Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oops, didn't see the other pages. Irrelevant comment above, ah well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Nazi's experemented on people you know. And lets face it we don't want to go down that path do we!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    The Nazi's experemented on people you know. And lets face it we don't want to go down that path do we!
    Nothing remotely dark or sinister about the first alternative

    http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/3450/viv.html
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    The Nazi's experemented on people you know. And lets face it we don't want to go down that path do we!
    no we don't!

    What are your view points on the use of the Nazi data?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It depends, if you mean use of say rocket technology then i'd say fair enough use it, but in terms of data obtained from the death's of other humans i say burn the data, seriously don't care whats on it nothing is worth the suffering that they put people through.

    Its a tough question though really isn't it, its easy for me to say burn it becouse i'm healthy, but if i was terminally ill and someone said the cure was in the note's created from the deaths of others maybe self presevation would kick in. Tough question.

    how about you?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    It depends, if you mean use of say rocket technology then i'd say fair enough use it, but in terms of data obtained from the death's of other humans i say burn the data, seriously don't care whats on it nothing is worth the suffering that they put people through.

    Its a tough question though really isn't it, its easy for me to say burn it becouse i'm healthy, but if i was terminally ill and someone said the cure was in the note's created from the deaths of others maybe self presevation would kick in. Tough question.

    how about you?

    I was thinking about the studies on G-Force, depressurisation etc, that we all benefit from as airline passengers...

    Me? Personally I think the data should be used for the greater good. Else all those people suffered and died for nothing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If they did it of their own free will and died i'd agree with the usage, but there is something wrong with gaining from the forced death of another person to help save other lives.

    its a bit like seeing someone being murdered and then stealing the wallet of the victim so you can buy lunch. I dunno, too complex to think about this late at night.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    If they did it of their own free will and died i'd agree with the usage, but there is something wrong with gaining from the forced death of another person to help save other lives.

    its a bit like seeing someone being murdered and then stealing the wallet of the victim so you can buy lunch. I dunno, too complex to think about this late at night.
    It's nothing like that! As someone with jewish family (but not in my own bloodline), I've had the oportunity to discuss this with jewish peeps and I agree with them. It's like saying 'We have all this data. The way it was obtained was dispicable, so were going to burn it. Your loved one has died totally in vain.'

    If I were a Jew and had been tourtured/killed by Nazi experimentation I would prefer the data went to good (non-Nazi ) use to benefit man kind.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can I just say, I had a big argument with someone a while back about this. They said that in the end, it's likely that animals will end up with the same rights as humans, because often, the greatest injustices in the world were justified by saying that the victims were "below" humans. In the future, it might be that that animals enjoy the same rights as humans. Even though I can't see how this would happen, neither did the people commiting all those crimes.

    Thought it was worth mentioning.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've got loads of bad rep for saying we shouldn't test medicines on criminals. Well I think you are all sub-human nazis. You have sick, sick minds. Goodbye, I am leaving the board.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest I don't see what makes humans "above" other animals...it's not like we have a purpose in life for the greater good or whatever. Medicines tested on animals go towards prolonging the life of humans so the world is being overrun with dependant people who are too old to work and being kept alive pointlessly. I know it's sad when people die, especially when you're young and very close to them, I have experienced it, but it happens. I think it would be better if we didn't try so hard to lengthen lives so much, then the money/taxes situation would be a lot easier...some people are on old age pensions for 40 years whilst living terrible lives of total dependance on others (eg. having to go for dialysis regularly, needing to be fed and taken to the toilet) which I would absolutely hate personally- and it's horrible to see someone going through that and seeing people losing their minds due to age. It's not really immediately related to animal testing but that's how i feel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    I think its your logic at fault, if everyone stops eating meat then no more animals will be slaughtered for meat (They might all be killed to make way for arable land but thats a one off cull).
    Yes, because to eat each new unit of meat you have to slaughter an animal.

    (Original post by Vladek)
    If everyone stops wanting to be healthy and cured then yes no one will make medicine, no money for it.
    That is illogical, people are not going to refuse to be healthy. To remain healthy there are no alternatives, the medicine has already been tested on animals. For each new item of medicine produced, no animals need to be tested on, thus it would be illogical to stop consuming the particular medicine.

    (Original post by Vladek)
    Its like free range eggs, if everyone buys free range then battery goes out of buisness.
    Yes, because there is an alternative. Also, for each new free range egg a free range chicken has to lay an egg, and for each non-free range egg a non-free range chicken has to lay an egg. The production of non-free range eggs causes continual harm to come to the non-free range chickens; the production of a particular medicine does not cause continual harm to come to the animals, the harm has already been done through the initial testing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vladek)
    The Nazi's experemented on people you know. And lets face it we don't want to go down that path do we!
    Nazi Germany was the first country to have anti-smoking campaigns. Should this country cease all NHS anti-smoking adverts, after all, we don't want to start exterminating jews? Nazi Germany was also the first country to ban smoking on public transport.
    The Nazi's also prohibited sale of alcohol to minors, should we start allowing children to buy alcohol because of this?

    The argument that we should not do something because the Nazis did it is very childish and simply demonstrates a lack of intellectual ability needed to logically debate a point.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    Nazi Germany was the first country to have anti-smoking campaigns. Should this country cease all NHS anti-smoking adverts, after all, we don't want to start exterminating jews? Nazi Germany was also the first country to ban smoking on public transport.
    The Nazi's also prohibited sale of alcohol to minors, should we start allowing children to buy alcohol because of this?

    The argument that we should not do something because the Nazis did it is very childish and simply demonstrates a lack of intellectual ability needed to logically debate a point.
    Is everyone forgetting Godwin's? The moment someone compares the other side to the nazis it's no longer a debate, but a flame war.

    A person further above said they thought that humans were not above animals, and animals should have the same rights. I would ask that person whether they believe ants, wasps, fleas etc should have the same rights as humans. If they do not believe they should, but believe animals such as dogs and cats should, then they are still making a judgement call on some animals being worth more than others. If they believe that the life of a cat is worth more than the life of a flea, then they can hardly criticise people for thinking that the life of a human is worth more than a cat.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kirki)
    Is everyone forgetting Godwin's? The moment someone compares the other side to the nazis it's no longer a debate, but a flame war.

    A person further above said they thought that humans were not above animals, and animals should have the same rights. I would ask that person whether they believe ants, wasps, fleas etc should have the same rights as humans. If they do not believe they should, but believe animals such as dogs and cats should, then they are still making a judgement call on some animals being worth more than others. If they believe that the life of a cat is worth more than the life of a flea, then they can hardly criticise people for thinking that the life of a human is worth more than a cat.
    lol, I had never heard of Godwin's law before, interesting.

    Should a judgement call also be allowed to be made between the worth of citizens and criminals, as suggested earlier in the thread? What about between different races, supposing that current emperical data showed one was superior to the other? Would this justify supposed Nazi experiments on humans? Where would the line be drawn?

    The reason for disagreement with animal testing is not about the worth of an animal compared to the worth of a human, because it is not that decision which is being made. Animal testing involves the proactive removal of animals rights, rights that some people don't think humans have the right to remove.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by benm)
    lol, I had never heard of Godwin's law before, interesting.

    Should a judgement call also be allowed to be made between the worth of citizens and criminals, as suggested earlier in the thread? What about between different races, supposing that current emperical data showed one was superior to the other? Would this justify supposed Nazi experiments on humans? Where would the line be drawn?
    The line, IMO, is drawn by what is human and what is not human, and I believe that the line is drawn there by the government as well. That's not to say that unnecessary abuse of animals should take place, I believe that that is harmful to the person as well as to the animal. I fail to see how treating animals and humans differently will lead to treating races differently etc.

    The reason for disagreement with animal testing is not about the worth of an animal compared to the worth of a human, because it is not that decision which is being made. Animal testing involves the proactive removal of animals rights, rights that some people don't think humans have the right to remove.
    Where do the animals get the rights from? Are they born to them? If a fox attacks another fox, do we lock up the attacking fox because it violated the other's "rights"? The only rights an animal has are what humans give to them, there are no innate "rights" in nature. It's not a case of removing rights, it's a case of not giving the animal rights.

    That's not to say I'm not in favour of protecting animals, I just think it's ridiculous when people employ emotive arguments to claim that animals should have equal rights to humans.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kirki)
    The line, IMO, is drawn by what is human and what is not human, and I believe that the line is drawn there by the government as well. That's not to say that unnecessary abuse of animals should take place, I believe that that is harmful to the person as well as to the animal. I fail to see how treating animals and humans differently will lead to treating races differently etc.
    What about if an animal is three fifths human?

    (Original post by Kirki)
    Where do the animals get the rights from? Are they born to them? If a fox attacks another fox, do we lock up the attacking fox because it violated the other's "rights"? The only rights an animal has are what humans give to them, there are no innate "rights" in nature. It's not a case of removing rights, it's a case of not giving the animal rights.

    That's not to say I'm not in favour of protecting animals, I just think it's ridiculous when people employ emotive arguments to claim that animals should have equal rights to humans.
    Ok, I accept that, I just believe that animals deserve the right not to be killed/tortured for human gain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kirki)
    Where do the animals get the rights from? Are they born to them? If a fox attacks another fox, do we lock up the attacking fox because it violated the other's "rights"? The only rights an animal has are what humans give to them, there are no innate "rights" in nature. It's not a case of removing rights, it's a case of not giving the animal rights.

    That's not to say I'm not in favour of protecting animals, I just think it's ridiculous when people employ emotive arguments to claim that animals should have equal rights to humans.
    Er no, the rights humans are "born into" are dependent on the country the human is born in. In some parts of the world a human will have less rights than a cat living in the UK.

    Also, some animals are protected species and the police in the relevant countries have the right to shoot dead anyone caught "in the act of poaching".

    (Original post by babyballerina)
    I've got loads of bad rep for saying we shouldn't test medicines on criminals. Well I think you are all sub-human nazis. You have sick, sick minds. Goodbye, I am leaving the board.

    I agree with her, and I'm also disgusted by the idea of testing on criminals. If you had any idea how many people get convicted unfairly because they can't afford proper legal representation, you'd think twice before saying that. And what about people who are not truly evil but just went wrong somewhere along the line? The same rules apply here as the rules against the death penalty, only more so. If someone is sentenced to death and then later on it turns out they were innocent, it's terrible and no one could ever justify it. So what if they're subjected to these kind of experiements, God knows what kind of torture and die? Or worse still, live as some kind of shell of a human being, completely insane in an asylum somewhere, and then you find out they didn't do it after all. What then?

    It's not worth taking that kind of risk to allow the death penalty, and it's even more important not to allow this. You have to accept that animal testing is necessary. All you can do is fight against deliberate and unnecessary cruelty and cosmetic testing.

    Either that or refuse any kind of medical treatment on ethical grounds. If you say you're against animal testing of any kind, for whatever reason, and then you take an aspirin, you're a hypocrite.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Er no, the rights humans are "born into" are dependent on the country the human is born in. In some parts of the world a human will have less rights than a cat living in the UK.

    Also, some animals are protected species and the police in the relevant countries have the right to shoot dead anyone caught "in the act of poaching".
    I am simply stating that all rights are given by humans, whether those rights are given to humans or animals.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
  • create my feed
  • edit my feed

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.