Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/21/08 10:19 PM, G-Locked wrote: He initiated a war which killed 50 million people. And I don't think any of you have the moral authority to comment on any positive aspects of this. Join the army, make friends there and then watch them get blown apart. Multiply this time 50 million. Then post comments supporting Hitler.

Just realize that this is not a subject to joke about or take lightly. This is serious, and I would consider this a call to all forum posters to only post on this subject if you have something smart and comprehensible to say.

Moral authority? What the hell...?

So you're saying nobody but a soldier has the right to comment? So watching 50,000,000 people die is supposed to somehow make you smarter and give you the ability to comment?

Why should we get all serious when talking about Hitler? We can make all the jokes we damn please.

If it wasn't for him, there would be no events that would lead up to the awesomeness that is the atomic bomb.

At 4/21/08 09:11 PM, Grammer wrote: Yeah, you do.

Don't have an article. Talking out of my ass.

Experiments on animals have been done for a very long time now, and I have no reason to believe it's ineffective and should be replaced by human testing, which in and of itself is dangerous. Just check my source. It explains to ethical problems in testing vaccines on humans. To test a vaccine, you have to expose the subject to the specific virus to see if the vaccine was effective. Well what if the vaccine doesn't do anything? Now you've got someone infected infected with a disease, when it could've been an animal instead.

If, for example, we want to test a product that's intended for humans, why wouldn't it be more accurate if tested on humans instead of animals?

Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB.

Simply put, it's been proven effective.

I never said that animal testing is not effective. You're right, it is effective to test on animals, but all i've been saying is if a product is intended for humans, isn't it more accurate on humans? You can just skip the animal part.

As for your disease scenario, whose to say what's ethical? So, we'll just put the fucker down. He's expendable.

At 4/21/08 08:30 PM, Lennaerd wrote: It happens..

Happened to me once.

At 4/21/08 08:11 PM, Grammer wrote:

I never said that animal testing is ineffective. I'm just saying that testing on humans would be more accurate,

You still haven't shown how.

for obvious reasons.

You haven't given me any reasons. You've just been saying "This is how it is". You haven't been using logic or a source or any such thing. You're just masking general statements and expecting me to take your word for it.

Do I really have to? If, for example, we want to test a product that's intended for humans, why wouldn't it be more accurate if tested on humans instead of animals? Why would an animal show better results if it's not intended for them?

At 4/21/08 07:19 PM, Grammer wrote: What I'm trying to get across here is that you're not linking me any study or report that shows animal testing is ineffective in any way, shape or form.

I never said that animal testing is ineffective. I'm just saying that testing on humans would be more accurate, for obvious reasons.

At 4/21/08 07:12 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Every living organism deserves respect, poxpower.

Bullshit. Even Osama?

At 4/21/08 05:20 PM, dySWN wrote:
As usual, you seem to be forgetting that religion and science deal with two very different questions:

Science: "Why does this happen?"
Religion: "Why should I do this?"

Why should I do this? So religion just tells you WHY you should do things? So survival and fun aren't reasons enough to live?

At 4/21/08 04:57 PM, Brick-top wrote: Should people have the right to change their appearence to fufil some sort of emotional or physical ambitions.

They already do. You want to take it away for no reason?

At 4/21/08 03:32 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 4/21/08 02:35 PM, hippl5 wrote: Testing on humans is more accurate.

Says who, you?

Unless you're testing pet food, products designed for humans would provide more accurate results if tested on a human.

At 4/21/08 02:22 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 4/21/08 02:15 PM, hippl5 wrote:

At 4/21/08 01:57 PM, Grammer wrote: to test on humans would be morally unacceptable and unnecessary.

So that's the only reason not to? Screw morality.

...and unnecessary. Why test on humans when we can on animals?

Testing on humans is more accurate. I'm not saying testing on animals is completely inaccurate, but humans would provide better results.

At 4/21/08 01:57 PM, Grammer wrote: to test on humans would be morally unacceptable and unnecessary.

So that's the only reason not to? Screw morality.

At 4/21/08 12:42 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

How is caring a skill?

It takes practice and requires patience and discipline.

Is taking a shit a skill too? You need to practice when you're young, and you need the patience and discipline to sit on the shitter. Anything can be a skill then.

The remnants of human civilization will rot adrift for an unknown time. Pretty shitty legacy to leave, no?

And even that will eventually disappear.

Do you really need the "heaven" sugarcoating?

Heaven on earth, yeah.

huh?

You gotta bring heaven here if you want it.

Explain further? What's your idea of this?

At 4/20/08 09:06 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Caring is unique because in order to care one needs patience and discipline, both required to accurately remedy a situation. Practice helps, but a sincere attempt at helping is always caring, no matter the results.

It's unique because few people consistantly express themselves this way, all the time.

And those people bitch about animal rights and hug trees.

I'd have to disagree that nobody could replicate his almost-cure, because we're all products of our respective environments. If the doctor found a cure for cancer, there would be hard evidence he studied to come so close. He would have notes, resources, texts supporting his research. There would be a trail, if he were close at all, a path others would likely follow in their similar quest for a cure.

Where there's a will, there's a way. The devil lies in the details.

Ok then, you beat me on this one, forget what I said before. EVERYONE is expendable.

At 4/21/08 12:34 AM, SEXY-FETUS wrote: What if we were to make say a worker. Alter them to be strong, obediant and capable of understanding complicated instructions, but on top of that took out any emotional sense or sense for self preservation. Would we have removed enough humanity from them to have effectively created a moral slave race?
What if all this is done in a lab situation, all test tubes no need for a pregnancy, just an egg to get it going. Now this is assuming you have no moral objection to stem cell research, so that argument I don't want applied here.
But in the end would it be morally correct to make a slave with many human traits, but lacking humanity?

Your little slave army won't feel bad about doing all your work, so why not? As you said, they don't feel emotion. Hmmm... sounds more like a perfect soldier than a perfect worker.

Why should those people on death row get painless deaths?
If there is zero doubt that the person facing death committed the crime which put them there, they don't deserve to feel less pain than their victim(s).

If I had things my way, we would have public disembowelment, hangings, tortures, and decapitations.

At 4/20/08 09:31 PM, Grammer wrote: I dunno dude, if it were up to me atheists would have civil unions as well. And that's not to say we should "downgrade" what atheists have in any way, CU and gay marriage is the exact same thing omfg.

Same thing, different name? So basically, it's like two kids who can't agree upon the name of a pet?

At 4/20/08 09:06 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: You know with that view, you've morally opened yourself to extermination by those better than you. I'm pretty sure you "don't care" about that, but caring is what makes people unique. Caring is a skill.

Forgot to add on. How is caring unique? You're not the only person capable of caring. By unique skill, I had a different thought in mind. Say there's one guy, whose close to finding a cure for cancer. If he dies, nobody can guess what he was thinking. He would have a unique skill, since nobody can replicate his cure.

At 4/20/08 09:06 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: You know with that view, you've morally opened yourself to extermination by those better than you. I'm pretty sure you "don't care" about that, but caring is what makes people unique. Caring is a skill.

I know that. Just because I think that, doesn't mean I think everyone should be exterminated. How is caring a skill?

Your body is not the sum total of 'you'. Your body exists only in one point at any given time, while your actions will live on forever.

Unless you cause the extinction of a species, your actions won't live forever. If every human were to die, what actions are going to live forever?

Do you really need the "heaven" sugarcoating?

Heaven on earth, yeah.

huh?

At 4/20/08 08:46 PM, dySWN wrote: It's also unethical to experiment on human subjects without going through the proper procedures. One reason that we don't experiment on prisoners more often is that they still have human rights and it would be unethical to try and take advantage of their situation for our own scientific ends. This is why experiments involving human subjects are often required to satisfy a number of official committees

So a person who rapes and murders deserves human rights? Why should it matter if it's unethical? When I picture a "committee" I picture a bunch of old fucks sitting around, deciding what's good and bad for the public, and they get deeply offended if someone says the word "fuck".

At 4/20/08 08:40 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: I think the greatest thing hammered into my head growing up was that life is sacred.

I don't think it is. With the exception of people with unique skills, or world leaders, everyone is expendable. Hell, even world leaders can be replaced.

At 4/20/08 08:23 PM, Grammer wrote: Monkeys have roughly 95% the same DNA as humans. It's not far fetched to think we'd have the same physiological responses.

Wouldn't you prefer results that are as accurate as possible?

How about, humans are not your personal scientific experiments?

It's a waste of money keeping people in prison for the rest of their lives.

At 4/20/08 04:16 PM, Grammer wrote: I have no problem with genetic engineering as long as we don't treat humans as guinea pigs.

We have guinea pigs to treat as guinea pigs

But those might not produce the same results as a human. How about prisoners? Instead of life in prison, they could get tested on.

At 4/20/08 06:59 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Tell me why ice freezes on top and yet stratifies underneath, instead of behaving like other liquid-state molecules.

Not sure about that one. But that doesn't prove the existence of a god, if that's where you're heading.

At 4/20/08 06:21 PM, poxpower wrote: "why is ice cold?" "why are rocks hard?"

Religion answer: God wanted it to be that way.

Scientific answer: Ice has a low temperature. Rocks have a dense molecular structure.

At 4/20/08 06:10 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: "butt buddies"

I don't like that term. Doesn't sound legal enough.

How about "Rectum companions"?

At 4/20/08 05:42 PM, Al6200 wrote: But if he was just staring and she did/said nothing than I can't see what he did wrong.

Article says that they haven't spoke to each other.

I think marriage, gay or straight, is just bullshit,. All it is, is a ceremony and a document saying you love someone. And do you really need to go through that? So a few rights come along with it too. But the ceremony is the worst part.

At 4/20/08 05:29 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: With the absence of religion, what would rise in it's place? Would science be able to posit the same magnitude of questions that have enthralled religious folk for millennia?

And just what the fuck is wrong with "When you die, your corpse will rot your grave."? Do you really need the "heaven" sugarcoating?

As for the creation of everything, so there is no 100% solid scientific answer yet. Why believe some story some men made up, and let it control a portion of your life?

So, this guy gets convicted for staring at a woman.

The story is short. But what the hell... just for looking?

Statue of Liberty.