Quote :

" While I agree with you for the most part eyedrb re: the responsibility of those signing a consent form to say, actually read the form, the specific case ShinAntonio cites seems to be one where the information was never there to begin with. It sounds like they explicitly relevant withheld information. Which is a serious ethical lapse."

i agree wit ds.

4/15/2008 4:32:00 PM

2.01 pages of reparations

[Edited on April 15, 2008 at 4:32 PM. Reason : 2.01]

4/15/2008 4:32:10 PM

Quote :

"Drsteve, I saw that mentioned. However, safety disputes and complaints may or may not be relative. For instance, if you are taking a experimental drug and a couple people complain it gives them a rash, do they have to stop the trail and tell everyone it gives them a rash? If you believe they do, then you have ruined the trial, esp if it is a blind experiment. My point is that without knowing what the complaints were, its hard to determine what the severity would be or the outcome."

But this is also why we do staged trials and insist upon informed consent. i.e., "This treatment is experimental, we don't know about harmful side effects. Caveat emptor." Versus, "This has been known to cause certain side effects, do you consent?" If the knowledge is there beforehand, they have an ethical duty to present it when getting consent. Which at the very least, it would appear they did not do - it seems like they made an end run around informed consent.

Now, you might make the case that these people still would have given consent and then bitched about the effects later on. Fair enough - at this point, the fault lies in the idiot who didn't read what they were signing. But part of due diligence is being up-front about these matters - whether or not they think it "relevant" or not.

4/15/2008 9:02:33 PM

the government also created



to kill the black people

4/15/2008 9:35:39 PM

Quote :

"Quote : "I don't think it's the job of the government to exploit people too uneducated to realize what they are doing. " And who makes that determination? If someone signs up for something and gets compensated for an experiment.. that is THIER choice. What is the problem? Do you have issues with the NIH?"

Considering information was withheld, it's pretty obvious that someone set out to exploit these people.

If people like you had their way, we'd still be using child labor and indentured servants to make our sausages with a bit of rat spice in them. What's to stop someone from not telling you there's rat in your sausage? It's not the gov.'s fault you're too stupid or lazy to realize that on your own, right? And I assume you also must realize that just because something is written in a contract that it's legally viable. Any contract has to have reasonable terms, and regardless of if you signed it or not, a court can review a contract, determine it to be invalid, and basically nullify a contract. And the reason this is even possible is because people have been trying to slip shady things in to contracts for ages.

The fact is that it only takes one greedy person in your imaginary purely capitalist world to screw other people over. Considering that we have many greedy people, we need some system of regulation, which includes protecting people from being taken advantage of.

4/15/2008 11:44:49 PM

But the nice thing about a self-adaptive system is no matter where the court sets the rules of consionability in the long run all contracts are valid.

If the court is lax and consumers find themselves repeatedly being taken advantage of then they will gradually become warry of signing contracts until they read and understand them.

Conversely, if the courts are repeatedly voiding the contracts of shaddy dealers then they will gradually rephrase or modify their contracts until they are just within the margin of reasonableness.

The problem arises from inconsistency: as consumers know the court will void unreasonable contracts, consumers will come to believe that all contracts should be treated as reasonable because if they ever sign an unreasonable one the court will void it for them. Regretfully, not being idiots and being in the business of unfair contracts, cheats are monitoring the courts and can see whenever the policy of reasonableness shifts and how to profit on the shift before their customers figure out what hit them. This is a problem because consumers are not watching the courts and therefore do not understand when a policy shift has occured; lacking such information the cheats will always be one step ahead of their victims which usually do not recognize a swindle until they or someone they know is a victim.

The solution is easy: policy should change as little as possible. Which it has to an extent; excluding statutory law, contract law has been remarkably stable in my opinion.

4/16/2008 12:50:52 AM

Quote :

"But the nice thing about a self-adaptive system is no matter where the court sets the rules of consionability in the long run all contracts are valid. If the court is lax and consumers find themselves repeatedly being taken advantage of then they will gradually become warry of signing contracts until they read and understand them. "

You're right, but the problem with this is that your system DEPENDS on some people getting royally screwed.

A more intelligent way, considering we're humans and can use our own thought and logic, is to anticipate these problems inherent in our nature, instead of modeling us as perfectly rational robots, to devise rules ahead of time that don't cause people to be screwed.

4/16/2008 1:42:43 AM

Quote :

"eyedrb has no moral or ethical reservations with taking advantage of and targeting poor minorities with health/medical experiments. this is very consistent with how he usually posts, and it says a lot about him as a person. not only ignorance, but hatred behind the ignorance. reminds me of the KKK."

o rly?

I see terpball is using the B.O. school of rationalization - if you dont agree with me, you must be racist and ignorant.

[Edited on April 16, 2008 at 8:16 AM. Reason : .]

4/16/2008 8:16:31 AM

DaBird, you know me. Just clinging to my guns, bible, and race hating.

I wonder if Terp supports the NAACP. I think I should have clarified my point on ignorant groups. I find ANY group ignorant that is mostly filled with people unhappy with thier own lives, who instead blame others for thier own bad decisions and lot in life. Just my opinion.

Ok, DrSteve. I believe we agree with eachother. Im saying we dont know what the researchers knew of the side effects or how serious they are. We also dont know what was told to the people. Remember when people claimed they didnt know cigs were dangerous?

Anyways, if you read the whole article it sounds just like any other trial. They had a goal, some unknowns, and a plan to answer those questions.

1. They wanted to test whether the biproduct would protect children from lead poisoning in the soil. (lead that is already there. which is a health risk correct?)

2. The reason: The researchers said the phosphate and iron in the sludge can bind to lead and other hazardous metals in the soil, allowing the combination to pass safely through a child’s body if eaten. The idea that sludge – the leftover semisolid wastes filtered from water pollution at 16,500 treatment plants – can be turned into something harmless, even if swallowed, has been a tenet of federal policy for three decades.

3. Risks vs. Benefists: In a 1978 memo, the EPA said sludge “contains nutrients and organic matter which have considerable benefit for land and crops” despite the presence of “low levels of toxic substances.”

4. Plan: The government began underwriting studies such as those in Baltimore and East St. Louis using poor neighborhoods as laboratories to make a case that sludge may also directly benefit human health. (Notice POOR neighborhoods. Not Black. They choose these neighborhoods bc they were poor and most likely to allow you to dump shit in thier yard for the least amount of money.) I also think it was govt land to begin with. I looks like they picked the areas that were slated for to be torn down.

5. Lack of info: Meanwhile, there has been a paucity(lack) of research into the possible harmful effects of heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, other chemicals and disease-causing micro-organisms often found in sludge.

6.Conclusion: The Baltimore study concluded that phosphate and iron in sludge can increase the ability of soil to trap more harmful metals including lead, cadmium and zinc. If a child eats the soil, this trapping can let all the material pass safely through a child’s system.


Now what has everyone upset is this qoute. "He acknowledged the families were not told there have been some safety disputes and health complaints over sludge." Safety disputes and complaints. What does that mean? If they were serious issues, then the trial shouldnt have happened. Im suggesting they werent.

“They were told that it was composted biosolids that are available for sale commercially in the state of Maryland. I don’t think there’s any other further disclosure required,” Chaney said. “There was danger before. There wasn’t danger because of the biosolids compost. Composting, of course, kills pathogens.”



To link this study in comparision to the claim that the govt created AIDS is ridiculous. To suggest our govt created a virus to whip out ONE race(ridiculous), and try to give that validity bc the govt dumped shit in some yards(which provided a benefit btw) is failed logic, a bad comparision, and paranoia. IMO

4/16/2008 8:57:47 AM

Except I never claimed that the idea that the government created AIDS had any validity, merely that in light of the questionable (and, in some cases, outright immoral) things going on in the links I provided (I did provide more than one in case you didn't notice), it's not hard to see why such a false claim could gain traction.

4/16/2008 9:07:36 AM

Why is it the same people who think the government is some evil mass taking their money and guns all of a sudden become its protectors and find the government creating a virus to kill a group of people completely ridiculous?

?

4/16/2008 9:10:03 AM

^Or why do the people who claim the govt is out to kil them BEG for them to take over control of thier lives more?

Dental, do you really think the govt created AIDS as a method to kill off one race?

Why do I not think the govt created AIDS to kill blacks? BC I dont believe in unicorns.

4/16/2008 9:26:49 AM

But I thought that Obama supporters said that it was impossible for someone with a white parent to hate white people.


She must love all people of all colors and when she says killing em dead, she means the oppressive system that is holding her back from making 20 million a year instead of 15.

I feel so bad for her, I hope there is something I can do to help her kill all white people.


PS - this bitch must be dumber than a box of rusty door knobs. Too bad she will be allowed to breed and continue to make this world a more fucked up place.

4/16/2008 9:27:46 AM

She just wants to be an activist, but has a hard time finding something to be pissed about at the man right now.

4/16/2008 12:49:51 PM

Who the fuck cares? She's a singer, artists are usually pretty cooky in the dome piece. It looks like I'm seeing a bunch of this

Quote :

"but has a hard time finding something to be pissed about... "

in this very thread.

[Edited on April 16, 2008 at 12:59 PM. Reason : ]

4/16/2008 12:54:51 PM

Shit, sorry for oppressing her.

4/16/2008 12:58:22 PM

^^ So if some big named star came out and said, "black people invented gansta rap to dumb down white kids to gain more power in this country", you wouldnt have a problem right?

4/16/2008 1:26:05 PM

I'd probably make a thread about it

4/16/2008 1:27:47 PM

or march

4/16/2008 1:30:28 PM

Quote :

" who instead blame others for thier own bad decisions and lot in life"

This describes most of humanity.

Or do you feel ignorance is more inherent to blacks?

4/17/2008 1:16:38 AM

^ I can't speak for the poster you quoted, but I feel that a lack of accountability is more inherent in black culture right now.

The victim card has been played and overplayed.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 1:47 AM. Reason : 2]

4/17/2008 1:45:13 AM

Victimization is not a "card."

I'm surprised with some of the stuff that even Obama gets thrown at him, people hold on to the idea that the victimization blacks sometimes claims is some type of game.

4/17/2008 2:08:21 AM

Orchestrated victimization is absolutely a card that groups of people play in order to incite anger at the "oppressor" and/or get sympathy.

Unfortunately for groups who overplay this card, people eventually become immune to the more blatant ploys.

That said, Obama doesn't play the victim card. He doesn't seem to partake in race-based politics. It's a welcome departure from what we see out of most black democrat politicians.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 3:19 AM. Reason : 2]

4/17/2008 3:15:26 AM

^ what instances or with what groups are you referring to?

Outside of Sharpton and Jackson, I can't think of any other person or group playing a victimization card.

And something can be widespread without directly being orchestrated.

edit: I think it's a stretch to say "most" black democrats partake in this card game.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 3:22 AM. Reason : ]

4/17/2008 3:20:12 AM

Jews and Muslims frequently play the victim card, especially when the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict comes up. I'm actually Jewish by ethnicity but it makes me sick when both sides of the conflict try to appear as the bigger victim while killing each other with impunity. Hell, even Christians try to play the victim card by whining about "the war on Christmas" and bullshit like that.

A lot of women play the victim card when things don't go their way. For their part, most other women call them out on it when it's an obvious ploy.

But blacks, far and away, are the worst offenders when it comes to playing the victim card. And I'm not just talking about Sharpton and Jackson. Guys like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright are all over the country, proselytizing with fear-mongering speeches about how the government and the police are out to get them.

Quote :

"I think it's a stretch to say "most" black democrats partake in this card game."

I wish it were a stretch. Honestly, I don't think it is. Times are changing though, and the sooner people like Mel Watt and Maxine Waters are rejected by voters, the better.

[Edited on April 17, 2008 at 3:50 AM. Reason : 2]

4/17/2008 3:40:21 AM

^^ There was the crazy ass congress woman who assaulted the security guard.

4/17/2008 8:01:40 AM

that lady was nuts.

4/17/2008 9:01:51 AM

Quote :

"Or do you feel ignorance is more inherent to blacks? "

Typical liberal response. Jump straight to racism.

Nevermind my whole quote was : "I find ANY group ignorant that is mostly filled with people unhappy with thier own lives, who instead blame others for thier own bad decisions and lot in life. Just my opinion."

Somehow you must have missed that.

1337, or the Major of detriot. Commits perjury then runs to play the race card to deflect his guilt.

I do feel that as our generation get older and comes into power, some of these claims will be greatly muted and dismissed.

4/17/2008 9:21:23 AM

^Man, you guys are always bitching about black people playing the race card and talking about being victims.

You need to quit blaming others for your own bad decisions and lot in life!

(See how that works?)

4/17/2008 9:51:09 AM

^really, who do I blame for my lot in life?

Now I do get pissed when I see my tax dollars being wasted on people not trying to help themselves, then get irrate when the govt says we need more.

4/17/2008 10:14:08 AM

^You're pissed and believe you have a legitimate grievance.

Blame yourself!

Poor decisions!

Get over it!

4/17/2008 11:58:36 AM

Im not sure where you think ive made some bad decision, but they have left me dependent on the govt for food, clothes, shelter, gas, etc.

But Ill "get over it" when you "get out of my wallet".

4/17/2008 12:07:44 PM

^GET OFF YOUR ASS! TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS! AND QUIT YOUR BITCHING!

4/17/2008 2:33:41 PM

Quote :

"Typical liberal response. Jump straight to racism."

Typical response from a racist conservative (as opposed to the intelligent conservatives)

4/17/2008 2:42:15 PM

Quote :

"GET OFF YOUR ASS! TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS! AND QUIT YOUR BITCHING!"

I agree, although you have directed it to the wrong person. It should be directed to the liberal minions who want to hardworking people to pay more taxes to support the "poor" of our country.

4/17/2008 2:47:12 PM

Terp, care to explain how im racist? You make a big claim like that you should be able to back it up. Unless your definition of racist is disagreeing with a black man.

Do I dislike some people? You bet, but it damn sure isnt because of the color of thier skin, but more bc of thier actions.

I think some leader wanted people to be judged that way.....hmmm.

4/17/2008 3:00:20 PM

so you got nothing terp? I figured as much.

4/17/2008 5:45:24 PM

4/17/2008 6:59:47 PM

Quote :

"Typical liberal response. Jump straight to racism. Nevermind my whole quote was : "I find ANY group ignorant that is mostly filled with people unhappy with thier own lives, who instead blame others for thier own bad decisions and lot in life. Just my opinion." Somehow you must have missed that. "

Actually, that sentence was prefaced with "I wonder if Terp supports the NAACP. I think I should have clarified my point on ignorant groups..." Generally speaking, it's a self-evident statement that people who blame others for their bad choices are no good. No one would defend this type of person. The flaw in your statement though is that you felt it needed to be made, in the context of minorities and the NAACP. I'm starting to agree with terpball that you might actually be a racist.

Being white though, and not facing as much prejudice in your life, you're less disposed to be able to identify racism. At least, according to this study: http://www.dallasdancemusic.com/forums/awareness-politics/239628-blatant-vs-ambiguous-racism-whites-blacks-affected-differently.html

The fact is, neither scientists nor the gov. should be tricking people in to testing potentially harmful chemicals on them by being deceptive, and especially not if they have kids. There are other safe, more controlled ways of carrying out an experiment like this one that don't involve putting people at risk.

And terp was fairly accurate when he said this:

Quote :

" eyedrb has no moral or ethical reservations with taking advantage of and targeting poor minorities with health/medical experiments. this is very consistent with how he usually posts, and it says a lot about him as a person. not only ignorance, but hatred behind the ignorance. "

You do seem to have a lot of hatred for poor people that seems to be completely baseless. You constantly complain about class warfare, when you are one of the main proponents of that war. And then when solutions are being thrown around, you want no part in it.

And then ironically, as BridgetSPK pointed out, you make the same complaints in your own life that the supposedly ignorant people make as you claim.

No one likes people who complain because of their own bad decisions, but what you don't seem to get is that it's impossible to identify these people based on their skin color or what organization they belong to. You would just have to interview them about their life and see what decisions they made.

4/17/2008 9:35:21 PM

Moron, there you go again. IT has nothing to do with skin color. The idea that people are perpetual victims is what pisses me off. They were given a choice and made one. Just like the housing market. Stop pretending people have no control over thier choices or lives.


You seem to agree with terp bc you both disagree with me politically. He can say whatever racist bullshit, but you attack me for using reason and not jumping to conclusions when given some information. WTF man. Where in my posts did I favor hurting poor minorities? I just pointed out the reasons for the trial, without the emotional aspect of it. Here is the point you keep missing, if they didnt want the shit in their(well govt) yard, they could have just said NO. Would you agree? This isnt a race issue, its a responsibility issue.

4/18/2008 1:07:18 AM

Quote :

" I just pointed out the reasons for the trial, without the emotional aspect of it. Here is the point you keep missing, if they didnt want the shit in their(well govt) yard, they could have just said NO. Would you agree? This isnt a race issue, its a responsibility issue."

First, why do you ignore emotional aspects? Does that make sense when talking about human beings? Could you EVER accurately predict anyones behavior when ignoring the emotional responses? It's not rational to pretend humans don't have emotions which is where a lot of the right fails in their analyses of society.

Secondly, they could have said no, but they weren't even given the details or particulars of the study, which strongly implies they were purposely being exploited. If you imagine you have some kids working a full time job for shit pay, and someone says "hey we're going to give you some money to let us put some fertilizer in your yard," do you really think that person isn't going to be just thinking about the money? The only way to honestly conduct a study like that would be to sit down with them and explain all the hazards they face, and make sure they understand all aspects first.

So YES, it is in their hands, but only after YOU first make sure they know what they're getting in to. I think your problem, at least from my perspective, is that you don't seem to realize that a poor person doesn't see the world the same way you do. They are poor, they are worried about their safety and their family, and where they're going to eat. If someone offers them money, they're not going to ask the questions that a financially stable or secure person would, because that's human nature. I can guarantee that you too in a relatively desperate situation would not evaluate all your choices rationally, and I can also guarantee that you've made more than one irrational choice in your lifetime. The whole purpose of our gov. and legal system, theoretically, is to protect the citizens from this type of exploitation, whether it be by preventing your software company from being bullied by Microsoft, or preventing a poor purpose from being exploited on the cheap.

Do you have a problem with the gov. stepping in to prevent unfair monopolies? Because the way i'd see it, your position would have to be "tough shit" for the companies that get screwed over, because they must be ignorant or lazy or dumb, and must have made bad decisions. The problem couldn't possibly be that money and power both scale almost exponentially with money.

4/18/2008 1:25:14 AM