Debate Super Safari and Ebola HERE

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:34 pm

I think we should discuss the ethics of suggesting that a Lad wear a tin foil hat while dancing in a thunder/lightning storm.

If the Lad gets struck by lightning, I think it is very UNETHICAL that no recorded the event so that we actually get to see it happen.

Struck by lightning while wearing a tinfoil hat vs. Ebola from a tourist attraction cave filled with bat shit....hmmmmm....let me think about it.
Either one is fine by me and just as plausible.

The Lad needs to go. He needs to take a video of the cave filled with batshit so that the NATGEO channel can offer up some reward money for his video. It is the only ETHICAL solution when the Lad realizes that his first travel adventure was not as rewarding as originally advertised.

It is the thrill of the open road. The wind in the Lads hair. The experience of new places. The wonderful sense of freedom that travel brings to a person. The benefits and memories of this safari will last the Lad a lifetime. Send him to the bat cave!!!

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:05 pm

Sorry to be pendantic, but Kitum cave has NEVER been associated with an outbreak of Ebola - as myself and others have mentioned it is the Marburg virus that has been found there twice, which is a less virulent disease. It is still a nasty disease no denying that, but it is not Ebola.

With regards to transmission of the disease, there is no evidence that it is airborne. The reston strain of Ebola is hypothesised to have been airborne, but could have been spread by other methods. Even if it was, it didn't kill anyone and there is no evidence that the really nasty strains can be spread via aerosol method. Most of the big outbreaks have been because of poor hospital hygiene, the reuse of needles etc or because of people eating infected bush meat.

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:50 pm

Anyone who seriously feels sorry for the lads needs to see THIS THREAD Embarassed

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:23 pm

Enough already.

The lad has chosen to go to the damn cave to steal some money which doesn't exist, much like the huge pile of cash he claims will be forthcoming if his side of the venture is successful.

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:30 pm

Ok folks, either we talk about scambaiting ethics, or we start a new forum to study the history of medicine.

This thread is beginning to start its third cycle.

Any new opinions? Or should we close this out and wait (a few days) for the next ethics thread?

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 10:52 pm

As I said before (and got rather shouted down for it) I think that while this has been a useful ethics thread - and I do like ethics threads I have created a couple before - we've basically answered our questions and the fears of most people have been suitably exstinguished.

1) The lad is choosing to go to the cave, nobody's putting a gun to his head.

2) The chances of getting Ebola seem to be about 0.00000000000000001%.

If the chances of him getting Ebola were say 25% then I think it would be a very big ethical dilemma. But to be honest, it just sounds like he's going to a pretty cool place that so many other people go to each and every year, and come away perfectly fine.

I vote to lock it.

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:55 pm

Scam Patroller wrote:

do they sell Ebola in jars so he can take some souveneirs
back to the cafe for the lads?

They are offering it in small - medium & large botttles along
with spray cans .... Twisted Evil

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:56 pm

I don't know if anyone heard, but there is a safari that goes along with the ethics thread. Rolling Eyes

EDIT: I will say... I appreciate everyone's concern. But basically, if you don't like the safari, just don't read about it. I respect that there are people out there who think differently. That's fine; you have voiced your opinion. Someone gracefully (not sarcastic) pointed out your viewpoint to me in a way that I could see. I don't agree, but fair enough. But this has been beaten to death. Since it was our (YW, BW and me) that started this thread, can I request this be locked?

And also, if I personally spend the time to gather all of the ethics debates that have turned into 9 page debates, can we add them to the ethics sticky- so we can have them all in one place?

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:11 am

jojobean wrote:

And also, if I personally spend the time to gather all of the ethics debates that have turned into 9 page debates, can we add them to the ethics sticky- so we can have them all in one place?

I think that's a good idea. Perhaps at the bottom of the existing ethics sticky we could have various links to past ethics debates on various topics. I suggest then that we either lock the topics or expect them to be necroed though.

Perhaps something like:

- Should you send your lad to somewhere that has a link to Ebola? - http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=117187

- Bait for Charity? - http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=116168

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:51 am

Don't y'all think this thread will just die of its own accord pretty soon? In my opinion it's stayed alive as long as it has because the people who are against ethics threads keep asking for it to be locked. As the proponents of unpopular baits are fond of saying, and as I have pointed out several times, "If you don't like it, don't read it!"
Locking it smacks of censorship. It's divisive and all the rest. How about those who don't like the thread just stop posting in it. A mod can keep an eye on it and if it somehow gets out of hand, then lock it, but my guess is that it will run its course and go away if those who don't like it just ignore it.

Also, there will always be ethics threads, and I for one think that's a good thing. Would you want every one of the hundreds of active members on this board to be totally of one mind about everything? I hope not!

Onward, to care for my crow!

Master Baiter Joined: 03 Jul 2007 Posts: 158

ChocolateChip_Wookie wrote:

b) If we intentionally send a lad to a place that we know has been linked with Ebola (however tenuous) then that makes us responsible for the results. I dont care if the Lad catches Ebola and wouldnt care if it was he who was the only person to suffer, but he wouldnt be. He would spread the illness around all over the place whilst searching for a doctor. Doctors and nurses (and religious orders) would be in the direct firing line along with hundreds of other innocent people. In my view, the whole place should be quarantened until the vector is found, but it isnt unfortunately.

The problem here is the lack of confidence in current day medical procedures. I simply cant see a doomsday scenario playing out.

SARS was airborn and persistant. Despite the panic, the medical professionals handled the new deadly outbreak with the utmost professionalism, reducing its ability to spread when it was a really easy disease to spread. You could catch it like the common cold.

H5N1 is digestible. You can get it the same way you get Tapeworm with one glaring difference. Cooking the meat did not destroy the disease, but again, it was handled in such a professional manner that no matter where the birds flew too, the spread of this also deadly and easy to catch disease was limited way lower than its potential.

AIDS is harder to spread than both of them. Its bloodborn and thus needs to be spread via actual transfer of infected fluids. Thats no where near as easy to give to a person as Ebola, SARS or H5N1 would be, yet it is the biggest killer of all 4 diseases.

Why? Who can say for sure. Maybe they are trying to ensure the easily communicable diseases are nipped in the butt as a higher importance. Maybe its because HIV has less noticible symptoms to start off with making it easy to infect others before you even know you have it. Maybe we could take it as a sign from god that says you shouldnt do the dirty until you are married. But it does kill 100% of the time, and its 100 times harder to catch. Yet, living in Africa there is far more chance of him catching aids on his own back rather than him getting Ebola at Kitum Cave.

Again, I dont wish this kind of stuff on anyone. I am more a traditionalist. I prefer death by 1000 cuts (preferably rolled in sugar and dropped into a bull ants nest after inflicted - ok, maybe I am more a sadist, LOL), but in the grand scheme, when discussing sending a lad to Kitum Cave during a bait - I believe the absoloute most they will achieve from it is the initial goal of baiting - wasting a whole lot of the lads time.

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:41 am

Since no one has said this so far, can a relative newbie jump in for a moment with a couple of observations? Hearing no objections... Very Happy

JoJo, YW, and BW are three of the most experienced and, as far as I can see, most respected baiters on this board.

None of them have openly remarked that they are trying to kill this mugu.

They research their baits in great depth.

Somewhere along the line I suspect that they determined that whatever threats lie in Kitum Cave are not going to do their lad in unless he is stupid enough to drink bat shit or get stepped on by an elephant. There is a certain amount of flair attached to all the baits on YW's website, but sure death is not one of the featured attractions.

I for one am willing to sit back with a beverage and box of popcorn and enjoy what promises to be a most interesting bait.

And to repeat a timeworn phrase on this board, if you're not comfortable with it, don't do it.

Hopefully that's my last post in an ethics thread. I'm sure one of the mods will remind me of that statement at some future date.

** ACCOUNT CLOSED ** Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 766

fawnykate wrote:

Doctor X , that was a very illuminating high brow response you posted.

Noblesse oblige.

Quote:

I feel I must point out though, that I think you are mistaken when you state that people don't come HERE to debate the ethics of the the safari in question.

Save I did not make that argument. I stated:

Moi wrote:

I think "why people don't like" ethics debates is because they do not come HERE for them. Furthermore ethics debates tend to degenerate into odd, if not ridiculous hypotheticals.

which is more of an observation regarding the negative attitude of some towards ethics debates. I rather agree with the opinion of CC_W:

ChocolateChip_Wookie wrote:

I would like to point out that the discussion of ethics should never be dismissed. It is what makes us human and if we begin to disregard the discussion and simply refer people to previous threads, then this is no-longer a 'discussion board' and has become a closed shop filled with people who have preconceived notions of right and wrong.

I further agree with your opinion--and pug's and others--on those who do not "like" threads should simply not post in them. Posting complains is rather pointless since they merely serve to "bump" them. Similarly, does "locking" such threads. One cannot declare a discussion "solved" by mere fiat, by "turning off the mike," or declaring one is "bored." Threads die of their own accord; unless the thread is discussing something against the rules then best to let them run its course.

Quote:

Other forums I frequent actually ban religious or political debates, . . .

As does HERE, but people are people, and it does not always happen. One may declare an opinion that agrees with one's personal religious/political/philosophical/inebriated views is therefore "objective" and should seen as "reasonable" by all. To debate that necessarily involves discussing the sources of those, and it runs the risk of going further.

To which, you suggestion of a separate section may be best?

As for this SPECIFIC topic, as I have pontificated previously with parsimonious pedagogical [Get on with it!--Ed.] the Lads get what they deserve. ALL that they do, they do to STEAL and HARM [No shouting.--Ed.] victims. Not that you disagree with that, I just want to make sure I am clear on this point.

Or as asiaguy put it:

asiaguy wrote:

It is the thrill of the open road. The wind in the Lads hair. The experience of new places. The wonderful sense of freedom that travel brings to a person. The benefits and memories of this safari will last the Lad a lifetime. Send him to the bat cave!!!

Indeed. Bon voyage 'n all.

--J.D.

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:52 am

Well said, Doctor! Good post.

Forever n00b Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 432

I love ethics threads. For those of you who don't know me, my previous position on lad pain was rather weak. After a little exposure to the lads my current position is this: It is highly unethical not to wish upon the lads every ounce of pain, humiliation, torture, suffering and death that can be bestowed. They are worthless vermin. One could only hope that the lad in this instance would scoop up a can of bat shit containing some foul, horrendous disease, and take it back to the internet cafe to share with his scam mates. "Oh look, my chairman, at the pretty glowing goop I brought back to share with you."

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:42 pm

Slightlyoutofit wrote:

. I don't care about lads. I hate lads. They disgust me. I loathe them and no death or disease is too painful or degrading for them.

Got it? Evil or Very Mad

So if the "lad" turned out to actually be a specky 19 year old white kid from Milwaukee you'ld quite happily let him "ride ol' Sparky" for his henious crime. I somehow doubt it! So I'll jump ahead and ask "What's the difference?"

B-S

Forever n00b Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 432

Bam-Skater wrote:

So if the "lad" turned out to actually be a specky 19 year old white kid from Milwaukee you'ld quite happily let him "ride ol' Sparky" for his henious crime.

Absolutely. What's the difference? A scammer is a scammer, regardless of color or national origin. If a 19 year old punk from Milwaukee thinks it's ok to steal an old ladies life savings, to sparky he should go says I.

** ACCOUNT CLOSED ** Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 766

I mean if he is from Milwaukee his life is not worth living.

Now if he came from Boston . . . he could be rehabilitated. . . .

--J.D.

P.S. I would exercise care in assuming there is a racial element underlying what Baiters choose or not choose to do.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:23 pm

As much as I hate to bring this back to the top... I said I would gather some old ethics threads. Here they are. Would it be possible to have these placed in the ethics sticky? That way, there are a lot of them all in one place. Mods- what are your ideas on this?

Quote:

Done. TS
http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=949393#949393

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 6:44 pm

^^^^^
I like that list, especially since two of them are about baits that I have been involved with. This just reinforces that I must be doing something right. Thumbs up

I can't wait until someone start whining about the knifethrowing in the TWAT circus.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:05 pm

@YW aren't you risking the life of an ITP??? Laughing

Yes good list Jojo, and good job TSnerd for quoting the list in the ethics sticky.

Ok, like every ethics thread, if you don't find it ethical, don't do it. If you are reading something you don't find ethical, stop reading it. Stick a fork in this puppy now.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

Quote:

So if the "lad" turned out to actually be a specky 19 year old white kid from Milwaukee you'ld quite happily let him "ride ol' Sparky" for his henious crime. I somehow doubt it!

No ethics thread is ever complete without the accusation (either explicit or implied) that baiters are racist, and the ensuing two pages rebutting it.

Edited: corrected my '-plicit'

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:12 pm

I really think this thread has gotten really silly. Come on now�Ebola??? Last week it was aids from tattoos. The only problem I see is YW,BW, and Jojo forcing this lad at gun point (that is what they are doing right?) to do their bidding. I mean the likelihood of the gun accidentally discharging if far greater then the likelihood of the Ebola thing.

Since there is no gun (as I was being silly) why is this being debated? Do people really want to �force� there own personal ethics on other people? Now that is just not right.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:20 pm

Ghost wrote:

Do people really want to �force� there own personal ethics on other people?

You must not be American, Ghost. Laughing

That is a joke, Ghost asked me to post it after I messaged him that. I am American so it isn't racially motivated also.

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 9:00 pm

Bam-Skater wrote:

So if the "lad" turned out to actually be a specky 19 year old white kid from Milwaukee you'ld quite happily let him "ride ol' Sparky" for his henious crime. I somehow doubt it! So I'll jump ahead and ask "What's the difference?"B-S

You don't know me well enough to make that accusation, pal. Evil or Very Mad

I don't give a flying wether a lad is black, white, yellow, pink or green. A lad is a lad.

The answer to your question? I'd throw the switch myself.
Got it?

Debate Super Safari and Ebola HERE	View next topic View previous topic