|
Ogmius815 posted:Oh look another stupid straw man. You're the one saying we shouldn't research things if we don't know what will result from it.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Find out as much as you want with other viruses that are really similar with the small exception of the fact they don't kill huge numbers of people. Knock yourself out. Hell, you can even experiment with dangerous viruses if you want I don't care. But you should have some loving inkling of how it could help. Smallpox hasn't killed huge numbers of people since the Ford administration, in fact all the other poxes related to it have killed far more people. By any reasonable standard, they are far more dangerous. Once again, reflect on the fact that you're choosing to be scared of smallpox to your dying day since it will never be destroyed, and reflect on what that means about you. Do you even understand WHY we were able to eradicate smallpox in the wild? It's because smallpox actually doesn't spread all that well, and it's really easy to contain and suppress any outbreaks since the vaccines exist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:You're the one saying we shouldn't research things if we don't know what will result from it. No, I'm saying we shouldn't do that in risky situations where the benefit appears to be really loving small in any scenario anyone can envision. That's totally loving reasonable. It's called measuring risk and reward. It's how humans decide what courses of action they should pursue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Smallpox hasn't killed huge numbers of people since the Ford administration, in fact all the other poxes related to it have killed far more people. By any reasonable standard, they are far more dangerous. Do you really not understand how smallpox is more dangerous than other pox viruses? Is that really a point that you cannot fathom?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No, I'm saying we shouldn't do that in risky situations where the benefit appears to be really loving small in any scenario anyone can envision. That's totally loving reasonable. It's called measuring risk and reward. It's how humans decide what courses of action they should pursue. There is no risk. Ogmius815 posted:Do you really not understand how smallpox is more dangerous than other pox viruses? Is that really a point that you cannot fathom? It isn't more dangerous! It factually is not more dangerous. Other pox viruses have actually infected or even killed people since before disco died.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There is no risk. You keep saying that and it's the dumbest thing in this thread. Maybe Fishmech has decided that he has unlimited faith in human beings and their structures. Not me though. Let's look at the evidence huh? Oh, as many as fifty CDC employees could have been exposed to anthrax! Look at that. Zero risk indeed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:That's emphatically not what I am saying. I'm saying, if we take a risk, we should expect a reward. This is rational human behavior 101. You need to demonstrate that the reward you expect is more than a fantasy. So you're saying unless I can literally create a tech tree for the *real world* showing how many research points it takes to turn Smallpox into a geneticly altered virus that allows us to boost or alter the immune system, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT NUMEROUS TIMES IN THE LINKS WE'VE SHOWN, or any other things we could possibly make from it, you don't think its worth it. I have to be able to look into the future and know what exactly we could get out of the smallpox virus, before you will admit to being wrong. You are legitimately claiming that since we do not know what we might get out of it, we shouldn't even bother trying. Following that line of thought: Since Madam Curie could not have possibly seen what could come from her research on radiation, Such as the idea of nuclear power plants and the ability to use said power plants to help billions of people world wide, she died for nothing, and she should never have started. You are anti-science, anti-rationality, and basically screaming that since we cannot look into the future and tell you what exactly we will get out of further study, which we don't know, hence the further STUDY part of that statement, we should take something that we have contained, that is no longer dangerous, and instead of trying to turn that into something to better mankind, kill it. Slaughter it. Make sure that we can never ever turn it into something more that can help us all. All because you are terrified of an outbreak that will never happen, or a biological attack that is impossible. You're either completely and utterly idiotic, or a troll of the highest caliber. I sincerely hope its the latter because then I'll at least know that you're not really this stupid. Either way, I'm done. I'm done entertaining that you have any semblance of good faith in this argument, and that you won't simply continue to spout the same inane statements regardless of how many times we've pointed out that you're continually acting like an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
People being exposed to anthrax means smallpox is dangerous. And car crashes are the leading cause of heart failure. Chickenpox has literally killed more people than smallpox for decades.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
I'm looking for a bare loving minimum standard of evidence here E-tank. I'm looking for you to explain some basic facts about why it might be possible for us to save "billions of lives" with variola as you claim might be possible in the future. Otherwise it's a totally unsupported claim.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:People being exposed to anthrax means smallpox is dangerous. And car crashes are the leading cause of heart failure. No, people being exposed to anthrax means that sometimes when people work with dangerous pathogens, accidents occur because of human error. Therefore the risk is not "zero" like fishmech wants us to believe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:You keep saying that and it's the dumbest thing in this thread. Maybe Fishmech has decided that he has unlimited faith in human beings and their structures. Not me though. "Look how dangerous smallpox is, people got anthrax" - the depths your lovely argument has descended to. You couldn't even come up with a disease related to smallpox! PS: Anthrax is under FAR lesser controls at research sites than smallpox is - it's almost like the smallpox protocols are inherently safer?? Ogmius815 posted:No, people being exposed to anthrax means that sometimes when people work with dangerous pathogens, accidents occur because of human error. Therefore the risk is not "zero" like fishmech wants us to believe. The risk of smallpox is zero. You are continually wrong. Ogmius815 posted:I'm looking for a bare loving minimum standard of evidence here E-tank. I'm looking for you to explain some basic facts about why it might be possible for us to save "billions of lives" with variola as you claim might be possible in the future. Otherwise it's a totally unsupported claim. I'm looking for a bare minimum standard of evidence from you that smallpox in containment will ever kill a single human being ever again. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:"Look how dangerous smallpox is, people got anthrax" - the depths your lovely argument has descended to. You couldn't even come up with a disease related to smallpox! The error specifically involved people failing to take the proper precautions you nincompoop. Protections can't save you if you don't follow them because you hosed up. That isn't a reason not to work with dangerous pathogens, but it sure as gently caress is a reason why you might think twice if you also can't begin to describe a scenario in which the research is helpful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The error specifically involved people failing to take the proper precautions you nincompoop. Protections can't save you if you don't follow them because you hosed up. That isn't a reason not to work with dangerous pathogens, but it sure as gently caress is a reason why you might think twice if you also can't begin to describe a scenario in which the research is helpful. So basically you didn't read the story you linked to, as evidenced by what you're writing here, got it. How does it feel to know smallpox samples will never be destroyed?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
Here's a scientific American article reporting on "nearly 400" lab accidents involving dangerous pathogens in less than the past decade.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Here's a scientific American article reporting on "nearly 400" lab accidents involving dangerous pathogens in less than the past decade. None of them involving smallpox, none of them involving security protocols even close to as stringent as smallpox. Thanks for confirming that smallpox containment and experimentation is secure.  It's almost like all you're showing is we should use the same level of security for all diseases!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Here is a case where a Russian scientist hosed up with Ebola. But it could never happen with smallpox. Never ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
I remember when we had a thread about the anti-vaccination movement, and not a thread where everyone tries to argue with one gigantic stubborn idiot with a penchant for lovely antics and ad hominems. Those were good times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I'm looking for a bare loving minimum standard of evidence here E-tank. I'm looking for you to explain some basic facts about why it might be possible for us to save "billions of lives" with variola as you claim might be possible in the future. Otherwise it's a totally unsupported claim. E-Tank posted:All the way back here. quote:
Look. hey look. Look. It says. It says that there's an ability to alter the immune response of its human host. That could be used. That could be used to do untold things. That could be used to alter the immune response of people suffering from Rheumatoid Arthritis. Suffering from pain due to the immune system attacking the joints. We could possibly use it to make it so people don't reject transplanted organs. Instead of being on immunosuppressant drugs for the rest of their lives. What if we could alter the immune response so where it accepted the organs? There are diseases that are brought about due to the immune system loving up and attacking important parts of the body. Lupus could be cured if we could find a way to alter the immune system to NOT DO THAT. So far back. We explained. What might come. How it might be useful. And you told us that it was science fetishism. You told us that it was loving pathetic how we believed that all 'science was good'. You literally have been screaming at us, and now you have the loving balls, to say you're asking for 'bare loving minimum'. We've given you more than the bare loving minimum. Far more than you've given us. You still have yet to explain how the CDC is 'arrogant'. Either answer that or  E: The thing that loving pisses me off the most? You want us to remain ignorant. You want us to not 'try things' because something might go wrong. You don't want us to experiment, to learn, to improve things because 'science run mad' scares that come right out of a christian fundie's handbook. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Here is a case where a Russian scientist hosed up with Ebola. But it could never happen with smallpox. Never ever. Yep, it couldn't, because Russia's weapons labs did not deal with diseases as safely as Russia's smallpox containment, nor America's smallpox containment for that matter. You just keep hammering home how extremely safe smallpox research is! Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:None of them involving smallpox, none of them involving security protocols even close to as stringent as smallpox. Thanks for confirming that smallpox containment and experimentation is secure. Some of those are BSL-4 labs. Is it your position that an accident has never occurred in a BSL-4 lab?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
The first link doesn't work on my mobile, but I'm guessing there about as deadly as the second link, where a whopping one person died, to a disease with no cure or vaccine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Some of those are BSL-4 labs. Is it your position that an accident has never occurred in a BSL-4 lab? A smallpox accident has never occurred in any current containment site since before you were born. This means they're safe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:A smallpox accident has never occurred in any current containment site since before you were born. This means they're safe. In germany one time at a BSL-4 lab someone accidentally stuck himself with ebola. The problem was handled well in that case, but what if that person had panicked (like human beings do)? There's clearly risk potential. Your claim of zero risk doesn't hold up. Just because the pathogen happened to be ebola and not smallpox is irrelevant, because BSL-4 protocols were in use. It only takes one mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
I love that he's telling us that something that has never happened before, smallpox escaping a lab, could still occur, but refuses to believe that it could be beneficial to research it for reasons we don't know yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:I love that he's telling us that something that has never happened before, smallpox escaping a lab, could still occur, but refuses to believe that it could be beneficial to research it for reasons we don't know yet. Look at me describing the scenarios where this might occur, as you have specifically refused to do. If you could even BEGIN to explain when smallpox might be useful, you might have a point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:In germany one time at a BSL-4 lab someone accidentally stuck himself with ebola. The problem was handled well in that case, but what if that person had panicked (like human beings do)? There's clearly risk potential. Your claim of zero risk doesn't hold up. Just because the pathogen happened to be ebola and not smallpox is irrelevant, because BSL-4 protocols were in use. It only takes one mistake. And now you're ignoring my post. The post talking about what we can do with it. Because you won't admit you're wrong. Because you won't admit that you hosed up. You're ignoring something that we brought up days ago. That you ignored. That you dismissed as 'science fetishism'. When you have been claiming 'but there's no potential benefit...that *I* can see' 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
You actually are just ignoring things that prove you wrong aren't you? E: Beaten by the exact post I was referencing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:And now you're ignoring my post. The post talking about what we can do with it. Because you won't admit you're wrong. Because you won't admit that you hosed up. You're ignoring something that we brought up days ago. That you ignored. That you dismissed as 'science fetishism'. When you have been claiming 'but there's no potential benefit...that *I* can see' That's just the same bullshit from earlier in the thread. Why can't other kinds of poxvirus be used for that research?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:That's just the same bullshit from earlier in the thread. Why can't other kinds of poxvirus be used for that research? Because it literally says the smallpox virus you disingenuous cretin. It and it's experimental vaccine creating copy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Because it literally says the smallpox virus you disingenuous cretin. Hey guys the CDC says they should get to keep their toys. Better drop everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Hey guys the CDC says they should get to keep their toys. Better drop everything. Bare loving minimum. I gave you the bare loving minimum and even more. I gave you what you wanted. Congratulations you loving moron, you just showed everyone what kind of a person you are. You moved the goal posts. You're making the claim that the CDC is going to lie to try and keep the virus. What evidence do you have to back up this claim? What evidence do you have that marks the CDC as 'arrogant'? This is what I want to know. You have 3 posts to answer that question. If you fail to do so, I will consider your argument forfeit. Pussy Cartel posted:I remember when we had a thread about the anti-vaccination movement, and not a thread where everyone tries to argue with one gigantic stubborn idiot with a penchant for lovely antics and ad hominems. I remember that too. I tried leaving it, but everybody kept on talking and finally I just had enough and had to tell him exactly how stupid he's acting. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:In germany one time at a BSL-4 lab someone accidentally stuck himself with ebola. The problem was handled well in that case, but what if that person had panicked (like human beings do)? There's clearly risk potential. Your claim of zero risk doesn't hold up. Just because the pathogen happened to be ebola and not smallpox is irrelevant, because BSL-4 protocols were in use. It only takes one mistake. This hasn't happened with Smallpox for longer than you've been alive. It's safe. The absolute worst case scenario is for a single person to get sick with smallpox, a disease with 30% mortality if untreated and even less if kept under intensive treatment as soon as possible (which is what would happen in case of an actual infection incident). And even this still hasn't happened. Smallpox research is, statistically, safer than using a computer. Ogmius815 posted:That's just the same bullshit from earlier in the thread. Why can't other kinds of poxvirus be used for that research? Why should other poxviruses be used? They've killed more people during the time you and I have been alive. They can't be trusted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
e: double post
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
I'm gonna click this thread a week from now and find that the siege of castle Ogmius is still going with no end in sight aren't I? Jesus Christ just put him on ignore, he's thicker than pig poo poo and ya'll are just going in circles at this point.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
I'll concede that I don't know enough about that research to say whether or not it's of any benefit. Because I'm a reasonable person, I'll even agree that if a reasonable expectation of benefit exists, then we should keep the samples. However, if that research can at all be conducted with other viruses or if that research is actually worthless for some reason, I stand by my previous position. You should have to demonstrate some kind of reward to take a serious risk. I'm disturbed by the idea that some posters have put forward that all scientific research is justifiable "just because" even if no one could explain how it could help. Multiple posters (in fact almost all the posters) in this thread have said multiple times that they didn't even need to imagine a scenario in which smallpox research might benefit people because it's just good or whatever and that's loving idiotic. Fishmech is also still an idiot for thinking that there is literally zero risk, but fishmech being an idiot shouldn't be new information for anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I'll concede that I don't know enough about that research to say whether or not it's of any benefit. Then shut the gently caress up already so we can end this retarded derail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I'll concede that I don't know enough about that research to say whether or not it's of any benefit. Because I'm a reasonable person, I'll even agree that if a reasonable expectation of benefit exists, then we should keep the samples. However, if that research can at all be conducted with other viruses or if that research is actually worthless for some reason, I stand by my previous position. You should have to demonstrate some kind of reward to take a serious risk. I'm disturbed by the idea that some posters have put forward that all scientific research is justifiable "just because" even if no one could explain how it could help. Multiple posters (in fact almost all the posters) in this thread have said multiple times that they didn't even need to imagine a scenario in which smallpox research might benefit people because it's just good or whatever and that's loving idiotic. There is literally zero risk. This is a fact. There is especially zero risk of smallpox samples in current containment ever causing a mass outbreak. We have a reward: it's research, research is its own reward. Destroying smallpox samples in sufficient containment does literally nothing to help or prevent anything ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Yarbald posted:Then shut the gently caress up already so we can end this retarded derail. No. People were literally saying that wanting to do a risk-reward comparison made me anti-science. That's loving retarded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:There is literally zero risk. This is a fact. There is especially zero risk of smallpox samples in current containment ever causing a mass outbreak. I described a scenario in which things that have happened could lead to an accident. You have way, way too much faith in institutions. You should maybe learn about the world to fix that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No. People were literally saying that wanting to do a risk-reward comparison made me anti-science. That's loving retarded. You don't want to do a risk reward comparison, you arbitrarily declared there's a ton of risk, which is factually not true, and there is 0 reward, which is also false. Real scientists did real calculations of this and that's why we're never destroying smallpox within anyone's lifetime. Ogmius815 posted:I described a scenario in which things that have happened could lead to an accident. You have way, way too much faith in institutions. You should maybe learn about the world to fix that. Number of smallpox infections since current protocols were introduced: 0 Time since that happened: 35 years 10 months 1 day Therefore, no risk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:13
|
|