First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Unit 731 - Worse than the Holocaust?
Posted 3/21/09 , edited 3/21/09

Allhailodin wrote:

1.) the info from the shrapnel wound experiments are useful because it shows 1, what happens if gone untreated, and 2 how to treat them in the future.


Logically if there's a foreign piece of metal in your body, depending on the penetration area, the depth and what organs have been injured, etc. it might lead to a prompt death, or a severe injury which might be lethal if left untreated; infection, blood loss, etc.

I have no idea why I should throw myself from a cliff, when I already know what I can approximately expect; might end up dead or irreparably/reparably injured.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/21/09 , edited 3/21/09


Not always, there are people who have foreign objects lodged in their brain and their perfectly fine. So its a variable, it depends on a lot of things.
Posted 3/21/09 , edited 3/21/09


I some what agree and disagree with you, if you did watch the whole thing they tested bio weapons on people to see how it will affect them, how long they will live etc. The thing this they mainly did it for torture witch is just to gruesome to even think about and they also did it to see how long people can live like that, what the conditions where for them and so on that it makes me sick T.T but sick things just happen in war. I understand how this would not help medicine but understanding how the human can withstand infections helps them found out a way to resist it in case it was to ever be used against them in war. The last thing I am going to say about war is "war never changes"
Posted 3/21/09
Can the above two users please stop quoting each other and making quote pyramids please?
It makes your posts harder to read for other people.
Posted 3/21/09 , edited 3/21/09

Allhailodin wrote:

Not always, there are people who have foreign objects lodged in their brain and their perfectly fine. So its a variable, it depends on a lot of things.

I said it "might". Still, I don't see how your point should justify the retarded experiments that have been led by Unit 731.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 3/21/09 , edited 3/21/09

Allhailodin wrote:

Look you simply can't avoid human experimentation, without experimenting on humans, virtually nothing would be known about viruses and bacteria, and how they effect humans, and about how to prevent them, so if an outbreak occured, your utterly screwed, If you get sick your screwed as no cures or vaccines would exist. Human experimentation is unavoidable, well i guess you could just use chimps, as their our closest genetic reletaive, but some things might simply not effect chimps the same way they effect humans. Medical science wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today without human experimentation.

But the holocaust was just a mass murder.


People get information on these viruses and diseases not by purposefully infecting other people, but studying those who get them. So if someone gets smallpox, the doctors study the symptoms and observe the samples of the virus, but if no one has it, they are not gonna purposefully throw people's lives away to study the virus. These experiments were done mostly for the development of biological warfare that they could use on other people, it's not like they were figuring out how to cure them. This was evil and disgusting, in no way can it be justified.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/21/09 , edited 3/21/09

Yei wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Look you simply can't avoid human experimentation, without experimenting on humans, virtually nothing would be known about viruses and bacteria, and how they effect humans, and about how to prevent them, so if an outbreak occured, your utterly screwed, If you get sick your screwed as no cures or vaccines would exist. Human experimentation is unavoidable, well i guess you could just use chimps, as their our closest genetic reletaive, but some things might simply not effect chimps the same way they effect humans. Medical science wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today without human experimentation.

But the holocaust was just a mass murder.


People get information on these viruses and diseases not by purposefully infecting other people, but studying those who get them. So if someone gets smallpox, the doctors study the symptoms and observe the samples of the virus, but if no one has it, they are not gonna purposefully throw people's lives away to study the virus. These experiments mostly to develop biological warfare that they could use on people, it's not like they were figuring out how to cure them. This was evil and disgusting, in no way can it be justified.


Studying people who have it, and testing various vaccines and cures and stuff is still human experimentation, while not as extreme its still human experimenting.


What they did was both actual human experimentation and a massive massacre, I'm all for one, not so much for the massacre side of it, but i'm all for making progress. which they did, and some of the data they gathered can also be reverse engineered into possible vaccines and cures and other usefull medical stuff. So yes they did massacre a shitload of people, but usefull progress was made as well, so i'd say it balances itself out for the most part. but your only looking at the massacre side of it, which isn't the only side to it.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 3/21/09

Allhailodin wrote:


Yei wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Look you simply can't avoid human experimentation, without experimenting on humans, virtually nothing would be known about viruses and bacteria, and how they effect humans, and about how to prevent them, so if an outbreak occured, your utterly screwed, If you get sick your screwed as no cures or vaccines would exist. Human experimentation is unavoidable, well i guess you could just use chimps, as their our closest genetic reletaive, but some things might simply not effect chimps the same way they effect humans. Medical science wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today without human experimentation.

But the holocaust was just a mass murder.


People get information on these viruses and diseases not by purposefully infecting other people, but studying those who get them. So if someone gets smallpox, the doctors study the symptoms and observe the samples of the virus, but if no one has it, they are not gonna purposefully throw people's lives away to study the virus. These experiments mostly to develop biological warfare that they could use on people, it's not like they were figuring out how to cure them. This was evil and disgusting, in no way can it be justified.


Studying people who have it, and testing various vaccines and cures and stuff is still human experimentation, while not as extreme its still human experimenting.


What they did was both actual human experimentation and a massive massacre, I'm all for one, not so much for the massacre side of it, but i'm all for making progress. which they did, and some of the data they gathered can also be reverse engineered into possible vaccines and cures and other usefull medical stuff. So yes they did massacre a shitload of people, but usefull progress was made as well, so i'd say it balances itself out for the most part. but your only looking at the massacre side of it, which isn't the only side to it.


Studying people who have it and testing vaccines is not evil, and is actually a nice thing to do. Purposefully giving the disease to someone, against that person's will, is evil. What they did was cruel and evil human experiments, I don't support experiments that cause that much suffering. It was basically the most extreme torture imaginable, and they did this stuff even to children and babies. I support human experimentation if it is not evil and disgustingly cruel. Which means no torture and no purposefully infecting innocent people.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/21/09 , edited 3/21/09

Yei wrote:

Studying people who have it and testing vaccines is not evil, and is actually a nice thing to do. Purposefully giving the disease to someone, against that person's will, is evil. What they did was cruel and evil human experiments, I don't support experiments that cause that much suffering. It was basically the most extreme torture imaginable, and they did this stuff even to children and babies. I support human experimentation if it is not evil and disgustingly cruel. Which means no torture and no purposefully infecting innocent people.


While all you say is true, if you wanna blame someone blame the people at the top of the operation, don't blame the pawns. The pawns are just following orders, hell they were probally told if they didn't do it they'd be experimented on as well. Hell If i was told that if i didn't do it I'd be experimented on id be able to do that to people. But you have to realize while it sounds cruel and shit, after a while to those people it just becomes another job to do, hell even the most self righteous christain would stop being bothered by it after a while, even you would stop being bothered by it after a while, as it is just becomes another job. every time you kill it becomes easier you know. People who think they could never possibly do any of that could do it without problems under the right circumstances. So don't blame the pawns, blame the people on top.
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 3/21/09

Junglizm wrote:




o0James0o wrote:

hmm, i believe youre definition is incorrect. to me, humane means "having qualities befitting human beings"


Well, yes; but this would mean you are contradicting yourelf:

humane definition

hu·mane (hyo̵̅o̅ mān′, yo̵̅o̅-)

adjective

1. having what are considered the best qualities of human beings; kind, tender, merciful, sympathetic, etc.

All definitions of the word relate the qualities to being kind, compassionate, etc.. The experiments done on the prisoners were none of these things.

2. of or pertaining to humanistic studies.

ohh please sir please, definition 1 is idealistic... really, can you not see the word "human" in "humane"?





o0James0o wrote:

hmm, so youre saying that it is better to test on the "outcasts" instead of the "majority"? sir, i do think that this was done in WWII, and that is before 1945. also, it is not a waste of life, for life is easy to replenish itself and it is for the good of humanity. also, it helps decrease the population -- for a while, that is.


The date used, (1945) was the year the research ended and data collection ceased due to the unit closing. Since the closing of the facility, upto the current date, none of the germ-warfare and weapons testing experiments have aided us in what can be called our current technological age.

Mass murder is good for humanity? Please explain that point. Nature has its own ways of dealing with population growth, man does not need to get involved.

I don't understand what you mean when you talk about outcasts/majority. If you would mind explaining?


really? so none aided us now but aided us back then... hmm, i rather said its because the germ warfare is no longer the best way to kill humans nowadays. i mean, we have atomic bombs, do we not? and all those satellites weapons pointing on nations.

well, for a while it is. look, 1 less person means 1 less demand for our scarcity resources. though, like i said, for a while, since we do breed like rabbits and in a generation, the population replenishes themselves and grow to even higher rate.

really? if men really doesnt get involved, that would mean being a really religious moron and pray to god while sick, which eventually might cure but majority would die.



o0James0o wrote:

spoils of war sir, spoils of war.
rape helps one's soldiers relax their sexual desires. hence, they would listen to orders better.
dissections helps the scientists study the human body better, hence, saving more people in the long run --- after the war, and during the war , on one's own army, that is, unless the data is leaked.
aye sir, using live human as genuine pigs would give the best results in any human related experiments.


Soldiers that participate in rape are not soldiers you want in your army. They are likely to disobey orders and simply follow a path they choose, to achieve what they want.

The dissections could have been carried out post-mortem, without causing suffering and death; on corpses that were donated to science, not murdered in cold blood. I do understand that human dissections are indeed the best way to study the human body, but refuse to believe in live-dissections. Saving more lives in the long-run? Explain to me how amputating an arm and reattching it elsewhere will save a life, why these vivisections were carried out without even the use of anesthesia, why stomachs were removed when the scientists fully understood the consequences already, etc.


says who? if a general is generous enough to allow soldiers to have fun with the spoils of war, the soldiers would likely fight for the general for the fun they can get after the war. of course, there would always be a need of discipline too.

what gives better results, a live living thing or a dead one?

there would always be tons of experiments that might be seem useless but are actually useful. though many are indeed useless...




o0James0o wrote:

so youre saying that you ought waste a bullet and shot the person one the head for a quick death? heck, we can accomplish much more with other methods and theyre going to die anyways. so whats the difference?

and it doesnt make it any worse, or does it?


No... These are prisoners of war. Had the thought of letting them live ever cross your mind?


well, in order to keep weeds from regenerating, one ought to exterminate its roots.




o0James0o wrote:

and that is the reason why our brain size is smaller than those of cro magnon's.

neither is not a choice, sir. experimenting on human helps the race survive... really, what gives better results? humans or animals that are somewhat like humans?


Experimenting on humans may help the race survive; but most of the experiements carried out by Unit731 are of no use to human survival at all: the injection of horse urine into kidneys, for example.

Once again, this all comes down to ethical reasoning. This is all highly unethical and condemned globally, and rightly so.



sir, you do know that theyre experimenting on how to kill humans more efficiently, correct? also, even if it was meant to be used for killing, people can always find it useful in saving lives. really, like how a pencil is meant for writing can become a deadly weapon.

"Those who prevailed are themselves justice"
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 3/21/09

Yei wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:

Look you simply can't avoid human experimentation, without experimenting on humans, virtually nothing would be known about viruses and bacteria, and how they effect humans, and about how to prevent them, so if an outbreak occured, your utterly screwed, If you get sick your screwed as no cures or vaccines would exist. Human experimentation is unavoidable, well i guess you could just use chimps, as their our closest genetic reletaive, but some things might simply not effect chimps the same way they effect humans. Medical science wouldn't be anywhere near what it is today without human experimentation.

But the holocaust was just a mass murder.


People get information on these viruses and diseases not by purposefully infecting other people, but studying those who get them. So if someone gets smallpox, the doctors study the symptoms and observe the samples of the virus, but if no one has it, they are not gonna purposefully throw people's lives away to study the virus. These experiments were done mostly for the development of biological warfare that they could use on other people, it's not like they were figuring out how to cure them. This was evil and disgusting, in no way can it be justified.


heck, so youre saying we should wait for diseases and viruses to come and then kill tons and try to figure out how to stop them slowly? why not waste half of the lives that would die anyways and cut them open and study them? it would save the other half, would it not?


"Evil exists to glorify the good. Evil is negative good. It is a relative term. Evil can be transmuted into good. What is evil to one at one time, becomes good at another time to somebody else. " - Mencius
Scientist Moderator
digs 
38052 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3/21/09 , edited 3/21/09
What the Nazis and the Japanese did in their human testing labs was an atrocity. It was an evil act and in my opinion was not justified by the data gained. Most of these camps weren't oriented to better humanity or find cures, but rather to develop biological weapons and experiment to make "super soldiers." These people were murdered in extremely cruel and inhumane ways.
Posted 3/21/09
^ You don't have to be redundant. I'm already watching the vid link. sheesh.


You could say, you're already stating the obvious.
10513 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/21/09

digs wrote:

What the Nazis and the Japanese did in their human testing labs was an atrocity. It was an evil act and in my opinion was not justified by the data gained. Most of these camps weren't oriented to better humanity or find cures, but rather to develop biological weapons and experiment to make "super soldiers." These people were murdered in extremely cruel and inhumane ways.


Well since it happened in the past, it no longer matters. And besides the data gained was and is useful, so i'd say between the data and the slaughter, the 2 balance themselves out.
Posted 3/21/09

o0James0o wrote:


2. of or pertaining to humanistic studies.

ohh please sir please, definition 1 is idealistic... really, can you not see the word "human" in "humane"?


We could go back and forth arguing over this definition for hours, but I don't really see the point.

I'm just going to post one of the many dictionary references (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humane) and end it there.


o0James0o wrote:

really? so none aided us now but aided us back then... hmm, i rather said its because the germ warfare is no longer the best way to kill humans nowadays. i mean, we have atomic bombs, do we not? and all those satellites weapons pointing on nations.

well, for a while it is. look, 1 less person means 1 less demand for our scarcity resources. though, like i said, for a while, since we do breed like rabbits and in a generation, the population replenishes themselves and grow to even higher rate.

really? if men really doesnt get involved, that would mean being a really religious moron and pray to god while sick, which eventually might cure but majority would die.


No, i'm saying most of the expirements have never aided us and probably never will. Germ warefare is probably the most effective way to kill the largest amount of people, but has been prohibited, and therefore the little knowledge gained from these cruel experiments has become void, anyway.

Yes, I understand that these experiments were indeed lowering the population and controlling it's growth (a very small amount, atleast); therefore less resources are used. I totally understand what you're getting at, but man itself doesn't need to actively kill each other to lower the population growth. Nature will come up with ways itself to limit our growth (through disease, climate change, natural disasters, etc).

I never said man should not get involved when it comes to finding cures for disease, I said man should not get involved with the aim of lowering the population.


o0James0o wrote:

says who? if a general is generous enough to allow soldiers to have fun with the spoils of war, the soldiers would likely fight for the general for the fun they can get after the war. of course, there would always be a need of discipline too.

what gives better results, a live living thing or a dead one?

there would always be tons of experiments that might be seem useless but are actually useful. though many are indeed useless...


We have gone off-topic with the soldier point, but okay. First of all, for the soldier to gain from the rape, they must be pretty messed up mentally and therefore may be good at the killing aspect of being a soldier, but not good at the ethical decision-making aspect, or at order following.

If the dissection takes place on a fresh corpse, that can be prolonged with proper refrigeration/preservation... There is actually, very little difference between the donor being alive or dead.

And you're contradicting yourself with the last point, so i'm not going to bother.


o0James0o wrote:

well, in order to keep weeds from regenerating, one ought to exterminate its roots.


A prisoner of war is not a weed, most are soldiers willing to die protecting their country. This is an incredibly stupid and ignorant statement.


o0James0o wrote:

sir, you do know that theyre experimenting on how to kill humans more efficiently, correct? also, even if it was meant to be used for killing, people can always find it useful in saving lives. really, like how a pencil is meant for writing can become a deadly weapon.

"Those who prevailed are themselves justice"


How is this in any way relevent to the debate? You are actually contradicting yourself once again; by experimenting on how to kill humans more effectively this contradicts your earlier point about these experiments helping the human race survive. A pencil becoming a deadly weapon will not aid the human race in any way.

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.