First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Unit 731 - Worse than the Holocaust?
Scientist Moderator
digs 
38037 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 3/21/09

Allhailodin wrote:


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.


You are right that it is in the past and can't be undone, but I don't believe what we have learned justifies the means. I think we should save what was learned, but we shouldn't have another human testing camp and the testing camps of the past in my opinion, are not justified by the research they have yielded.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 3/21/09

o0James0o 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 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


You're saying instead of waiting for the viruses to cause a problem, we should purposefully infect people and study them now? Then we might as well infect and study people with every disease and virus right now, because we can't just sit here and wait for these diseases to cause a real problem. Doesn't make sense. How about we don't infect anyone on purpose, and figure out how to stop the disease if someone gets it. It saves us the trouble and guilt of purposefully giving it to someone, instead they just get it naturally and we try to find a cure. I don't get how purposefully infecting people makes any sense at all. And what they did in Unit 731 was not trying to figure out a cure, it was just evil.

And evil is the absence of good, like dark is the absence of light, or cold is the absence of heat. Evil doesn't actually exist, it's just a way to describe the lack of good.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/21/09 , edited 3/21/09

digs wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


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.


You are right that it is in the past and can't be undone, but I don't believe what we have learned justifies the means. I think we should save what was learned, but we shouldn't have another human testing camp and the testing camps of the past in my opinion, are not justified by the research they have yielded.


Trival matters like right and wrong and morals are truly meaningless. i personaly think that the data gained justifies it, but doing pointless experiments with no real goal, just killing people is a pointless waste, if your going to waste human lives anyway, at least preform a decent experiment on em before you kill em, try to learn something from them before they die, its less wastefull that way.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/21/09

Yei wrote:


o0James0o 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 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


You're saying instead of waiting for the viruses to cause a problem, we should purposefully infect people and study them now? Then we might as well infect and study people with every disease and virus right now, because we can't just sit here and wait for these diseases to cause a real problem. Doesn't make sense. How about we don't infect anyone on purpose, and figure out how to stop the disease if someone gets it. It saves us the trouble and guilt of purposefully giving it to someone, instead they just get it naturally and we try to find a cure. I don't get how purposefully infecting people makes any sense at all. And what they did in Unit 731 was not trying to figure out a cure, it was just evil.

And evil is the absence of good, like dark is the absence of light, or cold is the absence of heat. Evil doesn't actually exist, it's just a way to describe the lack of good.




You're saying instead of waiting for the viruses to cause a problem, we should purposefully infect people and study them now? Then we might as well infect and study people with every disease and virus right now, because we can't just sit here and wait for these diseases to cause a real problem. Doesn't make sense. How about we don't infect anyone on purpose, and figure out how to stop the disease if someone gets it. It saves us the trouble and guilt of purposefully giving it to someone, instead they just get it naturally and we try to find a cure. I don't get how purposefully infecting people makes any sense at all. And what they did in Unit 731 was not trying to figure out a cure, it was just evil.


Hehe thats kinda how its done, well using monkeys actually, we infect monkeys with various viruses and inject them with various vaccines and cures to see if it works, thats how its done, if they die or dont get better we know it didnt work, if they get better we know it works. If we just waited for someone to come waltsing into a doctors office with a virus and have him say "Ok doc im sick, study me" we would never get anywhere. Nothing would progress, ever. You need to take action for progress to happen.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 3/21/09

Allhailodin wrote:

Hehe thats kinda how its done, well using monkeys actually, we infect monkeys with various viruses and inject them with various vaccines and cures to see if it works, thats how its done, if they die or dont get better we know it didnt work, if they get better we know it works. If we just waited for someone to come waltsing into a doctors office with a virus and have him say "Ok doc im sick, study me" we would never get anywhere. Nothing would progress, ever. You need to take action for progress to happen.



How do we even know the disease exists if no one ever gets it? The disease isn't a concern if we don't even know it exists. People weren't worried about the bird flu or SARS a decade ago, they started the research after the first people got them. After the virus is there they can study it in the people it's already in.
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 3/21/09 , edited 3/21/09

Yei wrote:

You're saying instead of waiting for the viruses to cause a problem, we should purposefully infect people and study them now? Then we might as well infect and study people with every disease and virus right now, because we can't just sit here and wait for these diseases to cause a real problem. Doesn't make sense. How about we don't infect anyone on purpose, and figure out how to stop the disease if someone gets it. It saves us the trouble and guilt of purposefully giving it to someone, instead they just get it naturally and we try to find a cure. I don't get how purposefully infecting people makes any sense at all. And what they did in Unit 731 was not trying to figure out a cure, it was just evil.

And evil is the absence of good, like dark is the absence of light, or cold is the absence of heat. Evil doesn't actually exist, it's just a way to describe the lack of good.


yes, but in a sense, you can study deadly diseases by cutting open those who are already infected. also, what doesnt make sense. is it not better to waste a few lives that would die anyways and means nothing to me to save the majority? (tho i do prefer more to die, hence, warfare). guilt would never be there once it is a common thing. we kills animals for a variety of reasons, is there guilt? what im saying is, if they do get it naturally, why not kill half of those who gets it and save the other half that is worth saving? instead of wasting time and waiting for a cure slowly, cutting them open and study the cause on live human is the best solution.

evil my arse! the world doesnt revolve around good and evil. it is all selfishness for one and selfishness for all.

if youre so against infection upon humans, why not resort to infections on clones?

and what is the difference between good and evil? heck, some call guerrilla terrorists while other call them freedom fighters. whats the difference? none! theyre murders for all i care. if evil doesnt exists, how does good exists? please do enlighten me on that, im so intelligent that i dont even know whats good. all i know is selfishness... ahhh, the humanity!~
10521 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:

Hehe thats kinda how its done, well using monkeys actually, we infect monkeys with various viruses and inject them with various vaccines and cures to see if it works, thats how its done, if they die or dont get better we know it didnt work, if they get better we know it works. If we just waited for someone to come waltsing into a doctors office with a virus and have him say "Ok doc im sick, study me" we would never get anywhere. Nothing would progress, ever. You need to take action for progress to happen.



How do we even know the disease exists if no one ever gets it? The disease isn't a concern if we don't even know it exists. People weren't worried about the bird flu or SARS a decade ago, they started the research after the first people got them. After the virus is there they can study it in the people it's already in.


There are lots of ways to discover viruses and bacteria, humans arent the only animal to get viruses and bacteria, other animals can get them too, so you can study them when they have it. easy, or you can go find it in its natural enviroment, also easy, for example, bats, can host ebola virus, a viral hemorrhagic fever in human's that litterly liqufies your organs as it attempts to convert you into itself, and this virus has a 90% kill rate in humans, but bats can host it no problem, so knowing that just go find a number of bats and search em for signs of ebola. same concept with other animals.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 3/21/09 , edited 3/21/09

o0James0o wrote:

yes, but in a sense, you can study deadly diseases by cutting open those who are already infected. also, what doesnt make sense. is it not better to waste a few lives that would die anyways and means nothing to me to save the majority? (tho i do prefer more to die, hence, warfare). guilt would never be there once it is a common thing. we kills animals for a variety of reasons, is there guilt? what im saying is, if they do get it naturally, why not kill half of those who gets it and save the other half that is worth saving? instead of wasting time and waiting for a cure slowly, cutting them open and study the cause on live human is the best solution.


First of all, how do you know the people you are infecting purposefully are going to die anyways? And how do you know that what you do to them is going to save the majority? If a virus breaks out, you can study the victims, but you cannot torture or doing anything against their will. Study the dead bodies maybe, and then use the data to make a vaccine. But if no one has it yet, why would you infect people with it on purpose? It's not even a problem, and you don't know if it's going to be a problem. If for some reason people can tell the future and foresee a virus killing many people, and the virus hasn't infected anyone yet (this makes no sense at all), then do some tests on mice or pigs. No one has a right to infect another person against their will.

If for some crazy reason they need to cut a human open, while he/she is still alive, to find a cure for the virus (I'm not a doctor, but that doesn't seem like the best way to find a cure, studying the virus directly, like under a microscope or in mice seems more logical), then they must do it without torturing that person. So not like in Unit 731, with no anesthesia and keeping them alive in horrible pain for days.


evil my arse! the world doesnt revolve around good and evil. it is all selfishness for one and selfishness for all.

if youre so against infection upon humans, why not resort to infections on clones?

and what is the difference between good and evil? heck, some call guerrilla terrorists while other call them freedom fighters. whats the difference? none! theyre murders for all i care. if evil doesnt exists, how does good exists? please do enlighten me on that, im so intelligent that i dont even know whats good. all i know is selfishness... ahhh, the humanity!~


Evil just describes the lack of good. Good is what is righteous or what is moral, everyone knows what is good and what is bad. Killing people is not good. Feeding the poor is a good thing. This is innate, people feel bad when they see others suffering, you feel good when you see justice, or something righteous.
10521 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:

First of all, how do you know the people you are infecting purposefully are going to die anyways? And how do you know that what you do to them is going to save the majority? If a virus breaks out, you can study the victims, but you cannot torture or doing anything against their will. Study the dead bodies maybe, and then use the data to make a vaccine. But if no one has it yet, why would you infect people with it on purpose? It's not even a problem, and you don't know if it's going to be a problem. If for some reason people can tell the future and foresee a virus killing many people, and the virus hasn't infected anyone yet (this makes no sense at all), then do some tests on mice or pigs. No one has a right to infect another person against their will.


Thats why you use monkeys. They cant complain about it, and they have no rights, its a win win
237 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / a dot in the Milk...
Offline
Posted 3/21/09

Allhailodin wrote:


Yei wrote:

First of all, how do you know the people you are infecting purposefully are going to die anyways? And how do you know that what you do to them is going to save the majority? If a virus breaks out, you can study the victims, but you cannot torture or doing anything against their will. Study the dead bodies maybe, and then use the data to make a vaccine. But if no one has it yet, why would you infect people with it on purpose? It's not even a problem, and you don't know if it's going to be a problem. If for some reason people can tell the future and foresee a virus killing many people, and the virus hasn't infected anyone yet (this makes no sense at all), then do some tests on mice or pigs. No one has a right to infect another person against their will.


Thats why you use monkeys. They cant complain about it, and they have no rights, its a win win

I would complain-that's animal cruelty

10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/21/09

Saelene wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Yei wrote:

First of all, how do you know the people you are infecting purposefully are going to die anyways? And how do you know that what you do to them is going to save the majority? If a virus breaks out, you can study the victims, but you cannot torture or doing anything against their will. Study the dead bodies maybe, and then use the data to make a vaccine. But if no one has it yet, why would you infect people with it on purpose? It's not even a problem, and you don't know if it's going to be a problem. If for some reason people can tell the future and foresee a virus killing many people, and the virus hasn't infected anyone yet (this makes no sense at all), then do some tests on mice or pigs. No one has a right to infect another person against their will.


Thats why you use monkeys. They cant complain about it, and they have no rights, its a win win

I would complain-that's animal cruelty



So ? If we didn't use monkeys, medical science would never progress, so not using them isn't an option.
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 3/21/09 , edited 3/21/09

Yei wrote:





o0James0o wrote:

yes, but in a sense, you can study deadly diseases by cutting open those who are already infected. also, what doesnt make sense. is it not better to waste a few lives that would die anyways and means nothing to me to save the majority? (tho i do prefer more to die, hence, warfare). guilt would never be there once it is a common thing. we kills animals for a variety of reasons, is there guilt? what im saying is, if they do get it naturally, why not kill half of those who gets it and save the other half that is worth saving? instead of wasting time and waiting for a cure slowly, cutting them open and study the cause on live human is the best solution.


First of all, how do you know the people you are infecting purposefully are going to die anyways? And how do you know that what you do to them is going to save the majority? If a virus breaks out, you can study the victims, but you cannot torture or doing anything against their will. Study the dead bodies maybe, and then use the data to make a vaccine. But if no one has it yet, why would you infect people with it on purpose? It's not even a problem, and you don't know if it's going to be a problem. If for some reason people can tell the future and foresee a virus killing many people, and the virus hasn't infected anyone yet (this makes no sense at all), then do some tests on mice or pigs. No one has a right to infect another person against their will.

If for some crazy reason they need to cut a human open, while he/she is still alive, to find a cure for the virus (I'm not a doctor, but that doesn't seem like the best way to find a cure, studying the virus directly, like under a microscope or in mice seems more logical), then they must do it without torturing that person. So not like in Unit 731, with no anesthesia and keeping them alive in horrible pain for days.

heck, even if they dont die, majority are contagious, hence, why not kill them all or study them by killing half or so of them? by knowing the disease sooner, there would be less victims. says who? torture? dont make me laugh. its experiments to help the humanity. what gives better results? the live or the dead? do you not get this? we need to know because no one have it yet. if when people have it and we still dont know, it would breed more victims! and we have the right to infect mice and pigs? really funny ma'am.

studying virus under microscope might allow one to know the virus's attributes, but it doesnt help much on the results of the infection. well, we sure can test them on cells, but whats better? a live human or a cell?

"MIGHT IS RIGHT!"




evil my arse! the world doesnt revolve around good and evil. it is all selfishness for one and selfishness for all.

if youre so against infection upon humans, why not resort to infections on clones?

and what is the difference between good and evil? heck, some call guerrilla terrorists while other call them freedom fighters. whats the difference? none! theyre murders for all i care. if evil doesnt exists, how does good exists? please do enlighten me on that, im so intelligent that i dont even know whats good. all i know is selfishness... ahhh, the humanity!~


Evil just describes the lack of good. Good is what is righteous or what is moral, everyone knows what is good and what is bad. Killing people is not good. Feeding the poor is a good thing. This is innate, people feel bad when they see other suffering, you feel good when you see justice, or something righteous.




very funny ma'am, i really did laughed at this.

morals you say? i call those brainwash.

so youre saying its obvious? well, then do tell me the obvious.

ohh? so breeding like rabbits is good?

so giving away free money and/or goods is good?

ohh? they do? if they do then why are there gladiator matches and so many people comes around to watch fighting?

and what is justice and righteous? is it not another term for good? very funny indeed.
237 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / a dot in the Milk...
Offline
Posted 3/21/09

Allhailodin wrote:


Saelene wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Yei wrote:

First of all, how do you know the people you are infecting purposefully are going to die anyways? And how do you know that what you do to them is going to save the majority? If a virus breaks out, you can study the victims, but you cannot torture or doing anything against their will. Study the dead bodies maybe, and then use the data to make a vaccine. But if no one has it yet, why would you infect people with it on purpose? It's not even a problem, and you don't know if it's going to be a problem. If for some reason people can tell the future and foresee a virus killing many people, and the virus hasn't infected anyone yet (this makes no sense at all), then do some tests on mice or pigs. No one has a right to infect another person against their will.


Thats why you use monkeys. They cant complain about it, and they have no rights, its a win win

I would complain-that's animal cruelty



So ? If we didn't use monkeys, medical science would never progress, so not using them isn't an option.

Why don't you just volunteer.
10521 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / In your room stea...
Offline
Posted 3/21/09 , edited 3/21/09

Saelene wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Saelene wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Yei wrote:

First of all, how do you know the people you are infecting purposefully are going to die anyways? And how do you know that what you do to them is going to save the majority? If a virus breaks out, you can study the victims, but you cannot torture or doing anything against their will. Study the dead bodies maybe, and then use the data to make a vaccine. But if no one has it yet, why would you infect people with it on purpose? It's not even a problem, and you don't know if it's going to be a problem. If for some reason people can tell the future and foresee a virus killing many people, and the virus hasn't infected anyone yet (this makes no sense at all), then do some tests on mice or pigs. No one has a right to infect another person against their will.


Thats why you use monkeys. They cant complain about it, and they have no rights, its a win win

I would complain-that's animal cruelty



So ? If we didn't use monkeys, medical science would never progress, so not using them isn't an option.

Why don't you just volunteer.


Why should I personally volunteer, when I can just use a monkey ? Seems like a better situation to me.
237 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / a dot in the Milk...
Offline
Posted 3/21/09

Allhailodin wrote:


Saelene wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Saelene wrote:


Allhailodin wrote:


Yei wrote:

First of all, how do you know the people you are infecting purposefully are going to die anyways? And how do you know that what you do to them is going to save the majority? If a virus breaks out, you can study the victims, but you cannot torture or doing anything against their will. Study the dead bodies maybe, and then use the data to make a vaccine. But if no one has it yet, why would you infect people with it on purpose? It's not even a problem, and you don't know if it's going to be a problem. If for some reason people can tell the future and foresee a virus killing many people, and the virus hasn't infected anyone yet (this makes no sense at all), then do some tests on mice or pigs. No one has a right to infect another person against their will.


Thats why you use monkeys. They cant complain about it, and they have no rights, its a win win

I would complain-that's animal cruelty



So ? If we didn't use monkeys, medical science would never progress, so not using them isn't an option.

Why don't you just volunteer.


Why should I personally volunteer, when I can just use a monkey ? Seems like a better situation to me.

Does it? I know that animals don't have the right to reason, but they still have a right to live how they want to without having to become a test subject, since your not against the whole idea-it seems quite right to volunteer.

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