Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: lonestar2004]
    #4946166 -

lonestar2004 said:
kilgore_trout said:
yes real communism equals no gov, ever read MARX!?




"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin. "

Ronald W. Reagan






that proves what? that you and reagan dont know what you are talking about? Marx is pretty fucking explicit. Communism ends in statelessness. I hardly consider reagan an authority on Marxism. And how would someone understanding Marx be anti-communist, nless that quote is supposed to mean that if you understood it you would disagree with them. either way it has nothing to do with what i said.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4946185 -

zappaisgod said:
For the hysteria mongers here who don't realize that this increases already existing protections and who can't grok the value of human testing as a final step in approving safe use criteria I offer this from one of the links at the OCA site:




Protections for Subjects in Human Research is misleading.

in its current form it doesn't offer protection to everyone... that's the problem. through the use of legal language (loopholes) it allows testing on mentally handicapped and orphaned children while offering new protection to pregnant women and "normal" (for lack of a better word) children. many groups seek to ammend it before it becomes law.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4946201 -

Quote:
Stephen Johnson, March 4 2005, i believe you are citing a ban initiated by Barbara Boxer who was in direct opposition to Johnson and his policy, this happened in july of the same year but obviously is of only marginal effectiveness otherwise this would not even be proposed.


I don't know who introduced the bill, I just know that according to the article cateyes passed, Congress permanently banned in August of this year chemical testing on children and pregnant women. From now on, we'll just have to guess whether new chemical products safe to use around adults are safe to use around children as well.

As for "marginal effectiveness" I haven't the foggiest idea to what you are referring. If Congress passed a law banning testing on kids and preggos, anyone performing tests on kids and preggos can be prosecuted. How much more effective can you get?

Quote:
His work concerning these issues...


What issues?

Quote:
... was well known and included in any records concerning him and his long tenure for the EPA.


Then you should have no difficulty providing us a few sources backing up your claim. Please do.

Quote:
it was known and reasonable to expect he continue ....


Continue what?

Quote:
....regardless of weak "bans" that apparently have little effect.


"Little effect"? I presume you can point us to some testing on kids and preggtos that has occurred since the law was passed? If not, then what are you going on about? It is against the law for such testing to take place in the US. What more do you want?

Quote:
so if you want to go by dates, bush appoints him with all this shit well on record...


On record where? Care to provide a link or two?

Quote:
...before one could say it is illegal anyways so it doesnt matter, as if his espousal of illegal proceadures does not matter.


I hate to point out the obvious, but if testing on kids and preggos was not illegal prior to Congress's new law of August of this year, then advocating such testing in March (for example) of this year is not "espousal of illegal procedures".

Quote:
Then in response to him, probably his most major critic and opponent initiates a ban that has not proven effective.


Hasn't proven effective? You no doubt have a list of people indicted for testing chemicals on kids and preggos? If not, please drop this "ineffective" mantra.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: kilgore_trout]
    #4946221 -

kilgore_trout said:
Communism ends in statelessness.


really??? has it ever ended in statelessness???

maybe Cuba and N.Korea are heading for the great utopia....


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: lonestar2004]
    #4946248 -

they are not real communists, as redstorm pointed out. look maybe at trotsky or Marx's actual writings? Even Lenin said the USSR had failed to be true communists.


--------------------
"I didnt fight a secret war in nicaragua so you could walk these streets of freedom bad-mouthing lady america in your damn mirrored sunglasses."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Solutarch]
    #4946384 -

Solutarch said:
rogue_pixie said:
People who believe in animal rights are not misanthropes.


Some are and they are some of the most vocal and militant, this is easily discerned by reading their own words as well as taking note of their actions. I did not say that all people who believe in animal rights are misanthropes. I said, "the misanthropes in the animal rights movement." If I were to say, "the fundamentalist Christians in the Republican party" I would not be referring to the entire Republican party as there are obviously members of the party who are not fundamentalist Christians.


Alright, fair enough.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: daimyo]
    #4946391 -

daimyo said:
rogue_pixie said:
Bush is the president, it is his responsibility, he has the power to do something about it.

If he lets this happen, then he is to blame.


The reason there is a head of the EPA is because the President has MANY other more pressing issues to contend with. If you want to put the workload of all these departments on his lap, then I don't know what to tell you.

Sure, if he has a moral objection to it, then he could step in and do something. But I think he hires these people so they can do it. And congress can step in, as they have here, and put an end to things that are "morally repugnant".

Why think that Bush is some kind of multi-tasking superhuman? He can't do everything.


More pressing issues?! Like what? I reckon this is very fucking pressing .


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Phred]
    #4946406 -

Quote:
Phred said:If you find the stance of the non-Luddites to be "obscene", I can't stop you from feeling that way. It takes all kinds to make a world.


I'm not a luddite, but seriously, why do we need all of these new products? What kind of products are you speaking of?

I value the protection and safety of innocent children over the fucking latest shampoo or bubble bath product.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946517 -

It seems to me that they were mostly talking about pesticides in the EPA thing. New pesticides are needed all the time because the bugs develop resistance to the old ones. As to cosmetics, well I don't care about them much and your natural beauty clearly makes them superfluous for you but there seems to be a tremendous number of women who try to get a leg up on other women through their use. They should at least be able to have safe ones.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946521 -

Quote:
I'm not a luddite, but seriously, why do we need all of these new products? What kind of products are you speaking of?


I dunno. Could be an absolutely foolproof insecticide that wipes out cockroaches and flies which spread disease. Or it could be a wood treatment that keeps doorframes from rotting forever. How should I know? It's a new product after all.

Quote:
I value the protection and safety of innocent children over the fucking latest shampoo or bubble bath product.


So you're satisfied with the arsenal chemical products we have now? No need for new ones -- everything useful we will ever invent has already been invented, in terms of chemical based stuff? We can stop inventing more now?

That's one way of looking at things, I guess.





Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Phred]
    #4946536 -

Phred said:
Quote:
I'm not a luddite, but seriously, why do we need all of these new products? What kind of products are you speaking of?


I dunno. Could be an absolutely foolproof insecticide that wipes out cockroaches and flies which spread disease. Or it could be a wood treatment that keeps doorframes from rotting forever. How should I know? It's a new product after all.

Quote:
I value the protection and safety of innocent children over the fucking latest shampoo or bubble bath product.


So you're satisfied with the arsenal chemical products we have now? No need for new ones -- everything useful we will ever invent has already been invented, in terms of chemical based stuff? We can stop inventing more now?

That's one way of looking at things, I guess.





Phred


How can you even begin to rationalise it to yourself? Think about what you are saying, you are valuing products, products that do not even exist yet over innocent human suffering , and vulnerable children at that. It's fucking incredulous.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4946546 -

I really hope that you are jesting.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946559 -

rogue_pixie writes:

Quote:
How can you even begin to rationalise it to yourself? Think about what you are saying, you are valuing products, products that do not even exist yet over innocent human suffering , and vulnerable children at that. It's fucking incredulous.


So your position is we should stop inventing chemical products. I get it. I don't agree with it, but I get it.

Explain to me how exactly this approach differs from that of the Luddites.




Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946561 -

Look at all the products that make our lives easier and more productive: insecticides, cleaners, preservatives, plastics, oils etc. The list is nearly endless.

All of these products needed to be tested to make sure they were safe for human use. Do you suggest we stop all progress/advancement because you disagree with the testing methods? You're probably using hundreds of compounds right now, which were tested at some point.


--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge.  It is an indellible experience; it is forever known.  I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.

Smith, P.  Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.

...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.

Osmond, H.  Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: Phred]
    #4946587 -

Phred said:
rogue_pixie writes:

Quote:
How can you even begin to rationalise it to yourself? Think about what you are saying, you are valuing products, products that do not even exist yet over innocent human suffering , and vulnerable children at that. It's fucking incredulous.


So your position is we should stop inventing chemical products. I get it. I don't agree with it, but I get it.

Explain to me how exactly this approach differs from that of the Luddites.


We should stop inventing chemical products if it is causing the suffering of innocent children ABSOLUTELY. It shouldn't even be questionable. Until we find a safer way, whatever way that may be definitely without a doubt please fucking stop. We do not NEED these things, they are not ESSENTIAL to anything no matter how much the media might try to brainwash you into thinking otherwise, we have managed to survive all these thousands of years and will continue to, well we probably have more chance of continuing to survive if we stop exploiting the Earth and making all of these needless fucking products. Arghh sorry if I sound mad but god damn it, there is just no rational excuse for this.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946632 -

Nevermind that millions of children will starve to death because the insecticide their nation needs can not go through R&D. Fuck em, as long as a few bums are saved.


--------------------
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: daimyo]
    #4946710 -

Pixie, my sweet, did you actually read the EPA document or just the hysterical nitwits?  From the Doc:

"Sec.  26.408  Requirements for permission by parents or guardians and
for assent by children.

    (a) In addition to the determinations required under other
applicable sections of this subpart, the IRB shall determine that
adequate provisions are made for soliciting the assent of the children,
when in the judgment of the IRB the children are capable of providing
assent. In determining whether children are capable of assenting, the
IRB shall take into account the ages, maturity, and psychological state
of the children involved. This judgment may be made for all children to
be involved in research under a particular protocol, or for each child,
as the IRB deems appropriate. If the IRB determines that the capability
of some or all of the children is so limited that they cannot
reasonably be consulted or that the intervention or procedure involved
in the research holds out a prospect of direct benefit that is
important to the health or well-being of the children and is available
only in the context of the research, the assent of the children is not
a necessary condition for proceeding with the research. Even where the
IRB determines that the subjects are capable of assenting, the IRB may
still waive the assent requirement under circumstances in which consent
may be waived in accord with Sec.  26.116(d).
    (b) In addition to the determinations required under other
applicable sections of this subpart, the IRB shall determine, in
accordance with and to the extent that consent is required by Sec. 
26.116, that adequate provisions are made for soliciting the permission
of each child's parents or guardian. Where parental permission is to be
obtained, the IRB may find that the permission of one parent is
sufficient for research to be conducted under Sec. 26.404 or Sec. 26.405.
    (c) In addition to the provisions for waiver contained in Sec. 
26.116, if the IRB determines that a research protocol is designed for
conditions or for a subject population for which parental or guardian
permission is not a reasonable requirement to protect the subjects (for
example, neglected or abused children), it may waive the consent
requirements in subpart A of this part and paragraph (b) of this
section, provided an appropriate mechanism for protecting the children
who will participate as subjects in the research is substituted, and
provided further that the waiver is not inconsistent with Federal,
State or local law. The choice of an appropriate mechanism would depend
upon the nature and purpose of the activities described in the
protocol, the risk and anticipated benefit to the research subjects,
and their age, maturity, status, and condition.
    (d) Permission by parents or guardians shall be documented in
accordance with and to the extent required by Sec.  26.117.
    (e) When the IRB determines that assent is required, it shall also
determine whether and how assent must be documented.

Sec. Sec.  26.409-26.419  [Reserved]

Sec.  26.420  Prohibition of research involving intentional dosing of
children.

  Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, under no
circumstances shall EPA or a person when covered by Sec.  26.101(j)
conduct or support research involving intentional dosing of any child.

Sec.  26.421  Prohibition of EPA reliance on research involving
intentional dosing of children.

    In its regulatory decision-making under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.) or section 408 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 346a), EPA shall
not rely on any research involving intentional dosing of any child,
except when such research is deemed scientifically sound and crucial to
the protection of public health, under the procedure defined in Sec. 
26.603."

I included a lot of the document but I think that the part in bold should allay your fears and point out that sometimes these advocacy groups might actually misrepresent reality to coerce you into a false sense of outrage.  :shocked:  This document and rule change actually tightens restrictions on human testing, contrary to what the idiots asserted.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: daimyo]
    #4946715 -

daimyo said:
Nevermind that millions of children will starve to death because the insecticide their nation needs can not go through R&D. Fuck em, as long as a few bums are saved.


Orphaned and disabled children are bums??? Are you deliberately trying to wind me up?

What's wrong with using the pesticides that we have now? Aren't most pesticides cancerous anyway? What did humans do before pesticides, they certainly didn't starve, there are probably more starving people on Earth now than there ever has been in the past.

I'll tell you why millions of innocent people are starving to death right now.

Because of consumerism and materialism. Because we rape the land of third world countries and we steal their resources for these fucking stupid products that we don't need, and then they advertise them everywhere and make people believe that these things will somehow make them feel better and enrich our lives. It's bullshit. We don't need them.

I can't believe it , the kind of people that our society is breeding today.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: rogue_pixie]
    #4946745 -

Did you even read the fucking document?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Human Test Subjects [Re: zappaisgod]
    #4946770 -

Yes I did.

Call me stupid, but it didn't really make a lot of sense to me.


--------------------
"Whatever you do, you need to keep moving.  Because when you stop moving you die (physically and emotionally).

Good luck and blessings of happiness and fortune." ~ RandalFlagg RIP


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* U.S. tested chemical weapons on own citizens phreakyzen 1,516 9 04/29/03 06:36 PM
by Azmodeus
* House Bans Coloning of Human Cells
( 1 2 all )		 PotSmokinHippie 4,276 21 08/04/01 11:36 AM
by Phred
* Bush Drug Czar: Test for Drugs in Schools PsiloKitten 750 6 10/10/03 01:38 PM
by Learyfan
* War on Iraq IQ test
( 1 2 3 all )		 LearyfanS 4,378 41 03/15/03 07:19 PM
by rhizo
* "torture-lite" and human rights after 9/11 Edame 883 4 06/28/03 10:08 AM
by Cornholio
* Human Rights... the Bush Way
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 kykeon 10,478 122 05/06/03 02:12 AM
by kykeon
* A historical perspective on the US and chemical weapons
( 1 2 all )		 Ellis Dee 3,302 28 04/07/03 08:02 PM
by Ellis Dee
* U.S-Led Forces Occupy Baghdad Complex Filled With Chemical A wingnutx 687 1 04/25/03 07:31 PM
by wingnutx

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,997 topic views. 1 members, 33 guests and 10 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.024 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.