• maxwells_daemon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Yes, I understood exactly what you said because, as I said before, it’s not hard to understand, it’s just badly formulated.

    Natural science is amoral, a jaguar doesn’t care that a gazelle is pregnant when hunting it, since neither of them know what morality is. Scientific research is not naturally moral or immoral, it’s instance dependant. You wouldn’t call Volta immoral for stacking zinc and copper to make a battery, and you wouldn’t think twice before calling Unit 731 immoral.

    You don’t get to make a normative claim, wrap it in a false equivalence between human constructs, like scientific research and morality, and the moral independency of natural science, word it inches away from historical fascist research ideals, and then complain when people fill in the blanks in the most plausible way. If you wanted a real discussion, you could’ve developed, from the start, on what you mean, and worded it better. But you didn’t, you’re just rage baiting.

    • Arkouda@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      17 hours ago

      This is shower thoughts and you are responsible for your own “rage” you feel I “baited” because you are too ignorant to entertain any idea you don’t understand. Which is the problem, you don’t understand and you are mad about it so you shoot the messenger.

      Ignorant humans sure like to hide behind emotional response instead of using logical thought.