As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Who do you test: Animals, or Felons?
Picardathon
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Animal testing sucks.
It is a cruel, unusual punishment for 50-100 million animals every year.
Animals who are being tested for, lets say, make-up, have their eyes held open by clips while poisonous chemicals are being put into their eyelids. When they begin tearing, we now know that you shouldn't put a certain amount of that chemical into someone's eye.
But the question is, what alternatives do we have?
I had an argument with a friend who believes that, instead of innocent animals, we should test eitherconvicted felons in exchange for reduced prison times, or for lifers/people on death row in order for them to be productive.
I personally think that, no, human life is special, and even though they're felons they shouldn't be forced to do something so inhumane.
What do you guys think?
(First OP, does it suck?)
It is a cruel, unusual punishment for 50-100 million animals every year.
Animals who are being tested for, lets say, make-up, have their eyes held open by clips while poisonous chemicals are being put into their eyelids. When they begin tearing, we now know that you shouldn't put a certain amount of that chemical into someone's eye.
But the question is, what alternatives do we have?
I had an argument with a friend who believes that, instead of innocent animals, we should test eitherconvicted felons in exchange for reduced prison times, or for lifers/people on death row in order for them to be productive.
I personally think that, no, human life is special, and even though they're felons they shouldn't be forced to do something so inhumane.
What do you guys think?
(First OP, does it suck?)
Picardathon on
0
Posts
Personally, I find nonconsentual testing or testing on captive populations of people crazily abhorrent. I'm also not really sure how someone who honestly and fundamentally finds animal life of higher or equal moral worth than human life can get along in society.
The cruelty of animal testing is greatly exaggerated. They don't torture animals needlessly.
Either way, the answer to your question is no:
If animal testing is torturous, we shouldn't do it to prisoners because we don't torture prisoners for lots of very good reasons.
If animal testing isn't torturous, there's no reason to do it on prisoners instead of animals.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
Anyway. Testing on humans, any humans, I would consider a more effective test than testing on animals. If the product is to be USED on humans, TESTING on humans is by definition going to give you more reliable information than testing on animals. But then again... you know. Testing unproven products on humans.
So here's what I'd do. I don't know if this gets done or if so where it gets done, but here goes. The prisoner thing is fine with me, but I think it's a de-facto forcing if the option goes to lifers: you basically tell them that this is their only way to ever get out of prison, what are they gonna say? No? I want there to be as much freedom of refusal as possible. So you start with the prisoners who did more 'minor' crimes and have less time to go until release. They'll have the end in sight anyway whether they get tested or not, so they will feel they have more freedom to say no. And if they wind up fine, you release a less dangerous person over a more dangerous one. If you get refused, okay, that's cool. You go down the line, working your way through the less dangerous prisoners and if everyone tells you no, THEN you resort to the lifers.
Oh, and if the prisoner had victims (say, someone they robbed, or the family of someone they killed), they get told first and they have the right to keep the prisoner from getting the option at all, and make them serve out their sentence as normal.
EDIT: Actually, though, the FIRST thing you do is those newspaper ads. 'We're testing a new product, and we'll pay you about $1,000 if you play guinea pig for us!' Just make sure you have full disclosure of exactly what's being tested before anyone actually tests anything.
And also, it's deeply morally dubious to consider imposing a dilemma like "rot in prison or let us shoot you up with AIDS". There's a reason that we don't pay people for kidneys in the developed world.
"Why! Why does all the crap we consume have to be tested on animals first? A rabbit doesn't need lipstick! A Rabbit doesn't use hair spray! A monkey doesn't need pills to get revved up for hot monkey sex! It's people man! We're miserable!"
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
we test those on rocks
Tell your friend to eliminate his stupid ass from the gene pool.
Nah man, it's the weasels you gotta look out for. >.>
Victim: "Why sir, does the medicine hurt? What's the chance the guy who burned my house down dies by searing pains?
Prisoner: "I won't test any medicines that may hurt or make me die by searing pains"
Victim: "I only let you test medicines on him if there is a fair chance it will make him cry out in pain. "
There is a reason we don't let victims decide on the punishment or the way in which this punishment is handled. The victim is not neutral or is simply too uninformed to properly punish someone else. In your jurisdictional system, you have have a jury of ~20 people and a well-trained judge to decide on this, but when it comes to potentially life-threatening chemical substances, mvtcdm wants one guy to have a say in this?
This is wrong on so many levels.
I never understood why we want to use lipstick and mascara in the first place, but if there is a use for it, I rather have ten cute little rabbits die for it, than one human being. Whether that human set fire to someone's house or is getting paid for it, his or her life is worth a lot more than that of other species. Naturally, we should not throw away the lives of animals and I would be very pleased if we would stop making new formulas for lipstick and only get rabbits killed for testing new medicines.
I agree, I also cant wrap my head around why we have so many charitys for animals when our nation still has so many homeless. I guess most people get more self-satisfaction out of saving a cute little puppy than a homeless person; in the end this debate will go on until society realizes that all human lives are more valuable than animal's.
I thought it would sound better coming from someone who is not a moron, let alone their king.
animals are rarely reluctant to accept help, and no-one expects anything back later. People are rather different.
Cats are the exception. They're like tiny, furry ninja-people with tails.
I glady do more for homeless animals than the worthless collection of bums and winos that litter the streets of the city I live in. Domestic animals are helpless; with the exception of the mentally ill, homeless people are just losers who do not deserve to be treated as well as they are. I just wish that it could be made illegal to help the homeless at all, so all the bleeding hearts who keep supporting those filthy beggars would stop and the bums would actually have to get the hell out of my neighborhood and work for a living.
And I want to stab people like you for a hobby, but I don't spew this kind of shit all over the forum. Seriously, knock it off. no-one thinks you're a tough guy for hating on the broken.
No, wait, aren't you the same guy who wants to shoot everyone pissing in your garden through the kneecaps?
He wants to test drugs on pedos too, and then presumably send them to the gas chambers. Which leads me to the inevitable conclusion that we're talking to a mildly overweight average-height, average-IQ, middle class white male, who's never gone without a day in his life and is posting from an internet connection paid for by someone else. And yet, he persists in the belief that he's the reincarnation of Thor and could rule the world any time he decided to.
These guys are fun, so long as they stay away from semi-automatics and shopping malls.
I mean, I was in favor of letting prisoners out early for donating an organ - but organs are actually necessary.
Frankly I don't understand the hierarchy of animal rights values being proposed here. We kill millions of animals every year for delicious snacks but woah - woah - medical testing? We'd better do that to people.
But this somewhat offtopic, no?
It doesn't seem particularly off topic to me.
Society seems pretty cool with companies killing and selling animals for food.