Quote:

---

Their argument: if eating meat is morally wrong, then preventing the spread of a disease that forces people to stop eating meat is also morally wrong.

---

But that's the thing - eating meat is NOT morally wrong. But intentionally spreading a disease that causes a violent allergic reaction to red meat most certainly is. What the hell is wrong with these idiots?

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

Their argument: if eating meat is morally wrong, then preventing the spread of a disease that forces people to stop eating meat is also morally wrong.

---

But that's the thing - eating meat is NOT morally wrong. But intentionally spreading a disease that causes a violent allergic reaction to red meat most certainly is. What the hell is wrong with these idiots?

---

Well, they are phD's working for a school in Michigan and publishing in an ethics journal. So the list of what is wrong with them would fill a couple of single spaced pages.

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

Their argument: if eating meat is morally wrong, then preventing the spread of a disease that forces people to stop eating meat is also morally wrong.

---

But that's the thing - eating meat is NOT morally wrong. But intentionally spreading a disease that causes a violent allergic reaction to red meat most certainly is. What the hell is wrong with these idiots?

---

One of the issues is not only to the meat but also to animal products such as many sutures.

A grand nephew of mine was a medic in the army. He grew up in the range of lone star ticks. While in the military, he had, I think, a compartmental syndrome on his legs and required surgery.

After the surgery, he didn't recover. Eventually, they determined that he was allergic to the suture they used inside the leg and operated to do what they could, but he still has a great deal of pain in his legs.

That got me to wondering if he might have had alpha gal and now known it and that was the source of his allergy to the sutures.

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

Their argument: if eating meat is morally wrong, then preventing the spread of a disease that forces people to stop eating meat is also morally wrong.

---

But that's the thing - eating meat is NOT morally wrong. But intentionally spreading a disease that causes a violent allergic reaction to red meat most certainly is. What the hell is wrong with these idiots?

---

Nothing is wrong with them and actually believing in the idea isn't a requirement for writing about it in these ethics journals. They're controversial on purpose. They explore WAY more controversial ideas than that. They're thought experiments.

nomad2007 said:

---

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

Their argument: if eating meat is morally wrong, then preventing the spread of a disease that forces people to stop eating meat is also morally wrong.

---

But that's the thing - eating meat is NOT morally wrong. But intentionally spreading a disease that causes a violent allergic reaction to red meat most certainly is. What the hell is wrong with these idiots?

---

Nothing is wrong with them and actually believing in the idea isn't a requirement for writing about it in these ethics journals. They're controversial on purpose. They explore WAY more controversial ideas than that. They're thought experiments.

---

One of the authors has also published that he believes bioenhancement is morally correct and should be compulsory but goes even further stating it should also be done covertly. This dude should be stripped of all academic credentials and anyone that peer reviewed and moved his articles forward for publication should be evaluated as well

The fact that some loony leftist academic harbors such views is not surprising these days and in reality should be expected. However, the fact that such a paper can be "peer-reviewed" and published in a scientific journal shows how slippery the slope can become.

just tell people that's its only transmitted via buttsex of the infected and then report the fact that children (and pets!) are somehow getting it and that should pretty much end coverage of the hauntavirus.

it worked before with monkeypox -- sorry mpox --, right?

torrid said:

---

The fact that some loony leftist academic harbors such views is not surprising these days and in reality should be expected. However, the fact that such a paper can be "peer-reviewed" and published in a scientific journal shows how slippery the slope can become.

---

Peer-review is such a flawed system but the only one available. I review papers and there have been some absolute garbage science that has barely been stopped fr publishing. In one example, The trash data was hidden behind elaborate statistical analysis and nearly published. The people approving the paper pointed to the great statistical work until I pointed out the fate was from a Facebook survey.

More on the author


The lead author, Parker Crutchfield, has proven himself to be a bit of a disturbing weirdo, really, in his publications in the past: during Covid he suggested infiltrating the water supply with "morality pills" to make people more compliant.

"To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?" Crutchfield writes.

"It's a far-out proposal that's bound to be controversial," he concedes, but nevertheless is one Crutchfield believes "is worth at least considering, given the importance of social cooperation in the struggle to get COVID-19 under control."

"As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values," he writes.

The chemicals mentioned by Crutchfield are oxytocin and psilocybin, the active component of "magic mushrooms," which he says "may cause a person to be more empathetic and altruistic, more giving and generous."


https://theconversation.com/morality-pills-may-be-the-uss-best-shot-at-ending-the-coronavirus-pandemic-according-to-one-ethicist-142601

They told us they would do it... pic.twitter.com/GpgCsIbPxn

— Russell Brand (@rustyrockets) May 17, 2026

Lots of these sick MFers out there.

bonfarr said:

---

More on the author


The lead author, Parker Crutchfield, has proven himself to be a bit of a disturbing weirdo, really, in his publications in the past: during Covid he suggested infiltrating the water supply with "morality pills" to make people more compliant.

"To me, it seems the problem of coronavirus defectors could be solved by moral enhancement: like receiving a vaccine to beef up your immune system, people could take a substance to boost their cooperative, pro-social behavior. Could a psychoactive pill be the solution to the pandemic?" Crutchfield writes.

"It's a far-out proposal that's bound to be controversial," he concedes, but nevertheless is one Crutchfield believes "is worth at least considering, given the importance of social cooperation in the struggle to get COVID-19 under control."

"As some have argued, a solution would be to make moral enhancement compulsory or administer it secretly, perhaps via the water supply. These actions require weighing other values," he writes.

The chemicals mentioned by Crutchfield are oxytocin and psilocybin, the active component of "magic mushrooms," which he says "may cause a person to be more empathetic and altruistic, more giving and generous."


https://theconversation.com/morality-pills-may-be-the-uss-best-shot-at-ending-the-coronavirus-pandemic-according-to-one-ethicist-142601

---

Totally shocked by this.

Completely shocked, in fact.

reineraggie09 said:

---

torrid said:

---

The fact that some loony leftist academic harbors such views is not surprising these days and in reality should be expected. However, the fact that such a paper can be "peer-reviewed" and published in a scientific journal shows how slippery the slope can become.

---

Peer-review is such a flawed system but the only one available. I review papers and there have been some absolute garbage science that has barely been stopped fr publishing. In one example, The trash data was hidden behind elaborate statistical analysis and nearly published. The people approving the paper pointed to the great statistical work until I pointed out the fate was from a Facebook survey.

---

I wonder if peer review at the Social Text journal (cultural studies) would have weeded out Alan Sokol's hoax.

Alan Sokol is a physicist who submitted a paper full of nonsense designed to grab the attention of the left to the Social Text journal in the mid 1990's to see if they were stupid enough to publish the article. It turned out that they were that stupid. A few weeks after it was published, he exposed his hoax in a magazine called Lingua Franca and embarrassed the hell out of the editors at Social Text.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

Quote:

---

The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in the journal's Spring/Summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. The journal did not practice academic peer review at the time,[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair#cite_note-RobbinsRoss1996B-4][4][/url] so it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist.[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair#cite_note-Sokal1994-3][3][/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair#cite_note-RobbinsRoss1996A-5][5][/url] Three weeks after its publication in May 1996, Sokal revealed in the magazine Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax.
The hoax caused controversy about the scholarly merit of commentary on the physical sciences by those in the humanities; the influence of postmodern philosophy on social disciplines in general; and academic ethics, including whether Sokal was wrong to deceive the editors or readers of Social Text; and whether Social Text had abided by proper scientific ethics.

---

That might explain how I was able to get some of my thesis work published.