally accept research which was pretty much just an assessment bubble in. 2. Religion now and in the past has done awful things to people. I'm not saying it's bad to be religious, I'm only stating don't act like religion hasn't A) been used by individuals to excuse actions of violence and discrimination and B) like some religions/churches/ or affiliates haven't misguided, abused people.
-
I agree. Both science and religion have dirty histories. I just had to put the asshole OP in his place. It's stupid when one goes off on the other.
-
[quote]Hypocrite. Your insults are just that. Science has dirtier hands. But "science" of today doesn't care. There is no right or wrong. Just survival.[/quote]Science doesn't have a morality. It just...is.
-
Yet I have a hard time believing that with the climate change lie
-
-blam!- off cucksevashit ghost
-
[quote]Science doesn't have a morality. It just...is.[/quote] Scientific experiments can certainly be immoral.
-
Scientists can do "immoral" experiments, science itself is amoral.
-
[quote][quote]Science doesn't have a morality. It just...is.[/quote] Scientific experiments can certainly be immoral.[/quote]In your eyes, yes, but that's because morality is subjective. There is no objective morality.
-
[quote][quote][quote]Science doesn't have a morality. It just...is.[/quote] Scientific experiments can certainly be immoral.[/quote]In your eyes, yes, but that's because morality is subjective. There is no objective morality.[/quote] Even if there wasn't an objective morality, that's beside the point. Morals have and will continue to play a role in science. There are all sorts of ethical guidelines that must be followed in the civilized world.
-
That *are* followed, not *must be* followed. A lot of them are holding progress back.
-
[quote][quote]Science doesn't have a morality. It just...is.Scientific experiments can certainly be immoral.In your eyes, yes, but that's because morality is subjective. There is no objective morality.[/quote] Even if there wasn't an objective morality, that's beside the point. Morals have and will continue to play a role in science. There are all sorts of ethical guidelines that must be followed in the civilized world.[/quote]Morals and ethics are not synonyms.
-
Edited by Typhaonic: 5/14/2016 1:09:30 AM[quote][quote][quote]Science doesn't have a morality. It just...is.Scientific experiments can certainly be immoral.In your eyes, yes, but that's because morality is subjective. There is no objective morality.[/quote] Even if there wasn't an objective morality, that's beside the point. Morals have and will continue to play a role in science. There are all sorts of ethical guidelines that must be followed in the civilized world.[/quote]Morals and ethics are not synonyms.[/quote] I'm pretty sure this wasn't your point but, [spoiler]Main Entry: morals Part of Speech: noun Definition: personal principles, standards Synonyms: behavior, beliefs, conduct, customs, dogmas, ethic, ethics, habits, ideals, integrity, manners, morality, mores, policies, scruples Antonyms: amorality, disrespectability, immorality, indecency, unethicalness[/spoiler] Your point was likely that they don't mean the exact same thing, and I agree with you there. Morals and ethics are connected though. Like acceleration and velocity, or understanding and wisdom. Morals guide what you think is ethical. A main pillar of science is observation, another is the control of variables (preventing interference). There are situations where observing without interfering is unethical, and therefor immoral.
-
Gimmicksception right there lmao
-
It's not worth your time to argue with him. He is the definition of dense
