Chemical Forums
General Forums => Generic Discussion => Topic started by: mrdeadman on May 08, 2006, 06:44:26 PM
-
do you think that it is morally/ethically right to test on animals for the advancement of science? people became pissed off when the doctor at Auschwitz tested on humans. the depth of his research is astounding. what are your thoughts on the matter?
-
There is a big difference between testing on animals and testing on humans. What do you expect people to say to this post?
-
Mice are to primitive for me to really care about.
Human testing occurs all the time though even in this day and age.
-
Human testing occurs all the time though even in this day and age.
Has anyone seen 'The Constant Gardener'? Its a very good movie but I don't know if testing drugs on people on that scale (without them knowing) actually happens or not ???.
-
Mice are to primitive for me to really care about.
Well that is sad for you :'(
Human testing occurs all the time though even in this day and age.
Human testing is not necessarily bad though
-
Human testing occurs all the time though even in this day and age.
Human testing is not necessarily bad though
Unless the humans don't know that they are being tested on.
Has anyone seen 'The Constant Gardener'?
or read it? (just in case you haven't seen/read it- it has virtually nothing to do with gardening!)
-
Unless the humans don't know that they are being tested on.
Of course...
-
Unless the humans don't know that they are being tested on.
Which is what happens in The Constant Gardener.
-
should we use that doctor's research? if we do we justify the means, but we can learn a lot from it.
-
should we use that doctor's research? if we do we justify the means, but we can learn a lot from it.
What doctor? Are you talking about the murderer you mentioned above? Isn't all that research out of date anyway?
-
What doctor? Are you talking about the murderer you mentioned above? Isn't all that research out of date anyway?
whatever you want to call him, sick and sadistic as it was, it still could potentially help society. have you seen some of the bs they do to animals?
-
What doctor? Are you talking about the murderer you mentioned above? Isn't all that research out of date anyway?
whatever you want to call him, sick and sadistic as it was,
Are you talking about my comment or his research? (or both!?)
have you seen some of the bs they do to animals?
No- I don't have enough time to worry about the life of a poor little mouse, let alone thousands of them. Anyway, I thought you were all about helping society, not mice welfare?
should we use that doctor's research?
Depends what its for, and if it will offend anyone (very likely). Was his research in biolgical warfare or medicine or something else? If it was medical research I don't think it could've been that groundbreaking, and even if it was, at that time, i still don't see how it could be useful now.
-
i was talking about his research.
it isn't the mice i was refering to but rather much larger animals.
and the research will be highly offensive to people.
-
as long as the people being tested are consented and agree to the tests it shouldn't really matter. people claim that it's ethically wrong to do testing on humans but someone still has to be the first. would you rather get treated with a newly developed medicine that has only been tested on pigs or one that has actually been tested on humans?
-
i was talking about his research.
Phew :D!
it isn't the mice i was refering to but rather much larger animals.
Well, to be honest, I still don't care as much as I would if the testing was on humans. I am not religious or anything, but I still think that humans are much more 'important' creatures than non-humans, and I even have a dog!
and the research will be highly offensive to people.
In that case I don't think his research should be used. Just out of interest, what was the research on?
-
http://www.mengele.dk/new_page_2.htm
http://www.mengele.dk/
here's a pretty good link: http://www.shoah.dk/doctors/index.htm
their research is probably outdated but that is still some sick stuff.
i agree that humans are more important than nonhumans, well some of them, however, should we really subject animals to the torment that the angels of death subjected their human patients to? i hate peta but there is some pretty screwed up stuff in the world.
-
Sorry for the confusion, i needed to do a little research on Auschwitz before posting. Anyway, i have to agree with mrdeadman in that doing testing on animals doesn't make it any better or more "ethically correct".
Also, the testing done at Auschwitz was done by the Nazis whom believed themselves to be a superior race. Therefore, they most likely believed that the people they were doing testing on were sub-human; not unlike how we think of animals today or how Americans thought of blacks/slaves prior to the civil war. How can you justify testing on animals and look down upon Auschwitz when the Angels of Death were essentially doing testing on animals?
-
Also, the testing done at Auschwitz was done by the Nazis whom believed themselves to be a superior race. Therefore, they most likely believed that the people they were doing testing on were sub-human; not unlike how we think of animals today or how Americans thought of blacks/slaves prior to the civil war.
:o I am pretty sure that Mengele guy knew pretty well that he was 'testing' on humans. The Nazi belief of the Aryan race being superior was an extreme fantasy- there was no brain-washing involved and Mengele, reading up about his background, doesn't seem like the sort of person who would beleive that Nazi crap.
How can you justify testing on animals and look down upon Auschwitz when the Angels of Death were essentially doing testing on animals?
Quite easily (assuming you're talking about animal testing for medical purposes), why? (What the angel of death did was revolting- please read it on the websites mrdeadman posted then think about what you said).
-
If Mendele didn't believe in that "Nazi crap" then why did he join the Nazi party in 1937 and later volunteer to go to a Nazi death camp? That comes directly from mrdeadman's websites.
as far as what Auschwitz did being revolting, i agree. What i'm trying to say is that doing testing on animals is just as bad.
-
Quite easily (assuming you're talking about animal testing for medical purposes), why? (What the angel of death did was revolting- please read it on the websites mrdeadman posted then think about what you said).
i see where you're coming from. it is fairly easy to just let it happen to animals, however the reason i don't think it is all right is i find animals to be superior to many humans. im serious here. i don't think humans deserve to be so (pardon-my-french) f-ed up to the animals. it is like i said before pretty sick sh!t. i don't necessarily think the end result justifies the means all the time. if you look around the internet, particularly at Peta's ( :-X) website then you'll know the kinds of stuff I'm referring to when i say that it is no better than the Auschwitz scheme. don't misunderstand here, i see the other side as well, the scientific advancement opportunities, but i would just like to see the research enacted in different ways.
-
If Mendele didn't believe in that "Nazi crap" then why did he join the Nazi party in 1937 and later volunteer to go to a Nazi death camp? That comes directly from mrdeadman's websites.
as far as what Auschwitz did being revolting, i agree. What i'm trying to say is that doing testing on animals is just as bad.
I read that, but I don't beleive anyone with a functioning brain can beleive that Jews etc. are sub-human. When scientists test on animals, they don't usually inject stuff into their eyes to change to change their colour, they don't normally operate without some form of anesthetic etc etc.
In light of what mrdeadman just said, many animals may seem superior to some humans, but I still think that we should continue testing on animals rather than gathering up all the people mrdeadman doesn't like and test on them (... human rights stuff etc. ;D).
When I talk about testing, I mean humane testing done just to test out new drugs etc. This research saves millions of people's lives and improves the quality of millions of others, like mrdeadman said. I haven't been to Peta's website for ages and I don't feel like visiting right now, but I think many of their pictures aren't actually what goes on in most western civilisation labs. I don't agree that any animal should be treated the way humans were treated in Auschwitz, and most people wouldn't have the mental capacity to treat anything (except maybe a wasp/poisonous ant etc.) in the same way the angel of death treated humans.
-
In light of what mrdeadman just said, many animals may seem superior to some humans, but I still think that we should continue testing on animals rather than gathering up all the people mrdeadman doesn't like and test on them (... human rights stuff etc. ;D).
you make a compelling argument, i particulary thought that this was amusing^ ;D haha. that sounds like a good plan to me.
-
Funny that as soon as this thread appears, this happens: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4753333.stm. This completely spoils the credibility of animal rights activists (not that they had any IMHO).
The People's Petition gives a voice to the silent majority of people in Britain who want to show their support for medical research using animals in the UK.
It's a campaign for people who believe that this research, carried out under stringent animal welfare standards, is essential to the health and quality of life of humans and animals.
If you agree with this, the link for it is here: http://www.peoplespetition.org.uk/.
-
Auschwitz and the other death camps were all terrible. The testing on animals in this day and age usually involves injecting a drug or in some of the lower species genetic modification. I'm not opposed to injecting the drug in the animals because your not harming a person life intentionally and it's not anything like what Mengele did. Mengele performed some crazy experiments on people. Last I checked all we do is inject mice or other animals with a drug and study how they react then perform an autopsy post mortim. We don't inject their eyes with dye or anything like that.
It's fine by me as long as it's purposeful research and not just killing animals or doing things to animals for entertainment.
P.S. PETA to me means People who Eat Tasty Animals ;)
Cows = :)
-
Last I checked all we do is inject mice or other animals with a drug and study how they react then perform an autopsy post mortim. We don't inject their eyes with dye or anything like that.
maybe you need to check again. premarin, a drug just so people don't have hot flashes is made from pregnant horse urine enzymes. this is done by continuously getting horses pregnant and keeping them in small stalls, minimal in movement capabilities to collect their urine. http://www.premarin.org/
:-X there is a really gross picture farther down the page.
yes, i do love a tasty burger.
do you know what they call a quarter-pounder with cheese in France?
-
oh do tell
-
That's not testing on animals though. That's using animals for/in the production of a drug.
-
That's not testing on animals though. That's using animals for/in the production of a drug.
it is all the same.
-
That's not testing on animals though. That's using animals for/in the production of a drug.
technicallities schmecnicallities lol either way that horse thing was gross
-
:P that's why i posted it. maybe if enough people would know about it, then there can be some sort of change.
-
i don't know about a change on a fairly small forum :-\
-
i don't know about a change on a fairly small forum :-\
these people will (hopefully) go out and tell their pals, who'll tell their pals, and so on. it is a genious plan :P
-
i don't know about a change on a fairly small forum :-\
these people will (hopefully) go out and tell their pals, who'll tell their pals, and so on. it is a genious plan :P
what if the people in this forum have no pals huh? have no friends? you need to take into account the chem geek friend uncertainty principle here lol we're geeks and people shy from us smarter ones
-
what if the people in this forum have no pals huh? have no friends? you need to take into account the chem geek friend uncertainty principle here lol we're geeks and people shy from us smarter ones
dang your logic! :P
-
what if the people in this forum have no pals huh? have no friends? you need to take into account the chem geek friend uncertainty principle here lol we're geeks and people shy from us smarter ones
dang your logic! :P
see i told you i'm smart. the world is like an atom. the not-quite-as-inteligent people are the nucleus all packed together sharing a common...everything. we, we are the electrons. granted we're not as smart as these engineers and what-not so we're most likely in the first orbital, but we're the electrons of this giant atom. we all have differing inteligences and ideas and we are separated from the nucleus which makes us better because no one really cares about how a nucleus acts. it's the electrons that make chemistry, except for nuclear chem, of course, which i am a big fan of
-
see i told you i'm smart. the world is like an atom. the not-quite-as-inteligent people are the nucleus all packed together sharing a common...everything. we, we are the electrons. granted we're not as smart as these engineers and what-not so we're most likely in the first orbital, but we're the electrons of this giant atom. we all have differing inteligences and ideas and we are separated from the nucleus which makes us better because no one really cares about how a nucleus acts. it's the electrons that make chemistry, except for nuclear chem, of course, which i am a big fan of
that's the most beautiful thing ive read. :'(
-
i know! i'm a fricken poet that's a master with analogies.
i'm going to put that in my signature also if it will fit
-
i'm going to put that in my signature also if it will fit
as long as you keep the ap chem squad deal, then you can put a dead body in your sig. :P
-
haha there it is
i think i'm going to revise it with capitals and stuff lol
-
capitals are overrated. :o
-
i need some poetic sh!t to put in my sig.
-
correct my "Yours' truely", what's the proper English for that?
-
and there it is, i edited it a tad just to make it PC :P
-
correct my "Yours' truely", what's the proper English for that?
i don't think there's an "e" in truly. nope there's most definately not.
-
genious! that's the kind of thinking that puts you in the second shell
but i'm sure you'll say something soon to release a small photon if you catch my drift ;)
-
correct my "Yours' truely", what's the proper English for that?
i don't think there's an "e" in truly. nope there's most definately not.
haha there's a spell check, i forgot
-
haha there's a spell check, i forgot
the internet owns you.
-
i see light lol yep that was a photon
ryan is going to be like the sun if he can ever express something worthwhile to jump a level
-
i see light lol yep that was a photon
Ryan is going to be like the sun if he can ever express something worthwhile to jump a level
jump a level? Ryan's not an electron. He's barely a gluon in the center of the nucleus of a Francium atom.
-
i see light lol yep that was a photon
Ryan is going to be like the sun if he can ever express something worthwhile to jump a level
jump a level? Ryan's not an electron. He's barely a gluon in the center of the nucleus of Francium atom.
hahahahhaha that's the funniest thing i've heard all day!
ryan would never get this whole thing either lol
-
hahahahhaha that's the funniest thing i've heard all day!
ryan would never get this whole thing either lol
exactly, that just proves my point further and is why he will never rise above gluon status
now ryan needs to come read this so he can get mad which will make me laugh
-
i told you i'm smart
Name a number, any number.
-
see i told you i'm smart. the world is like an atom. the not-quite-as-inteligent people are the nucleus all packed together sharing a common...everything. we, we are the electrons. granted we're not as smart as these engineers and what-not so we're most likely in the first orbital, but we're the electrons of this giant atom. we all have differing inteligences and ideas and we are separated from the nucleus which makes us better because no one really cares about how a nucleus acts. it's the electrons that make chemistry, except for nuclear chem, of course, which i am a big fan of
dude that was the greatest thing that i have ever heard, it fully explains the American HS society at our school. how long did it take you to come up with that?
-
see i told you i'm smart. the world is like an atom. the not-quite-as-inteligent people are the nucleus all packed together sharing a common...everything. we, we are the electrons. granted we're not as smart as these engineers and what-not so we're most likely in the first orbital, but we're the electrons of this giant atom. we all have differing inteligences and ideas and we are separated from the nucleus which makes us better because no one really cares about how a nucleus acts. it's the electrons that make chemistry, except for nuclear chem, of course, which i am a big fan of
dude that was the greatest thing that i have ever heard, it fully explains the American HS society at our school. how long did it take you to come up with that?
as long as it would take to type it lol i'm just naturally deep
-
i told you i'm smart
Name a number, any number.
6
-
i told you i'm smart
Name a number, any number.
6
:)
Wrong, you see?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything
-
Wrong, you see?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything
:D ;D
That is so funny. I love it! That deserves a scooby snack for sure ;)
-
i told you i'm smart
Name a number, any number.
6
:)
Wrong, you see?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Answer_to_Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything
haha ;D i was wondering why you were typing in italics. that was pretty good.
-
Of course that number is 42. I saw the movie. I need to find the book. You had a multiple of it though rctrackstar2007.
Ok, I figured out how to end the animal testing debate. Someone needs to come up with an equation that has values assigned to different points of view and reasons. The number 42, since it's the ultimate number, will have to be what this obscenely detailed equation will have to equal. There will have to be atleast 2 unkowns so that each point of view gets a variable. The unkown with the highest value wins.
First person to come up with it will be rewarded an untold number of scooby snacks, will become extremely famous, and will make tons of money.
-
Of course that number is 42. I saw the movie. I need to find the book. You had a multiple of it though rctrackstar2007.
Ok, I figured out how to end the animal testing debate. Someone needs to come up with an equation that has values assigned to different points of view and reasons. The number 42, since it's the ultimate number, will have to be what this obscenely detailed equation will have to equal. There will have to be atleast 2 unkowns so that each point of view gets a variable. The unkown with the highest value wins.
First person to come up with it will be rewarded an untold number of scooby snacks, will become extremely famous, and will make tons of money.
a multiple of 42 is good enough for gov't work lol
and i never saw the movie so i couldn't have gotten that one
and x + y = 42, i win ;D
-
first off, 6 is not a multiple of 42, it is a divisor or factor of 42
for the equation, X + Y = 42 could have X and Y each equal to 21 resulting in no winner so... XYZ=42 where X and Y represent each side of the debate and Z is the number of scooby snacks each person that reads this should give me. Variables must be whole numbers X, Y, and Z equal 2, 3, and 7 respectively and you all owe me 7 scoobies. Mwahahahahaaaaaaaa.
-
first off, 6 is not a multiple of 42, it is a divisor or factor of 42
for the equation, X + Y = 42 could have X and Y each equal to 21 resulting in no winner so... XYZ=42 where X and Y represent each side of the debate and Z is the number of scooby snacks each person that reads this should give me. Variables must be whole numbers X, Y, and Z equal 2, 3, and 7 respectively and you all owe 7 scoobies. Mwahahahahaaaaaaaa.
[soup nazi]NO SNACKS FOR YOU![/soup nazi]
-
first off, 6 is not a multiple of 42, it is a divisor or factor of 42
for the equation, X + Y = 42 could have X and Y each equal to 21 resulting in no winner so... XYZ=42 where X and Y represent each side of the debate and Z is the number of scooby snacks each person that reads this should give me. Variables must be whole numbers X, Y, and Z equal 2, 3, and 7 respectively and you all owe 7 scoobies. Mwahahahahaaaaaaaa.
change the Z variable to how many scoobies you should shove up your :o and i think we have an equation going here
-
definitely dude, that would have to be the greatest equation ever created :P