[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’m a small government conservative. I already distrust the government enough without resorting to conspiracy. [/quote]
Well, the conspiracy was very real with regards to syphilis and that is just all that we know about. I personally hold the position that if this is what is openly known, the stuff still in the closet would rip a few people’s world apart.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
It is feasible to go to church for political gain, I agree. But to make the statement that Barrack only goes to church for political gain is indefensible. [/quote]
I think you need to look up “indefensible” - I already defended it.
ADDENDUM: In my sarcasm I forgot to note that you are overstating my argument - I didn’t say “only”.
His is the rhetoric that helps fuel beatdowns on white victims.
[quote]
Sloth wrote:
HIV/AIDS has been studied extensively world-wide. Furthermore, white Aids patient also die.
The supposed scheme is that decades ago, an evil white government scientist, infected blacks with a disease to kill them off, somehow forgetting that his virus was guaranteed to spread into the white population. It doesn’t even make sense.
Professor X wrote:
I have already said I don’t agree with the HIV situation, however, I also know most people barely understand what I explain to them in my clinic so I don’t fault laymen for not studying medicine. Instead, I tend to look at WHY someone would think that…and frankly, blacks have every right to distrust the government in that way.
Hell, every American should if we are all truly equal.
Instead of focusing on the horrible act that caused this amount of distrust, too many of you fault the relative targets of that act for any further mistrust.
I really don’t see how that makes sense to anyone.[/quote]
The “relative targets” of that act? Please explain this to me. If this had been done to poor, ignorant whites in Appalachia would I have been a relative target?
Also, here are the details on the Tuskegee Experiment: Tuskegee Syphilis Study - Wikipedia
Everyone has the right to mistrust the government - skepticism of the government is a healthy thing, in my opinion. Kooky conspiracy theories go beyond healthy skepticism though. Iran/Contra doesn’t justify idiotic ideas about 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Hell, I read a factoid that said some large number of people in the middle east don’t believe the germ theory of disease. Their governments are horribly corrupt. But these facts don’t have a causal relationship, except to the extent the government is causing the ignorance by destroying educational opportunities.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
How can someone claim the idea that the government created other biological weapons to test on civilians is preposterous when they already did?[/quote]
When did the United States government invent biological weapons to test on civilians?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
The “relative targets” of that act? Please explain this to me. If this had been done to poor, ignorant whites in Appalachia would I have been a relative target?[/quote]
Uh, YES.
[quote]
Also, here are the details on the Tuskegee Experiment: Tuskegee Syphilis Study - Wikipedia
Everyone has the right to mistrust the government - skepticism of the government is a healthy thing, in my opinion. Kooky conspiracy theories go beyond healthy skepticism though. Iran/Contra doesn’t justify idiotic ideas about 9/11 conspiracy theories. [/quote]
How “kooky” is it? It’s already been done using a different STD so how is it “kooky” that some believe they may have done it with others?
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
How can someone claim the idea that the government created other biological weapons to test on civilians is preposterous when they already did?
When did the United States government invent biological weapons to test on civilians?[/quote]
I really have to explain that a disease used on people to test how it will kill them might also fall under the definition of “weapon”?
Oh, dear Lord, I wrote “created” so that means the point made is incorrect?
You can tell you are a lawyer. You can also tell it isn’t helping your understanding much in this regard.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/huckabee-defend.html
Huckabee defends Obama!
And one other thing I think we’ve got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, “That’s a terrible statement,” I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I’m going to be probably the only conservative in America who’s going to say something like this, but I’m just telling you: We’ve got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, “You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus.”
And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
Do you realize how few people would even admit that?
I personally thank you for the sentiment, but apparently, the feeling is that none of that is relevant and everyone should just forget everything that came together to make them who they are in favor of making sure no one feels any guilt.[/quote]
This guy is a preacher, and he was using his position of authority to pass the anger and hatred - justifiable or not - on to the next generation, poisoning their minds against the idea that we’re all Americans and should be working together. It’s at least two generations now since the Civil Rights marches and Dr. King’s successes. My parents were in college at the time, not married yet. I’m a father now. It seems to me that, particularly a man of God would have more of a responsibility to work toward healing old rifts than to keep the flame of hatred alive in the young.
Also, here were some remarks from a pastor I found in response to the Huck:
[i]The focus of the worship service is the sermon. The congregation is expected to meet Jesus not in the bread and wine, but in the spoken word. In most cases, the theology of the sermon is that it is in fact the word of God. It is not part of a “discussion” but a “declaration” of God’s word and received as such.
In this view, the sermon cannot be the mere flippant, crass, light, or half-considered thoughts of the moment. It is a frightfully serious thing to mislead the people of God…the judgment on those who do so is severe. I tremble at it when I must go up to preach on Sundays, praying always that God will not let me mislead his people… That Mr. Huckabee & Mr. Wright believe these considerations to be outweighed by the need to create, or get caught up in, an emotional moment is itself very disturbing…
One does not toy with the things of God.[/i]
[quote]
Professor X wrote:
How can someone claim the idea that the government created other biological weapons to test on civilians is preposterous when they already did?
BostonBarrister wrote:
When did the United States government invent biological weapons to test on civilians?
Professor X wrote:
I really have to explain that a disease used on people to test how it will kill them might also fall under the definition of “weapon”?
Oh, dear Lord, I wrote “created” so that means the point made is incorrect?
You can tell you are a lawyer. You can also tell it isn’t helping your understanding much in this regard.[/quote]
No - a medical study, pursuant to which treatment was withheld to study a disease that people had contracted themselves, is not the same thing as researching in a lab, creating a disease and going out and releasing it into a civilian population. The medical study was done under the auspices of the U.S. Public Health Service to get information to treat the disease - or at least to know more about it for medical purposes.
The kooky conspiracy theory is that the CIA or some unknown agency was playing in the lab, looking for ways to kill black people. The only similarity to the kooky conspiracy theory is the it involves the government and a sexually transmitted disease.
This isn’t defending the Tuskegee Experiment - this is saying the analogy doesn’t hold any water.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
How can someone claim the idea that the government created other biological weapons to test on civilians is preposterous when they already did?
BostonBarrister wrote:
When did the United States government invent biological weapons to test on civilians?
Professor X wrote:
I really have to explain that a disease used on people to test how it will kill them might also fall under the definition of “weapon”?
Oh, dear Lord, I wrote “created” so that means the point made is incorrect?
You can tell you are a lawyer. You can also tell it isn’t helping your understanding much in this regard.
No - a medical study, pursuant to which treatment was withheld to study a disease that people had contracted themselves, is not the same thing as researching in a lab, creating a disease and going out and releasing it into a civilian population. The medical study was done under the auspices of the U.S. Public Health Service to get information to treat the disease - or at least to know more about it for medical purposes. The kooky conspiracy theory is that the CIA or some unknown agency was playing in the lab, looking for ways to kill black people. The only similarity to the kooky conspiracy theory is the it involves the government and a sexually transmitted disease.
This isn’t defending the Tuskegee Experiment - this is saying the analogy doesn’t hold any water.
[/quote]
This is a quote from the site you just posted
[quote]However, this study exploited a vulnerable sub-population to answer a question which would have been of benefit to the whole population. This was, many argue, a manifestation of racism on the part of the study organizers.
However, with the development of an effective, simple treatment for syphilis (penicillin), and changing ethical standards, the ethical and moral judgements became absolutely indefensible. By the time the study had closed, hundreds of men had died from syphilis and many of their wives had become infected and their children born with congenital syphilis.[/quote]
This sounds like a study for a cure to you?
It may have started innocently in the 1920’s but it became something that every American should despise.
Why don’t you?
Even after the discovery of Pen V K, they continued watching these men die. THAT is what is indefensible.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
This is a quote from the site you just posted
[i]However, this study exploited a vulnerable sub-population to answer a question which would have been of benefit to the whole population. This was, many argue, a manifestation of racism on the part of the study organizers.
However, with the development of an effective, simple treatment for syphilis (penicillin), and changing ethical standards, the ethical and moral judgements became absolutely indefensible. By the time the study had closed, hundreds of men had died from syphilis and many of their wives had become infected and their children born with congenital syphilis.[/i]
This sounds like a study for a cure to you?
It may have started innocently in the 1920’s but it became something that every American should despise.
Why don’t you?
Even after the discovery of Pen V K, they continued watching these men die. THAT is what is indefensible.[/quote]
Exactly what part of what I wrote would lead you to believe I don’t find the Tuskegee Study wrong and deplorable?
The fact that it is indefensible does not mean it is a good analogy with a wacky conspiracy theory that holds the government created a virus in a lab and then purposefully infected the civilian population with the purpose of effecting genocide against black Americans.
*edited to fix my typo
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This is a quote from the site you just posted
[i]However, this study exploited a vulnerable sub-population to answer a question which would have been of benefit to the whole population. This was, many argue, a manifestation of racism on the part of the study organizers.
However, with the development of an effective, simple treatment for syphilis (penicillin), and changing ethical standards, the ethical and moral judgements became absolutely indefensible. By the time the study had closed, hundreds of men had died from syphilis and many of their wives had become infected and their children born with congenital syphilis.[/i]
This sounds like a study for a cure to you?
It may have started innocently in the 1920’s but it became something that every American should despise.
Why don’t you?
Even after the discovery of Pen V K, they continued watching these men die. THAT is what is indefensible.
Exactly what part of what I wrote would lead you to believe I don’t find the Tuskegee Study wrong and deplorable?
The fact that it is indefensible does not mean it is a good analogy with a wacky conspiracy theory that holds the government created a virus in a lab and then purposefully infected the civilian population with the purpose of effecting an genocide against black Americans.[/quote]
Especially when the virus doesn’t discriminate!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/huckabee-defend.html
Huckabee defends Obama!
And one other thing I think we’ve got to remember: As easy as it is for those of us who are white to look back and say, “That’s a terrible statement,” I grew up in a very segregated South, and I think that you have to cut some slack. And I’m going to be probably the only conservative in America who’s going to say something like this, but I’m just telling you: We’ve got to cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told, “You have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus.”
And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had a more, more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.
Do you realize how few people would even admit that?
I personally thank you for the sentiment, but apparently, the feeling is that none of that is relevant and everyone should just forget everything that came together to make them who they are in favor of making sure no one feels any guilt.[/quote]
Err… personally thank Mr. Huckabee. I forgot to put quotes around that heh.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This is a quote from the site you just posted
[i]However, this study exploited a vulnerable sub-population to answer a question which would have been of benefit to the whole population. This was, many argue, a manifestation of racism on the part of the study organizers.
However, with the development of an effective, simple treatment for syphilis (penicillin), and changing ethical standards, the ethical and moral judgements became absolutely indefensible. By the time the study had closed, hundreds of men had died from syphilis and many of their wives had become infected and their children born with congenital syphilis.[/i]
This sounds like a study for a cure to you?
It may have started innocently in the 1920’s but it became something that every American should despise.
Why don’t you?
Even after the discovery of Pen V K, they continued watching these men die. THAT is what is indefensible.
Exactly what part of what I wrote would lead you to believe I don’t find the Tuskegee Study wrong and deplorable?
The fact that it is indefensible does not mean it is a good analogy with a wacky conspiracy theory that holds the government created a virus in a lab and then purposefully infected the civilian population with the purpose of effecting an genocide against black Americans.
Especially when the virus doesn’t discriminate! [/quote]
Apparently, the cure sure did.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This is a quote from the site you just posted
[i]However, this study exploited a vulnerable sub-population to answer a question which would have been of benefit to the whole population. This was, many argue, a manifestation of racism on the part of the study organizers.
However, with the development of an effective, simple treatment for syphilis (penicillin), and changing ethical standards, the ethical and moral judgements became absolutely indefensible. By the time the study had closed, hundreds of men had died from syphilis and many of their wives had become infected and their children born with congenital syphilis.[/i]
This sounds like a study for a cure to you?
It may have started innocently in the 1920’s but it became something that every American should despise.
Why don’t you?
Even after the discovery of Pen V K, they continued watching these men die. THAT is what is indefensible.
Exactly what part of what I wrote would lead you to believe I don’t find the Tuskegee Study wrong and deplorable?
The fact that it is indefensible does not mean it is a good analogy with a wacky conspiracy theory that holds the government created a virus in a lab and then purposefully infected the civilian population with the purpose of effecting an genocide against black Americans.
Especially when the virus doesn’t discriminate!
Apparently, the cure sure did.[/quote]
Talking about HIV/AIDS.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
This is a quote from the site you just posted
[i]However, this study exploited a vulnerable sub-population to answer a question which would have been of benefit to the whole population. This was, many argue, a manifestation of racism on the part of the study organizers.
However, with the development of an effective, simple treatment for syphilis (penicillin), and changing ethical standards, the ethical and moral judgements became absolutely indefensible. By the time the study had closed, hundreds of men had died from syphilis and many of their wives had become infected and their children born with congenital syphilis.[/i]
This sounds like a study for a cure to you?
It may have started innocently in the 1920’s but it became something that every American should despise.
Why don’t you?
Even after the discovery of Pen V K, they continued watching these men die. THAT is what is indefensible.
Exactly what part of what I wrote would lead you to believe I don’t find the Tuskegee Study wrong and deplorable?
The fact that it is indefensible does not mean it is a good analogy with a wacky conspiracy theory that holds the government created a virus in a lab and then purposefully infected the civilian population with the purpose of effecting an genocide against black Americans.
Especially when the virus doesn’t discriminate!
Apparently, the cure sure did.
Talking about HIV/AIDS.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter. Syphilis affects EVERYONE also, The crime here was in who they gave the cure to and who they watched rot and die. Some of the case pictures I’ve seen are absolutely horrific considering the end stage of the disease can involve every major organ, skin lesions and dementia.
That means how crazy is it that someone believes that in light of what happened?
The fact is, it is NOT crazy and never was. I am sure most of America isn’t even aware of what happened which affords many the luxury of making statements like a scenario such as this is so off the wall and “kooky”.
As monstrous as I consider him, Brzenzinski spoke pretty intelligently in this interview.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
It doesn’t matter. Syphilis affects EVERYONE also, The crime here was in who they gave the cure to and who they watched rot and die. Some of the case pictures I’ve seen are absolutely horrific considering the end stage of the disease can involve every major organ, skin lesions and dementia.
That means how crazy is it that someone believes that in light of what happened?
The fact is, it is NOT crazy and never was. I am sure most of America isn’t even aware of what happened which affords many the luxury of making statements like a scenario such as this is so off the wall and “kooky”.[/quote]
It is NOT the same thing to refrain from helping someone as it is to actively harm someone.
Both may be bad - and you can even argue the semantics. But they’re not the same thing. The analogy is bad - and the defense of the kooky conspiracy beliefs is flawed.
These situations are different in act; and they are different in scale. In one, you had a controlled study in a small town, with some 400 people, and treatment for a condition they already had was withheld (it became indefensible, rather than hugely questionable, once there was a treatment available). The government did not infect those people. The government did not invent syphilis. The government did not work to spread syphilis.
In coo-coo conspiracy land, you have the CIA or some other government agency, in no particular geographic place and sponsored or motivated by no particular person, create research to invent a new disease, and then find a way to infect a racial minority in the population (somehow the gays got it too, and worse - or was that part of the conspiracy?), for the purpose of genocide against black Americans.
Not only that, but this disease, which is not genetically discriminatory, was injected into a racial minority population for the purposes of genocide, but no actions were taken to guard against its spread to the rest of the population? This also ignores the fact that Africa and Asia have much higher infection rates - or was this supposed to be part of the CIA’s secret plan too?
It is preposterous to assume that the Tuskegee Experiment’s existence makes the conspiracy theory about AIDS somehow more plausible.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
It is NOT the same thing to refrain from helping someone as it is to actively harm someone. [/quote]
WTF? They DID actively harm someone the moment the first child was born with congenital syphilis when they had the cure sitting in the office.
Are you that blind to the impact this had?
Only if you assume the people would otherwise have gotten treatment but for the study. You need that assumption to get something we lawyers refer to as cause.
But this is a digression from the point - the point being that the existence of the Tuskegee Experiment does absolutely nothing to make the ridiculous AIDS conspiracy theory more plausible.