TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- bioethics - what is morally acceptable?
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 »

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 You have to understand (mission impossible for you?), besides the Russo issue, Cancer as a disease is a business. Cancer...is...a...business. And if you are a healthcare providor, vaccine developer, medicine developer, highly paid scientist, the incentives are high and lucrative for Cancer to be a business. When it comes to business, especially multi billion dollar businesses, morality and ethics is set aside for the dollar. Where there is money to be made, money will be made. What do you guys pay attention to besides some of the often poor humor here?

Because cancer research is limited only to corporate-backed scientists who devoted their lives to feigning natural curiosity about the world to climb to a position to rake in some of that cold, hard cash.

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 says a professional troll.

Wait, I'm a professional troll now? And here I thought I was just a prog lover

Ooh you edited it. I'm Stalin's nephew now as well?

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 "i have teh eucations and paper shows name on...yet i still know nothing for thiz topic" -Average Dumb Shill Get a clue, they only hire complete idiots at the job you particularly do (forum shills).

All you do is go on and on about what we do. What do you do, what have you done, and why do you continue to tip-toe around the question and refuse to answer it?

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Wait, I'm a professional troll now? And here I thought I was just a prog lover

Woohoo, congrats!

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Woohoo, congrats!

Thanks man

quote:

Originally posted by couch-potato Because cancer research is limited only to corporate-backed scientists who devoted their lives to feigning natural curiosity about the world to climb to a position to rake in some of that cold, hard cash.

who said only? The rest is window dressing and following tails around. Cancer Research itself is a business. Cancer Awareness and the amount of money raked in by donations is a big fat business. Where does the money go? Where are the cures? With very little technology and knowledge in the past, they were able to create vaccines for major diseases. Yet very few versions of Cancer are ever cured. And this with all the technology, money, worldwide intelligence pool. They have no reason to cure most Cancers...besides a business it is an integral part of depopulation. Saving lives is only meaningful if they can make a lot of money while saving someones life, that is the ethics and morality of a competition less business that panders to interests of rather crooked government owned by banks. Cancer is about money and resources.

And why would'nt they hire legitimate scientists and doctors looking for cures, it helps sell the business (window dressing). Can you reason with that or is that over your head?

Because whoever finds a cure for (a) cancer isn't going to earn gazillions right away. Nah.

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 who said only? The rest is window dressing and following tails around. Cancer Research itself is a business. Cancer Awareness and the amount of money raked in by donations is a big fat business. Where does the money go? Where are the cures? With very little technology and knowledge in the past, they were able to create vaccines for major diseases. Yet very few versions of Cancer are ever cured. And this with all the technology, money, worldwide intelligence pool. They have no reason to cure most Cancers...besides a business it is an integral part of depopulation. Saving lives is only meaningful if they can make a lot of money while saving someones life, that is the ethics and morality of a competition less business that panders to interests of rather crooked government owned by banks. Cancer is about money and resources. And why would'nt they hire legitimate scientists and doctors looking for cures, it helps sell the business (window dressing). Can you reason with that or is that over your head?

Doctor, medical researcher, structural engineer, chemist. Wow man, is there anything you�re not an expert in? its really impressive.

*crisps.

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 They have no reason to cure most Cancers...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Doctor, medical researcher, structural engineer, chemist. Wow man, is there anything you�re not an expert in? its really impressive. *crisps.

His presence here also indicates he is a leading authority on trance music, which is also a conspiracy.

quote:

Originally posted by couch-potato His presence here also indicates he is a leading authority on trance music, which is also a conspiracy.

Hmmm, that�s a good point.

I also hear he is a leading researcher into gobbling cocks.

Come on, you talk as if he had a chip on his shoulder! The guy doesn't even have chips with his fish

what do you high instituation education earners make of this advertisement. Can you deconstruct what it is showing and saying at a deeper level (hopefully you can show off your high educations).



Expecting a high failure rate.

That advert is so crisp

quote:

Originally posted by Lira That advert is so crisp

scientists suck at humor is what I deconstructed from what you say ;p

maybe that is one of the problems, scientists seem to have little humor in them..

Look, Kismet, if someone found a cure for all those kinds of cancer they mentioned, or just 10% of them, the money they would earn as a result would be far more relevant (because you can cure a single person multiple times) than an "everlasting research" that isn't supposed to go anywhere and depends on donation.

You talk as if scientists were among the richest people on Earth. As if!

(Unfortunately )

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 what do you high instituation education earners make of this advertisement. Can you deconstruct what it is showing and saying at a deeper level (hopefully you can show off your high educations). Expecting a high failure rate.

Im pretty sure they�re saying cancer is an un-natural, man-made virus that has been unleashed on the world by the mega-corporations so quickly & completely its even gone through time to cripple organisms from the beginning of life itself.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Im pretty sure they�re saying cancer is an un-natural, man-made virus that has been unleashed on the world by the mega-corporations so quickly & completely its even gone through time to cripple organisms from the beginning of life itself.

And, lest we forget, we already have the cure, but we're making big profit from letting people die. Because, you know, that's more profitable than curing them and treating them over and over again.

more convenient cancer marketing. 50 Cent has gone from 214 lbs to 160 lbs for a role in a movie about Cancer. They neeedzz moooar marketingz of Cancer to them black folk, mach easier to spread the disease if you build awareness and social acceptance, while on the flip side asking for money. These are intelligent forms of psychological marketing, both the advertisement and this upcoming film.

http://www.examiner.com/x-22153-Cle...all-Apart-movie

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 more convenient cancer marketing. 50 Cent has gone from 214 lbs to 160 lbs for a role in a movie about Cancer. They neeedzz moooar marketingz of Cancer to them black folk, mach easier to spread the disease if you build awareness and social acceptance, while on the flip side asking for money. These are intelligent forms of psychological marketing, both the advertisement and this upcoming film. http://www.examiner.com/x-22153-Cle...all-Apart-movie

So its your contention that cancer isn�t real?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN So its your contention that cancer isn�t real?

Now you're throwing me some Orwellian newspeak?

I never said Cancer is not real, I said cancer to some amount is implemented by the businesses that benefit off its existence, in the controlled form of giving people cancer. Does Cancer exist outside of this? Of course, the question is to what extent are Cancer cases natural phenonomenon, and to what extent is it imposed/given to people for the benefit of the businesses involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 I never said Cancer is not real, I said cancer to some amount is implemented by the businesses that benefit off its existence, in the controlled form of giving people cancer. Does Cancer exist outside of this? Of course, the question is to what extent are Cancer cases natural phenonomenon, and to what extent is it imposed/given to people for the benefit of the businesses involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Look, Kismet, if someone found a cure for all those kinds of cancer they mentioned, or just 10% of them, the money they would earn as a result would be far more relevant (because you can cure a single person multiple times) than an "everlasting research" that isn't supposed to go anywhere and depends on donation.

And do you really disagree with this? If you do, why would it be more profitable to kill someone who could help you make more money in the future?

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 Now you're throwing me some Orwellian newspeak? I never said Cancer is not real, I said cancer to some amount is implemented by the businesses that benefit off its existence, in the controlled form of giving people cancer. Does Cancer exist outside of this? Of course, the question is to what extent are Cancer cases natural phenonomenon, and to what extent is it imposed/given to people for the benefit of the businesses involved.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira And do you really disagree with this? If you do, why would it be more profitable to kill someone who could help you make more money in the future?

Because...of the depolutionist ideal they have. Even Aaron Russo said he thinks the world is overpopulated, when Rockefeller told him they want to depopulate the world population by half, but he said his concious would not let him join in on it. How it is setup now, instead of finding cures and making money off only cures, which would result in short treatments and less money, that they are making money off the endless search for cures. Whether it is taxpayer money they give themselves, or the donation money they rake in.

In return, selling temporary cures in which people are in this long "fighting to stay alive" mode. Some get cured, most dont. So there is an added benefit of depopulating, killing off people through a disease that people have no control over avoiding. Logically, finding cures would actually cut their treatment lengths short, they'd make less money, and depopulation would not take place. You have to understand man has its faults, those faults being put to use here, with the rewards that fill pockets and ideals.

You think the recent Swine Flu is natural phenomomenon in which millions of vaccines were made to be given to people? It was heavily backed by WHO and it was suppose to be the next depopulationist disease.

quote:

Originally posted by Kismet7 You have to understand man has its faults, those faults being put to use here, with the rewards that fill pockets and ideals.

Are you unwilling to acknowledge that, because man has its faults, cancer might be really fucking hard to cure? You're not a doctor, you're not a scientist, so who the fuck are you to say that it's primarily a money-making business as opposed to a prevention business?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.