The Tuskegee Experiment
Im sure people know what the tuskegee Experiment was an expriment that the us conducted on its own people via syphilis etc
1. Do you think there were more of these kinds of experiments going on?
2. What would you do if something like this emerged but recently happened?
3. Are the government monsters?
Re: The Tuskegee Experiment
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Im sure people know what the tuskegee Experiment was an expriment that the us conducted on its own people via syphilis etc1. Do you think there were more of these kinds of experiments going on?
2. What would you do if something like this emerged but recently happened?
I don't think that even compares to what the US government did to the Native Americans. Andrew Jackson was a war criminal. I think everyone should send me their $20 bills and I will burn them out of protest. 😛
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Its worst to do such a thing to your own citizens
Basic human rights are not confined to boarders. This is also true with human stupidity.
The Tuskegee Experiment should have never been allowed to happen.
If it was happening now? It should be exposed. However, conspiracy theories do not expose anything.
I would say they're equal, honestly. But that's because I feel like once you reach a certain threshold of brutality the rest kind of becomes academically tragic. The holocaust, testing syphilis on a few hundred people and indian genocide are all on the same part of the moral scale for me, the ****ed up side. A number is just a statistic.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I would say they're equal, honestly. But that's because I feel like once you reach a certain threshold of brutality the rest kind of becomes academically tragic. The holocaust, testing syphilis on a few hundred people and indian genocide are all on the same part of the moral scale for me, the ****ed up side. A number is just a statistic.
😱
Sure evil is evil, but genocide is a step removed.
The Tuskegee Experiment does not compare to the holocaust.
The Tuskegee Experiment requires a response of police to investigate, and people to go to jail. A holocaust requires armies and nations stop it, and kill those who are responsible.
Don't you see the difference?
There is a difference. The difference is just arbitrary.
If you explained to me what each of those events were, and then asked me how I felt after each explanation, I wouldn't tell you that I made a sadface after the Tuskegee explanation, and then a sadder face after the manifest destiny explanation, AND THEN A SADDESTFACE after the nazi genocide explanation. Doesn't work that way, imo.
Originally posted by inimalistNo im saying its more suprising thing for a goverment to do things to its own citizens than it for outside people, you have to be more of a monster to attack your own people
Big C: are you actually attempting to say the Tuskegee experiments were worse than the treatment of native americans during the American western expansion?
Originally posted by Colossus-Big CYa did, though perhaps you intended a different sentiment. Grammar's a b*tch.
Never said it was.
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanMy high school history teacher liked to challenge kids on their moral leanings like that. He would bring up the 11 million figure of the Nazi camps and then the 11 dead in a shooting (don't remember which one). Everybody would say that because more died in the first, that it was the worst. When he would ask them to justify why having less victims was morally better, no one could answer him.
There is a difference. The difference is just arbitrary.If you explained to me what each of those events were, and then asked me how I felt after each explanation, I wouldn't tell you that I made a sadface after the Tuskegee explanation, and then a sadder face after the manifest destiny explanation, AND THEN A SADDESTFACE after the nazi genocide explanation. Doesn't work that way, imo.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
... My high school history teacher liked to challenge kids on their moral leanings like that. He would bring up the 11 million figure of the Nazi camps and then the 11 dead in a shooting (don't remember which one). Everybody would say that because more died in the first, that it was the worst. When he would ask them to justify why having less victims was morally better, no one could answer him.
Well, the more that die, the harder st. Peter has too work. 😂
The real answer: The question is wrong. There is no morally better.
Every time a person dies, people who are still alive suffer. The more people, the more the suffering. People who are dead do not suffer. It is the people who must live through the suffering, that is the outrage.
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonI think this was Hitler's and Stalin's rationale when they engaged in mass murder. The less people there, the less suffering in the world. So to cut back on suffering, we have to cut back on people. Which means murder.
Well, the more that die, the harder st. Peter has too work. 😂The real answer: The question is wrong. There is no morally better.
Every time a person dies, people who are still alive suffer. The more people, the more the suffering. People who are dead do not suffer. It is the people who must live through the suffering, that is the outrage.
Really, they were altruists who were just trying to end human suffering. By inflicting human suffering. Seems logical to me.
Originally posted by Colossus-Big CYes, the existence of Nazi crimes and genocide stories suggest even worse experiments were conducted before, I wouldn’t doubt the possibility that similar crimes would be committed.
Im sure people know what the tuskegee Experiment was an expriment that the us conducted on its own people via syphilis etc1. Do you think there were more of these kinds of experiments going on?
2. What would you do if something like this emerged but recently happened?
3. Are the government monsters?
There is not much I can do besides express my disgust that such a study would even exist.
Not only the government is to blame, but the individual with the initial idea for such a study is also at fault. I think that the scientist who was head of the operation is a mad scientist who enlisted the government’s funding to complete his task. He becomes the monster through his clearly unethical actions. The enthusiasm and amount of money invested into such a science can be likened to the ones of nuclear and biological weaponry sponsored by the government during the Cold War period. These actions may qualify the label of monster for both organizations.