Yes, also the earth could be hit by a rouge uncharted meteorite, I'm not implying that's going to happen though. What happened during the period of time you brought up that is relevant to the discussion?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look it's big red text!
Now that being said. Ponies.
I supposed because they get benefits if they choose so, fine. But it really depends on the experiments from then on. There's a lot of things to take into account, although I'm sure many of them have already been brought up. Morals, dangers, etc. All that stuff.
"Listen here prisoner, we were given a task to complete which involves experimenting on human bodies.We need a test subject like you.You have the right to accept or deny. If you accept and experiment goes according to plan your sentence will be down to {insert number of years here}. However there is a chance that you will die and we will not be accountable for your death. Make your choice."
If you force them to do it and kill them in the process you would be no better to them. So if we follow basic human rights everything would be fine.
It's immoral, but efficient. And by immoral, i don't mean that it's not nice to hurt people.
I mean that they were given that fate as punishment for their actions. It could be viewed as disrespectful to their victims. That said, i think they should be used, but only if given a choice in the matter.
I'd say yes. Who WOULDN'T want to see convicts with make-up on?! And more convicts being tested on means less innocent creatures being subjected to wearing Max Factor.
Yea! Why should vicious, mindless innocent animals suffer!
it should be the possibly-innocent convicts!
/logic
:biggrin.gif:
wait... somebodies knocking on my door.
brb...
!
Wtf!
They poured a bucket of animal blood on me.
Wait, where did they get that animal blood...?
OH MY GAWD!
PETA collects animal blood by the bucket!
Those monsters!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You are now reading this. You just lost the game.
You have just read this. You are also manually breathing.
Apologies, I should have placed a /sarcasm or something as you obviously took my post in seriousness. Think about it.... Charles Manson with blusher and mascara on REALLY wouldn't be a pretty sight.
My fault, actually.
I myself forgot to add /sarcasm. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You are now reading this. You just lost the game.
You have just read this. You are also manually breathing.
Why not? Because the day we justify "well, he's a rapist/murderer! Let him suffer!" is the day we start going down hill. I hate to fall to the slippy slope argument, but no man or woman deserves to have some untested chemical injected into him/her, regardless of what they did. You can say they're going die anyways, but at least they die quick and painlessly.
We put down rabid dogs humanely; if we can't do the same for our own kind, well, that's just plain sad.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Need help building/buying a computer? Shoot me a message.
I do support this, so long as the prisoners agree to it, it should be done. For without a few hundred deaths humanity can not advance. Why not make those deaths of people who have committed a horrible wrong doing?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Founder, Leadership Organizer, Original Leader, and Occasional Diplomat of P.A.E.C.T
Why not? Because the day we justify "well, he's a rapist/murderer! Let him suffer!" is the day we start going down hill. I hate to fall to the slippy slope argument, but no man or woman deserves to have some untested chemical injected into him/her, regardless of what they did. You can say they're going die anyways, but at least they die quick and painlessly.
We put down rabid dogs humanely; if we can't do the same for our own kind, well, that's just plain sad.
You're right. We should feel sympathy for the man who tore his wife into 17 pieces and stapled the parts to trees in a forest. Rabid dogs might bite people, maybe on very rare occasions kill people, and we have to resort to killing them, so that's already wrong. These people have done gruesome things that I can't even imagine WITNESSING let alone doing it. You're right, Jack the ****in' Ripper doesn't deserve to be tested on, yet we can use innocent chimpanzees or whatever animals to test chemicals on.
I feel no sympathy for someone who has murdered another human being. Let the tests begin.
So because they killed someone, possibly extremely painfully, it gets us the right to do the same to them?
Giving a murderer the death sentence I can understand; I support it. Making them die an agonizing death by some untested drug/chemical? At what point do we become worse than the person we're punishing? There is such a thing as the Geneva conventions, and I'm fairly sure it ruled that things like this are inhumane, because, guess what! Doing this to humans isn't right, regardless of how evil they are. They might of committed genocide for all I care; just kill them off quickly and painlessly, and if there is a hell, they can rot there. If not, well, what's torturing them with untested drugs going do for the world? The people they killed/raped/whatever have been effected and there's no changing that. So just be rid of them.
You're right. We should feel sympathy for the man who tore his wife into 17 pieces and stapled the parts to trees in a forest. Rabid dogs might bite people, maybe on very rare occasions kill people, and we have to resort to killing them, so that's already wrong. These people have done gruesome things that I can't even imagine WITNESSING let alone doing it. You're right, Jack the ****in' Ripper doesn't deserve to be tested on, yet we can use innocent chimpanzees or whatever animals to test chemicals on.
I feel no sympathy for the man. But what does testing untested drugs on a murderer going do? Advance science? Ok, well, I guess if it's in the name of science, it must be right.
You also assuming I believe that drugs should be tested on animals. For all you know, I could be completely against that as well.
Now that being said. Ponies.
"Listen here prisoner, we were given a task to complete which involves experimenting on human bodies.We need a test subject like you.You have the right to accept or deny. If you accept and experiment goes according to plan your sentence will be down to {insert number of years here}. However there is a chance that you will die and we will not be accountable for your death. Make your choice."
If you force them to do it and kill them in the process you would be no better to them. So if we follow basic human rights everything would be fine.
back... You take the blue pill, the story ends. You die. You take the red
pill.....you stay in wonderland...and I show you just how
deep the rabbit hole goes.
...
Remember...all I'm offering you is the truth, nothing
more.
yes, they should, but at their choice.
They could die knowing they helped humanity, or die being an all out criminal.
You have just read this. You are also manually breathing.
Science must advance.
I mean that they were given that fate as punishment for their actions. It could be viewed as disrespectful to their victims. That said, i think they should be used, but only if given a choice in the matter.
That's my server.
Yea! Why should vicious, mindless innocent animals suffer!
it should be the possibly-innocent convicts!
/logic
:biggrin.gif:
wait... somebodies knocking on my door.
brb...
!
Wtf!
They poured a bucket of animal blood on me.
Wait, where did they get that animal blood...?
OH MY GAWD!
PETA collects animal blood by the bucket!
Those monsters!
You have just read this. You are also manually breathing.
My fault, actually.
I myself forgot to add /sarcasm. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
You have just read this. You are also manually breathing.
Economic decline != overall goverment instability
There are other factors that played in as well.
Why not? Because the day we justify "well, he's a rapist/murderer! Let him suffer!" is the day we start going down hill. I hate to fall to the slippy slope argument, but no man or woman deserves to have some untested chemical injected into him/her, regardless of what they did. You can say they're going die anyways, but at least they die quick and painlessly.
We put down rabid dogs humanely; if we can't do the same for our own kind, well, that's just plain sad.
Or escape.
Leadership Organizer, Original Leader,and Occasional Diplomatof P.A.E.C.TYou're right. We should feel sympathy for the man who tore his wife into 17 pieces and stapled the parts to trees in a forest. Rabid dogs might bite people, maybe on very rare occasions kill people, and we have to resort to killing them, so that's already wrong. These people have done gruesome things that I can't even imagine WITNESSING let alone doing it. You're right, Jack the ****in' Ripper doesn't deserve to be tested on, yet we can use innocent chimpanzees or whatever animals to test chemicals on.
So because they killed someone, possibly extremely painfully, it gets us the right to do the same to them?
Giving a murderer the death sentence I can understand; I support it. Making them die an agonizing death by some untested drug/chemical? At what point do we become worse than the person we're punishing? There is such a thing as the Geneva conventions, and I'm fairly sure it ruled that things like this are inhumane, because, guess what! Doing this to humans isn't right, regardless of how evil they are. They might of committed genocide for all I care; just kill them off quickly and painlessly, and if there is a hell, they can rot there. If not, well, what's torturing them with untested drugs going do for the world? The people they killed/raped/whatever have been effected and there's no changing that. So just be rid of them.
I feel no sympathy for the man. But what does testing untested drugs on a murderer going do? Advance science? Ok, well, I guess if it's in the name of science, it must be right.
You also assuming I believe that drugs should be tested on animals. For all you know, I could be completely against that as well.