0xF

[0xF @0xcadd]

@pcexaminer @Fight4USA4ever This still loops around to the overarching point of “he didn’t even really say we should infect people with AGS”, it’s just his “niche” as you said, to discuss these things

[0xF @0xcadd]

@pcexaminer @Fight4USA4ever It looks like he has made a career in publishing papers on ethics in medicine?

Look, I don’t even agree with the concept of “moral bio-enhancers”, I’m just saying this isn’t some evil plot, just one guy who really likes discussing the ethical implications of a medical concept.

[0xF @0xcadd]

@pcexaminer @Fight4USA4ever Or maybe I am the illustrious BioEthics Boogeyman.

Check your pillow for ticks tonight!

Mwhahahahahahaaaaaaah…

[0xF @0xcadd]

@pcexaminer @Fight4USA4ever Just really frustrated with the people whipping up a frenzy over another harmless paper because a Twitter douche figured saying “scientists say evil thing” instead of “ethics professor writes paper” will get more people fighting in the replies.

[0xF @0xcadd]

@pcexaminer @Fight4USA4ever Now, while you may disagree with the concept of hiding these things, the idea that a Bioethics. Professor. Would construct a paper dissecting how ethical frameworks would approach the topic of compulsory public health is completely normal

[0xF @0xcadd]

@pcexaminer @Fight4USA4ever The man is a Bioethics. Professor. He is making a different argument here.

Here he is saying that if public health matters are compulsory (forced), that it is more ethical to hide it from those people in the sense that perceived infringements of liberty would be less ethical

[0xF @0xcadd]

@Fight4USA4ever For the love of all that’s holy, he literally demonstrates in the logical deductions included that what he says is only remotely arguable based on a supposition that eating meat is so evil that it absolutely cannot be justified and practicing it is akin to worsening the world.

[0xF @0xcadd]

@Fight4USA4ever He basically said “for the sake of this argument, suppose eating meat is as bad as beating your children” in “beneficial bloodsucking” for the purposes of his (potentially satirical) ethical discussion. You’ve linked the abstract of the same paper, not sure how that’s a gotcha.

[0xF @0xcadd]

@llallawg The post is rage bait. It’s a paper by a Bioethics professor who made an argument on ethical grounds based on a load-bearing (possibly joke) hypothetical.

[0xF @0xcadd]

@KARiley40 @llallawg The rage bait is the Twitter post.

The real thing is a paper from a Bioethics Professor that says “suppose eating meat is evil, like really evil. If so, then curing/preventing AGS is unethical as it is a barrier to evil behavior”. It may even just be a joke.

[0xF @0xcadd]

@LumLotus The paper is a (possibly humorous) think piece.

Literally just a guy saying “If eating meat was an unjustifiable sin akin to an affront to God, we could make the following ethics-based argument for not curing the syndrome that keeps you from eating meat.”

No conspiracy here.

[0xF @0xcadd]

@OkeiisAngrey The backlash is from Twitter lmao, it’s a year-old bioethics think-piece paper built on the following hypothetical:

“If eating meat was completely morally unjustifiable, here is an argument built on certain ethical frameworks that would support not curing the AGS syndrome”

[0xF @0xcadd]

@EmperorBag @OkeiisAngrey It’s unfortunate but the paper requires paid access through programs to read. It’s not a study though lmao, it’s just a Bioethics Professor making an argument (that may or may not be a joke) off a very specific premise.

[0xF @0xcadd]

@Marc_Topaz @interesting_aIl Brother it isn’t that deep. He’s quite literally intentionally making an argument on a basis of “if eating meat were objectively evil and makes the world worse: then—“

Like, the whole thing is hinging on a nonsense load bearing hypothetical he doesn’t even believe.

excerpts:

[0xF @0xcadd]

@Kathleen168 @interesting_aIl I mean, hardcore radical vegans (lmao) might think so, but the actual paper is an ethics piece on whether if one supposes that meat consumption is unjustifiably immoral, then the prevention of something that would serve to enforce “moral behavior” would be itself immoral.

[0xF @0xcadd]

@DetvanS @interesting_aIl Think of it like posing the following argument (because it basically is):

If eating peanut butter was morally unjustifiable, then using gene editing to prevent tree nut allergies would be immoral, as it empowers people to commit an unjustifiable sin (eating peanut butter).

[0xF @0xcadd]

@DetvanS @interesting_aIl The guy isn’t literally saying “meat is immoral” he just made an ethics argument in an ethics paper in an ethics journal— an argument which itself is up for debate by virtue of being out out there.

[0xF @0xcadd]

@BrandonLesco6 @RandomLynx @interesting_aIl Here’s the paper. Just please don’t call for the lynching of an academic over a misrepresentation of a think piece by a ragebaiting Twitter account.

https://t.co/waROZ8D02k

[0xF @0xcadd]

@lesbiancima Inb4 people send the author death threats:

He’s a Bioethics professor who made the hypothetical argument that if meat consumption is evil, then preventing spread of AGS (which disincentivizes meat consumption) is also evil— in a Bioethics paper.

Here’s the abstract: