Scared of mad scientists? Post your links

[pZombie]

I came accross this on youtube,

WARNING!!! disturbing material - don t watch unless you can take it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSrIkUXwsNk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq06D0xRWmc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjBa6scGIPQ


so far the most disturbing thing i ve seen.

if i could kill the scientist commiting those experiments and get away with it, i would do it in a blink of an eye.

i am particularily keen of animals but i would not wish this to any being which we know so little about how they feel.

those scientists are beasts and most scary. today it s animal, tomorrow it will be some homeless, and then you.
those people are willing to go through everything in the name of science.

do you know of any other disturbing experiments? post your links here

[Villageninja]

I have to say, the first link is pretty fucking disturbing if it's real.

[ZeroCool]

fucking sick.

its like one of those things you see on the internet, that take awhile to get outta your head.

[Cool Story]

I found them to be very interesting.

[Cool Story]

I came accross this on youtube,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSrIkUXwsNk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq06D0xRWmc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjBa6scGIPQ


so far the most disturbing thing i ve seen.

if i could kill the scientist commiting those experiments and get away with it, i would do it in a blink of an eye.

i am particularily keen of animals but i would not wish this to any being which we know so little about how they feel.

those scientists are beasts and most scary. today it s animal, tomorrow it will be some homeless, and then you.
those people are willing to go through everything in the name of science.

do you know of any other disturbing experiments? post your links here

Bitch, please
Do you know what the food YOU eat goes through before it's killed?
If not, I enjoy educating you with this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142#

And please, try not to bitch so much. Blind rage like yours is a root cause of suffering in this world.

[palo god]

I came accross this on youtube,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSrIkUXwsNk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq06D0xRWmc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjBa6scGIPQ


so far the most disturbing thing i ve seen.

if i could kill the scientist commiting those experiments and get away with it, i would do it in a blink of an eye.

i am particularily keen of animals but i would not wish this to any being which we know so little about how they feel.

those scientists are beasts and most scary. today it s animal, tomorrow it will be some homeless, and then you.
those people are willing to go through everything in the name of science.

do you know of any other disturbing experiments? post your links here


You would kill scientists doing experiments on animals for the sake of expanding medical technology? That comment is more disturbing then the video. If someone wants to volunteer for this or similar experiments for the sake of helping others through obtaining future breakthroughs who are you to say that they can’t?

People like you are the reason technological advancement was stunted throughout human history.

[Dingbat]

Thanks you fucking disturbed me for life.

[Rigan Pere]

Poor dog, damn that's just rotten. Down with Soviet Russia!!

[Rachsucht]

I don't condone being cruel to animals but I wouldn't hesitate to torture 1000 cute kittens to death to save one person I know.

[Gray Fox]

I don't condone being cruel to animals but I wouldn't hesitate to torture 1000 cute kittens to death to save one person I know.

One thousand kittens killed? What would you do with all the meat?

[Rachsucht]

One thousand kittens killed? What would you do with all the meat?

Tacos

[sc0r0wnz]

Lol nothing new, the Russians also used dogs from streets who have no owners as suicide bomber at German tanks. They train them in a week put a satchel on them and let it run to the tank at near distance then it booms.

Pretty sad actually.

[Black Thunder]

I don't condone being cruel to animals but I wouldn't hesitate to torture 1000 cute kittens to death to save one person I know.

same, except any human life

[Gray Fox]

Animal suffering is a bad thing. All in the name of science? Yuck!

See Cool Story's video a little above.

[Bissen]

Mad scientists you say?

All the explosives used in WW2 mmkay. Then multiply it by 10 mmkay. Then put it in one bomb mmkay...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9AMtUeyDP0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwlNPhn64TA

[Yin]

I didn't knew modern word had so many idiots in developed countries.

You are able to live with the quality you have to day thanks to all those "mad scientists", and each time i hear fools that in medieval types burned witches fight, as example - gen or embryo research i think of how useful gas chambers at time could be....

At videos linked i see an awesome research worthy of every praise, and with great potential. Being "shocked" by it just shows an idiocy of a person, like if it would now start preaching how Pavlovs dog research was immoral and shouldn't have happened.

Just like you would like to kill such scientists, i would gladly be able to shoot down everyone who in modern days would argue against genetic and embryo research.

Theres no discussion possible. Human history proven that the single thing that mankind shoudnt have tolerance to - is human stupidity.

[Xinnro]

I don't condone being cruel to humans but I wouldn't hesitate to torture 1000 people to death to save one cute kitten.

Fixed

[Rachsucht]

Fixed

Hook, line and sinker.

[Xinnro]

Hook, line and sinker.

I mean...come on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bmhjf0rKe8

[Villageninja]

I mean...come on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Bmhjf0rKe8

Rofl

[pZombie]

You would kill scientists doing experiments on animals for the sake of expanding medical technology? That comment is more disturbing then the video. If someone wants to volunteer for this or similar experiments for the sake of helping others through obtaining future breakthroughs who are you to say that they can’t?

People like you are the reason technological advancement was stunted throughout human history.

DO YOU THINK THAT DOG WAS ASKED TO VOLUNTEER?

And if yes, do you believe it would say, yes?

If you want to volunteer for such experiments, thats your own business. But i would never accept other beings suffering in such a bestial way just for my own well being.

Should such a spirit within people persist, we will be soon able to rationaly defend experiments on humans too without their consent.
It would start with those which can defend against it the least. Homeless, convicted, and slowly go it s way up.

[pZombie]

I didn't knew modern word had so many idiots in developed countries.

You are able to live with the quality you have to day thanks to all those "mad scientists", and each time i hear fools that in medieval types burned witches fight, as example - gen or embryo research i think of how useful gas chambers at time could be....

At videos linked i see an awesome research worthy of every praise, and with great potential. Being "shocked" by it just shows an idiocy of a person, like if it would now start preaching how Pavlovs dog research was immoral and shouldn't have happened.

Just like you would like to kill such scientists, i would gladly be able to shoot down everyone who in modern days would argue against genetic and embryo research.

Theres no discussion possible. Human history proven that the single thing that mankind shoudnt have tolerance to - is human stupidity.

Yes, because we need this research to live happy lives.

Science is being used to enslave people rather than free them at the stage we developed it to. And it will get worse.
You have surveillance cameras everywhere. Tempest spy technology years ago, with some non-sinus electrocromagnetic waves tech following to spy your pc out from distance. Satelites which can track you down anywhere (and shoot you if they please to, mind you).

The technology we needed to live peacefully and enjoy our lives, was already developed years ago, but has been decentralized and controled by the elite.

Every household could by now have it s own small power plant using alternative energy sources, but that would draw one of the major ways to control population out their hands.

Energy, food, shelter HAS to be decentralized and controled by the few to keep you slaves which on top are defending those freaks up there, willing to commit any experiment "for the better of humanity" at the cost of any individual.

I wish those who agree with what happened to this poor doggy, to find themlseves in the same situation at some point, and see how they like it.

This is a feeling being after all you are willing to sacrifice for your own little miserable existence.

[Rachsucht]

DO YOU THINK THAT DOG WAS ASKED TO VOLUNTEER?


It doesn't matter, its an animal with no soul.

[Drock]

same, except any human life



This is hands down the most moronic thing I have ever read. Do you seriously give people that much credit? As a species we are horrible, we just consume and consume with no regard for anything or anyone else around us. There are thousands of "innocent" people out there dying/being killed every day, you mean to honestly say you care for them...that you feel a sincere loss because of their deaths? But you would torture 1000 cats just to save one stupid fucking worthless person? No wonder everything on this planted is so fucked.

[jonyak]

Poor dog, damn that's just rotten. Down with Soviet Russia!!

You don't think other countries have done the same thing?

[Drock]

It doesn't matter, its an animal with no soul.



You are nothing but an animal as well. You assume that just because you are a few million years ahead on the evolutionary scale and have developed your ego and self awareness that you are special, that only us slightly more evolved monkeys have souls?

[pZombie]

Bitch, please
Do you know what the food YOU eat goes through before it's killed?
If not, I enjoy educating you with this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142#

And please, try not to bitch so much. Blind rage like yours is a root cause of suffering in this world.

Thats why i have become vegetarian bitchA. I would eat only what I hunt myself and kill with a single shot. Such an animal would have lived a free life at least.

It would not make it right, but thats something i can live with. I can understand that some people are pushed into the edge of existence, where they don t have any other choice, but those who have and decide to buy meat of industrialized processes rather than those which have been raised on bio farms and lived happy are heartless and not only to animals.

It is selfrighteous greedy heartless humans you should fear the most espacially when they are highly intelligent like this scientist.

The will always find a way to seemingly reasonably defend their point of why their acting is "right" and "good".

[Xinnro]

The more the animal suffers, the better it tastes.

[pZombie]

It doesn't matter, its an animal with no soul.

You brainwashed idiot -

A dog has no soul because?

Do you have a soul- detecting machine? Or did you buy into the selfrighteous definition of self- proclaimed experts on souls?

You are exactly the kind of people i am shit scared of where this world is going to with the technology we are developing.

Of course this dog has no soul... because if we did, we would not be able to defend our stance on why we treated it this way. So therefore it has no soul, nor feelings.

hmm, yes right

[Rachsucht]

Of course this dog has no soul... because if we did, we would not be able to defend our stance on why we treated it this way. So therefore it has no soul, nor feelings.

hmm, yes right

Correct.

[Black Thunder]

This is hands down the most moronic thing I have ever read. Do you seriously give people that much credit? As a species we are horrible, we just consume and consume with no regard for anything or anyone else around us. There are thousands of "innocent" people out there dying/being killed every day, you mean to honestly say you care for them...that you feel a sincere loss because of their deaths? But you would torture 1000 cats just to save one stupid fucking worthless person? No wonder everything on this planted is so fucked.

you're dumb

It doesn't matter, its an animal with no soul.

animals have souls, just not ones like humans have.











humans > animals

[StrawberryClock]

Unsurprisingly, I support this kind of research for the sake of advancing technology.

However, truly fucked up experiments include Imperial Japan's Unit 731 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731) and Nazi Experimentation during their regime. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation)

[StrawberryClock]

Here are some quotes from the articles

# Prisoners of war were subjected to vivisection without anesthesia.[13][11]
# Vivisections were performed on prisoners after infecting them with various diseases. Scientists performed invasive surgery on prisoners, removing organs to study the effects of disease on the human body. These were conducted while the patients were alive because it was feared that the decomposition process would affect the results.[14][11] The infected and vivisected prisoners included men, women, children, and infants.[15]
* Human targets were used to test grenades positioned at various distances and in different positions.[11]
* Flame throwers were tested on humans.[11]
* Humans were tied to stakes and used as targets to test germ-releasing bombs, chemical weapons, and explosive bombs.[11]
* being hung upside down to see how long it would take for them to choke to death.[11]
* having air injected into their arteries to determine the time until the onset of embolism.[11]
* having horse urine injected into their kidneys.[11]
* being deprived of food and water to determine the length of time until death.

Experiments on twin children in concentration camps were created to show the similarities and differences in the genetics of twins, as well as to see if the human body can be unnaturally manipulated. The central leader of the experiments was Josef Mengele, who performed experiments on over 1,500 sets of imprisoned twins, of which fewer than 200 individuals survived the studies.[4] While attending University of Munich (located in the city that remained one of Adolf Hitler's focal points during the revolution) studying philosophy and medicine with an emphasis on anthropology and paleontology, Mengele stated: "this simple political concept finally became the decisive factor in my life".[5] Mengele's newfound admiration for the "simple political concept" led him to mix his studies of medicine and politics as his career choice. Mengele received his PhD for a thesis entitled "Racial Morphological Research on the Lower Jaw Section of Four Racial Groups", which suggested that a person's race could be identified by the shape of the jaw.[6] The Nazi organization saw his studies as talents, and Mengele was asked to be the leading physician and researcher at German Auschwitz concentration camp located in Poland in May 1943.[7] There, Mengele organized genetic experiments on twins. The twins were arranged by age and sex and kept in barracks between experiments, which ranged from injection of different chemicals into the eyes of twins to see whether it would change their colour to literally sewing twins together in attempts to create conjoined twins.[8][9]

[Xinnro]

Here are some quotes from the articles

It's cool though.

It's for SCIENCE!

[StrawberryClock]

It's cool though.

It's for SCIENCE!

Indeed, fuck individual liberties for science. People have no natural rights anyways.

[pZombie]

this is just the surface we have scratched... there is more bestial experiments commited in the name of science for sure.

the dream of some of those self centered self proclaimed self righteous individuals, is to live forever in their little miserable existence they consider so important.

this experiment on the dog has been for sure done with a human head..

furthermore i can imagine that they have done experiments using this as a basis in the attempt to transfer consciousness from on body to another.

i can imagine they tried to use blood which has been extracted from one body, like in the dog experiment and tried to pump it into another body and drive it with actual humans, to see if this way consciousness was transfered.

or alternatively try to run two bodies on the same bloodstream, after getting one to near death, and see if the one not having been drained of his blood developes a "feeling" for the other body as well... then try to further this into transfering consciousness.

Note that this was done 70 years ago, and use your imagination to think about what would be possible with today's tech.

[Lint938]

Needs Moar zombie dogs go science!

[ZeroCool]

I actually nearly threw up and almost passed out from watching the second one.

That shit should be on rotten.com or orgish. Not youtube

[Drock]

you're dumb







Ah, ok, thanks to your use of clear and flawless logic I understand where you're coming from now. Im sold.

[Black Thunder]

Ah, ok, thanks to your use of clear and flawless logic I understand where you're coming from now. Im sold.

THIS IS LITERALLY THE DUMPEST POST IVE EVER HURRD DO U SERIOUS GIVE PEOPLE THAT MUCH CREDIT? WE R BAD, WE DO BAD AND DO BAD WITH NO REGARD FOR OUR BAD. THERE ARE 9001 DEATH EVERY SECOND AND U SAY U CARE FOR THEM THAT U FEEL SINCERE LOSS BECAUSE OF THEIR DEATH? BECAUSE THEY NEED TO DO WAY INSTAIN PLANTED IS FUCKED> WHO KILL THIER KITTENS. BECUSE THESE KITTEN CANT FRIGTH BACK?

your logic is pro

[shock223]

unethical scientific pursuits have always raised a few alarm bells for me. because with every new advancement in science, we somehow get one step closer to having the potential for one person to kill more and more people.

science in and of it's self is morally and ethically neutral. it can be used to benefit humanity or destroy or harm it and while most human beings are sane individuals that (hopefully) would use to benefit humanity (either from charity or profit but that's another issue), there are the insane or simply evil people who would use it to create mass murder.

science doesn't kill people but people that use either scientific reasoning to justify murder, or techniques to carry it out do.

[Rossco]

Dogs = Non-Sentient
Humans = Sentient

Therefore, it is entirely within our ability to do whatever the fuck we want to anything without life (read, sentience) so we may advance our own sentient existence.

[Drock]

your logic is pro

I just pointed out the fact that you though it was the morally just decision to save one random humans life who you dont know, by torturing 1000 cats.


So i just pointed out the fact that what you said sums up everything wrong with society.


Saying what you did means you care enough for a random person you have never met, as to torture 1000 animals to save their life. At which point I ask why do you care for some random person you dont know to such a sincere degree that you would do such a terrible thing. Torturing 1000 animals is quite the feat, and since you obviously have such devotion to the human race, im sure you also do things like constantly volunteer your time at various shelters, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, donate food, money, and blood. Go out of your way EVERY time you see a homeless person, or someone hungry, or just someone in need. Im sure you never cease in your attempts to always help the people around you..........because doing the kinds of things i just mention are NOTHING in terms of effort or seriously questionable morals when compared to torturing 1000 animals.


We both know you probably do none of the things I just mentioned to the degree I mentioned to help people out, (or you will maybe lie and act like you do to prove your moronic point).

So my point is that you really dont give a fuck about people you dont know, most people really dont. I know I dont. When you hear that Joe Blow who lives in canada died in a car wreck you dont give a shit. But yet you would spare some random persons life who you dont know by torturing 100 animals. Give me a break.

[Rossco]

this is just the surface we have scratched... there is more bestial experiments commited in the name of science for sure.

the dream of some of those self centered self proclaimed self righteous individuals, is to live forever in their little miserable existence they consider so important.

this experiment on the dog has been for sure done with a human head..

furthermore i can imagine that they have done experiments using this as a basis in the attempt to transfer consciousness from on body to another.

i can imagine they tried to use blood which has been extracted from one body, like in the dog experiment and tried to pump it into another body and drive it with actual humans, to see if this way consciousness was transfered.

or alternatively try to run two bodies on the same bloodstream, after getting one to near death, and see if the one not having been drained of his blood developes a "feeling" for the other body as well... then try to further this into transfering consciousness.

Note that this was done 70 years ago, and use your imagination to think about what would be possible with today's tech.

Your a moron. If I could see you slowly die, just so all the time I spent watching you could be used to further /My/ existence, I would; not because I don't like you, but because your morals - along with pretty much the rest of civilized societies morals - are completely fuckbuckled backwards.

Immortality > Average Human Morals

[ZeroCool]

Dogs = Non-Sentient
Humans = Sentient

Therefore, it is entirely within our ability to do whatever the fuck we want to anything without life (read, sentience) so we may advance our own sentient existence.

Have you even ever owned a dog? I just laughed my ass off at you saying they are non sentient. Please continue to make my day, you are just showing everyone how screwed up you are in the head.

If you dont see a problem with those videos, then you lack any moral/ethical spine and are a disgusting creature in itself.

[ZeroCool]

Your a moron. If I could see you slowly die, just so all the time I spent watching you could be used to further /My/ existence, I would; not because I don't like you, but because your morals - along with pretty much the rest of civilized societies morals - are completely fuckbuckled backwards.

Immortality > Average Human Morals

You know the first sign that your crazy, is thinking everyone but you is crazy.

Im sorry you think the rest of society is backwards in its morals. Im sorry you think trying to sustain perished life through gruel artificial means is beneficial to humanity.

And the idea of immortality spans from the fear of death. And nothing else. Dont give me "well its beneficial" bullshit. Your going against the very cycle of nature, to try and prolonge your miserable life because you cant take the fact that one day you WONT be here anymore. And thats a fact.

[Bawlin]

If you dont see a problem with those videos, then you lack any moral/ethical spine and are a disgusting creature in itself.

I disagree entirely. Looking at it from an objective standpoint,the experiments seemed ethical and purely in the search of medical knowledge as opposed to the butchering of animals for psychotic pseudo-scientific purposes. The only one I found slightly objectionable was the dog head, but that was preliminary testing, and we don't know the background behind the rest of that experiment. For the second experiment, as said in the video, the dogs were sedated so that they didn't feel any of the effects of the experiments they were under-going. Afterwards they lived happy, normal dogs lives and even had FAMILIES. They weren't murdered or incinerated once the experiments were finished. These experiments could've been the beginnings of research for modern life support, and surely you wouldn't argue with the use of machines like that which save lives daily.

See the difference between us is, you only look at what is happening in plain sight, which is a dog on a table dying. I see a medical experiment taking place in a sanitary setting with proper ethical and medical precautions taken to make it as painless as possible for the animal, which will result in medical advances hopefully used to save lives.

[pZombie]

Dogs = Non-Sentient
Humans = Sentient

Therefore, it is entirely within our ability to do whatever the fuck we want to anything without life (read, sentience) so we may advance our own sentient existence.

yes, thats exactly the self righteous, self centered greedy scientist i ve been talking about. except the scientist part might not be right in this case.


dogs are not sentient, because if they were, we could not possibly defend how we commit such acts of cruelty on a sentient being, right?

and while you are at it. prove that you are sentient please. if you can do that, then maybe i will believe in what you said was not self righteous born out of egoism

[ZeroCool]

I disagree entirely. Looking at it from an objective standpoint,the experiments seemed ethical and purely in the search of medical knowledge as opposed to the butchering of animals for psychotic pseudo-scientific purposes. The only one I found slightly objectionable was the dog head, but that was preliminary testing, and we don't know the background behind the rest of that experiment. For the second experiment, as said in the video, the dogs were sedated so that they didn't feel any of the effects of the experiments they were under-going. Afterwards they lived happy, normal dogs lives and even had FAMILIES. They weren't murdered or incinerated once the experiments were finished. These experiments could've been the beginnings of research for modern life support, and surely you wouldn't argue with the use of machines like that which save lives daily.

See the difference between us is, you only look at what is happening in plain sight, which is a dog on a table dying. I see a medical experiment taking place in a sanitary setting with proper ethical and medical precautions taken to make it as painless as possible for the animal, which will result in medical advances hopefully used to save lives.

I watched the first video and the first part of the second before i nearly threw up.

If you think that taking the organs out of a dogs body and keeping him alive through this artificial methods, then you are beyond repair in your ethics. I don't care how painless and sedated something is, to do something that artificialy grueling to an animal is a crime against life itself.

What makes me laugh is people try to rationalize these things. A medical setting that is sanitary? Your keeping something alive with its organs outside of its body being held together by artificial means. If it was any other forum, this thread would of been deleted a long time ago. I just cant stop laughing and being slightly disturbed at how morally corrupt some people are in forums around the internet.

Yeah im sure the nazi medical expirments were all done in good thought for the long term benefit of humanity. Im sure they made advancements in medical technology, while killing thousands of people in the process through unspeakable, mentally traumatizing methods of medical torture.

Im all for medical advancement, but when it takes this level of expirmentation, where the subject is alive and aware, its a crime against life itself. I don't give a shit how painless they tried to make it.

[Bawlin]

If you think that taking the organs out of a dogs body and keeping him alive through this artificial methods, then you are beyond repair in your ethics. I don't care how painless and sedated something is, to do something that artificialy grueling to an animal is a crime against life itself.

Uh when did they ever do this? In the very first experiment they revived isolated organs (meaning they weren't attached to a body), then revived a dog head, then the entire dog. They never took out the organs out of the body and replaced it with machines. They simply re-pumped oxygenated blood into the arteries and then took out used blood through the veins. I don't even think you understand what's going on.


What makes me laugh is people try to rationalize these things. A medical setting that is sanitary? Your keeping something alive with its organs outside of its body being held together by artificial means. If it was any other forum, this thread would of been deleted a long time ago. I just cant stop laughing and being slightly disturbed at how morally corrupt some people are in forums around the internet.

It's rationalized by the fact that the doctors make it literally pain-free for the dog while accomplishing what they needed to and then allowed the dog to live a normal life. What makes me laugh is how ignorant some people can be.

Yeah im sure the nazi medical expirments were all done in good thought for the long term benefit of humanity. Im sure they made advancements in medical technology, while killing thousands of people in the process through unspeakable, mentally traumatizing methods of medical torture.

Except when you look at the experiment for what it's worth. The objectives of the Russian experiment and the Nazi experiments in Auschwitz are polar-opposites, as are their conditions. Do you realize that no fucking people were tested on in the Russian experiment, while the Nazis specifically used people they'd detained against their will in camps? Your failure to realize the differences is absolutely astounding.

Im all for medical advancement, but when it takes this level of expirmentation, where the subject is alive and aware, its a crime against life itself. I don't give a shit how painless they tried to make it.

Hmmk, because testing medical technology on cadavers can only go so far...

[ZeroCool]

Uh when did they ever do this? In the very first experiment they revived isolated organs (meaning they weren't attached to a body), then revived a dog head, then the entire dog. They never took out the organs out of the body and replaced it with machines. They simply re-pumped oxygenated blood into the arteries and then took out used blood through the veins. I don't even think you understand what's going on.

I never said they replaced it with machines, I said isolating organs from a living beings body, and have them running artificially, is a crime against life itself. And as I said I only saw the first part of the second video before I passed out, theres no way im going to continue watching that.


It's rationalized by the fact that the doctors make it literally pain-free for the dog while accomplishing what they needed to and then allowed the dog to live a normal life. What makes me laugh is how ignorant some people can be.


And how do you know its pain free for the dog? When the proceedure was over, did the dog say "Thanks doc that was painfree and i have a better quality of life now" Ever heard of anesthesia awareness?


Except when you look at the experiment for what it's worth. The objectives of the Russian experiment and the Nazi experiments in Auschwitz are polar-opposites, as are their conditions. Do you realize that no fucking people were tested on in the Russian experiment, while the Nazis specifically used people they'd detained against their will in camps? Your failure to realize the differences is absolutely astounding.


No they were not polar opposite. They both took life against its will and subjected it to extremely fringe medical proceedures. It being a animal and not a human doesnt make it ok. Its all life.


Hmmk, because testing medical technology on cadavers can only go so far...

So therefore we must conduct extremely frindge, and morally questionable medical proceedures to get us the rest of the way? Doing these kind of proceedures on a living being, against its will, its a crime against life

[PirateGlen]

I never said they replaced it with machines, I said isolating organs from a living beings body, and have them running artificially, is a crime against life itself. And as I said I only saw the first part of the second video before I passed out, theres no way im going to continue watching that.



And how do you know its pain free for the dog? When the proceedure was over, did the dog say "Thanks doc that was painfree and i have a better quality of life now" Ever heard of anesthesia awareness?



No they were not polar opposite. They both took life against its will and subjected it to extremely fringe medical proceedures. It being a animal and not a human doesnt make it ok. Its all life.



So therefore we must conduct extremely frindge, and morally questionable medical proceedures to get us the rest of the way? Doing these kind of proceedures on a living being, against its will, its a crime against life

Why is it a crime against life?

[Machinistlol]

thats sick as fuck... honestly id love to stab one of those fuckers.

[Rossco]

You know the first sign that your crazy, is thinking everyone but you is crazy.

I didn't call anyone phsychologically deficient. I merely pointed out the obvious fact that you, and most of today's modern civilized society, has been raised since childhood - when the human brain is the most impressionable - to use a set of moral codes and ethics that entirely belittle the realization of our state of existence, it's imperfections, and the logical necessity of researching and advancing such a state.

Im sorry you think trying to sustain perished life through gruel artificial means is beneficial to humanity.

This point is entirely irrelevant, as you have taken what I said out of context. Your definition of "Life" is different from mine. Based on what I've read so far, you consider life to be anything that reacts to stimuli in some semi-organized fashion; animals, for instance. My definition of life is a biological structure that can think consciously, and understand - or at least reason - about it's own existence. By your definition, a dog is "Alive." By my definition, a dog, and so far every other organism we know of except humans, are not alive.

Non-Sentient animals are, whether you care to comprehend it or not, mind bogglingly complex biological structures that exist for the sole purpose of replicating - cellularly, and as an animal. Humans are this, but we also possess the ability to think consciously; to reason. Sentience.

And the idea of immortality spans from the fear of death. And nothing else. Dont give me "well its beneficial" bullshit. Your going against the very cycle of nature, to try and prolonge your miserable life because you cant take the fact that one day you WONT be here anymore. And thats a fact.

Yes, that is a fact. I don't want to die. I understand completely that the cause for my existing is a bi-product of cells replicating; no more complex, or intelligent, than that. That is the cycle of nature; birth, growth, appropriate reproduction, and recycling of the parent (death).

However, just because this is the original reason for my existing, does not mean I cannot try, or have the will, to become consciously more than that. Yes, I want to live forever. I want to learn more. I want to know more. I want to be more. But this also, in a way almost too complex for human consciousness to comprehend, a bi-product of billions of years of cellular evolution; sentience, and conscious thought.

yes, thats exactly the self righteous, self centered greedy scientist i ve been talking about. except the scientist part might not be right in this case.

I'm not scientist, no. Not in the sense of reference to the videos in the original post. And, yes, I am self centered, and quite likely self righteous in my beliefs. But that has entirely no relevance on the logic of anything I say. Just because you disagree with my mental aptitude does not make the reason, and logic, of my statements any less objective.

If it did, the same could be said for you; as an example: if your mental attitude played into half the relevance of everything you said, you would inherently make your own statements about me wrong. Why? Well, if we lived in this perfectly nonobjective universe, everything you said in argument against me would be flawed because we both possess opposite attitudes of argument, vastly different opinions, and clearly differing levels of intelligence and mental aptitude.

dogs are not sentient, because if they were, we could not possibly defend how we commit such acts of cruelty on a sentient being, right?

If dogs were sentient, by the definition of Conscious understanding of their own state of existence, than, yes, it would be morally wrong to perform such previously untested experiments on them. Just as it would be to do the same unregulated tests on a human.

and while you are at it. prove that you are sentient please. if you can do that, then maybe i will believe in what you said was not self righteous born out of egoism

What I said was birthed out of sentience because, as you said, I am egoistic and self righteous (Although my statements were formed and structured on seemingly sound logic) By this very fact, of your own admission, I must be sentient; only a biological structure that thinks consciously could possibly have such psychological attitudes.

-----

However, your way of arguing, and your arguments themselves, leads me to believe you don't know what sentience is. Thus, your drawing odd conclusions to my statements. Just to help you, a bit: Sentience is when a complex biological structure, in this case a human, possesses a level of conscious thought and reason, subsequently making it possible for realizations, reasoning, and learning on a logical and advanced level.

Animals do not possess sentience because no other creature but humans, to our knowledge at least, has the ability to think consciously on any significant level. Arguing that dogs are sentient because they can learn and respond to people is flawed, because dogs do not learn consciously, they learn instinctively - merely adapting to their environment in such a way that would seem like intelligent thought, but is in actually only the result of a complex neurological function.

-----

If it turns out that I am wrong in my assumptions that you two do not understand the same semantic definitions of life and sentience as me, then I apologize, and sympathize for your lack of comprehension, and hope that my post has at least enlightened you enough to realize the objective clarity of my statements.

[pZombie]

I didn't call anyone phsychologically deficient. I merely pointed out the obvious fact that you, and most of today's modern civilized society, has been raised since childhood - when the human brain is the most impressionable - to use a set of moral codes and ethics that entirely belittle the realization of our state of existence, it's imperfections, and the logical necessity of researching and advancing such a state.



This point is entirely irrelevant, as you have taken what I said out of context. Your definition of "Life" is different from mine. Based on what I've read so far, you consider life to be anything that reacts to stimuli in some semi-organized fashion; animals, for instance. My definition of life is a biological structure that can think consciously, and understand - or at least reason - about it's own existence. By your definition, a dog is "Alive." By my definition, a dog, and so far every other organism we know of except humans, are not alive.

Non-Sentient animals are, whether you care to comprehend it or not, mind bogglingly complex biological structures that exist for the sole purpose of replicating - cellularly, and as an animal. Humans are this, but we also possess the ability to think consciously; to reason. Sentience.



Yes, that is a fact. I don't want to die. I understand completely that the cause for my existing is a bi-product of cells replicating; no more complex, or intelligent, than that. That is the cycle of nature; birth, growth, appropriate reproduction, and recycling of the parent (death).

However, just because this is the original reason for my existing, does not mean I cannot try, or have the will, to become consciously more than that. Yes, I want to live forever. I want to learn more. I want to know more. I want to be more. But this also, in a way almost too complex for human consciousness to comprehend, a bi-product of billions of years of cellular evolution; sentience, and conscious thought.



I'm not scientist, no. Not in the sense of reference to the videos in the original post. And, yes, I am self centered, and quite likely self righteous in my beliefs. But that has entirely no relevance on the logic of anything I say. Just because you disagree with my mental aptitude does not make the reason, and logic, of my statements any less objective.

If it did, the same could be said for you; as an example: if your mental attitude played into half the relevance of everything you said, you would inherently make your own statements about me wrong. Why? Well, if we lived in this perfectly nonobjective universe, everything you said in argument against me would be flawed because we both possess opposite attitudes of argument, vastly different opinions, and clearly differing levels of intelligence and mental aptitude.



If dogs were sentient, by the definition of Conscious understanding of their own state of existence, than, yes, it would be morally wrong to perform such previously untested experiments on them. Just as it would be to do the same unregulated tests on a human.



What I said was birthed out of sentience because, as you said, I am egoistic and self righteous (Although my statements were formed and structured on seemingly sound logic) By this very fact, of your own admission, I must be sentient; only a biological structure that thinks consciously could possibly have such psychological attitudes.

-----

However, your way of arguing, and your arguments themselves, leads me to believe you don't know what sentience is. Thus, your drawing odd conclusions to my statements. Just to help you, a bit: Sentience is when a complex biological structure, in this case a human, possesses a level of conscious thought and reason, subsequently making it possible for realizations, reasoning, and learning on a logical and advanced level.

Animals do not possess sentience because no other creature but humans, to our knowledge at least, has the ability to think consciously on any significant level. Arguing that dogs are sentient because they can learn and respond to people is flawed, because dogs do not learn consciously, they learn instinctively - merely adapting to their environment in such a way that would seem like intelligent thought, but is in actually only the result of a complex neurological function.

-----

If it turns out that I am wrong in my assumptions that you two do not understand the same semantic definitions of life and sentience as me, then I apologize, and sympathize for your lack of comprehension, and hope that my post has at least enlightened you enough to realize the objective clarity of my statements.

i fear you have no clue what consciousness really is, and rather prefer repeating some dictionaries, when the solution is rather simple.

conscious is that which feels. an entity which experiences/feels is conscious.

Yes, it s just that simple....

And in fact, there are pZombies which act exactly like a normal human, cry, lie, display joy etc. The only difference between such a pZombie and a real Human is, that the pZombie is just acting as if, all being just a complex mechanism behind, when it does feel nothing at all.

Similar to a doll which can cry, but does not really feel pain.

You have not provided any proof yet, that you are sentient/ consciouss. Unless you can, you cannot provide any proof that this dog is not consciouss or sentient, as well.

You loaded the term sentience in a way to suit you. Yes, self righteous as i said once again.

[ZeroCool]

I didn't call anyone phsychologically deficient. I merely pointed out the obvious fact that you, and most of today's modern civilized society, has been raised since childhood - when the human brain is the most impressionable - to use a set of moral codes and ethics that entirely belittle the realization of our state of existence, it's imperfections, and the logical necessity of researching and advancing such a state.



This point is entirely irrelevant, as you have taken what I said out of context. Your definition of "Life" is different from mine. Based on what I've read so far, you consider life to be anything that reacts to stimuli in some semi-organized fashion; animals, for instance. My definition of life is a biological structure that can think consciously, and understand - or at least reason - about it's own existence. By your definition, a dog is "Alive." By my definition, a dog, and so far every other organism we know of except humans, are not alive.

Non-Sentient animals are, whether you care to comprehend it or not, mind bogglingly complex biological structures that exist for the sole purpose of replicating - cellularly, and as an animal. Humans are this, but we also possess the ability to think consciously; to reason. Sentience.



Yes, that is a fact. I don't want to die. I understand completely that the cause for my existing is a bi-product of cells replicating; no more complex, or intelligent, than that. That is the cycle of nature; birth, growth, appropriate reproduction, and recycling of the parent (death).

However, just because this is the original reason for my existing, does not mean I cannot try, or have the will, to become consciously more than that. Yes, I want to live forever. I want to learn more. I want to know more. I want to be more. But this also, in a way almost too complex for human consciousness to comprehend, a bi-product of billions of years of cellular evolution; sentience, and conscious thought.



I'm not scientist, no. Not in the sense of reference to the videos in the original post. And, yes, I am self centered, and quite likely self righteous in my beliefs. But that has entirely no relevance on the logic of anything I say. Just because you disagree with my mental aptitude does not make the reason, and logic, of my statements any less objective.

If it did, the same could be said for you; as an example: if your mental attitude played into half the relevance of everything you said, you would inherently make your own statements about me wrong. Why? Well, if we lived in this perfectly nonobjective universe, everything you said in argument against me would be flawed because we both possess opposite attitudes of argument, vastly different opinions, and clearly differing levels of intelligence and mental aptitude.



If dogs were sentient, by the definition of Conscious understanding of their own state of existence, than, yes, it would be morally wrong to perform such previously untested experiments on them. Just as it would be to do the same unregulated tests on a human.



What I said was birthed out of sentience because, as you said, I am egoistic and self righteous (Although my statements were formed and structured on seemingly sound logic) By this very fact, of your own admission, I must be sentient; only a biological structure that thinks consciously could possibly have such psychological attitudes.

-----

However, your way of arguing, and your arguments themselves, leads me to believe you don't know what sentience is. Thus, your drawing odd conclusions to my statements. Just to help you, a bit: Sentience is when a complex biological structure, in this case a human, possesses a level of conscious thought and reason, subsequently making it possible for realizations, reasoning, and learning on a logical and advanced level.

Animals do not possess sentience because no other creature but humans, to our knowledge at least, has the ability to think consciously on any significant level. Arguing that dogs are sentient because they can learn and respond to people is flawed, because dogs do not learn consciously, they learn instinctively - merely adapting to their environment in such a way that would seem like intelligent thought, but is in actually only the result of a complex neurological function.

-----

If it turns out that I am wrong in my assumptions that you two do not understand the same semantic definitions of life and sentience as me, then I apologize, and sympathize for your lack of comprehension, and hope that my post has at least enlightened you enough to realize the objective clarity of my statements.

Definitions of sentient on the Web:

* endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness; "the living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage"- T.E.Lawrence

* consciously perceiving; "sentient of the intolerable load"; "a boy so sentient of his surroundings"- W.A.White
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive subjectively. The term is used in philosophy (particularly in the philosophy of animal ethics and in ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient

* Lifeform with the capability to feel sensation, such as pain; thus most beings are sentients; Conscious or aware; Experiencing sensation or feeling
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sentient

* sentience - awareness: state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "the crash intruded on his awareness"
* sentience - sense: the faculty through which the external world is apprehended; "in the dark he had to depend on touch and on his senses of smell and hearing"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

* sentiency - The property of having sensation; sentience
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sentiency

* sentience - The state or quality of being sentient; possession of consciousness or sensory awareness
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sentience

* Capacity for basic consciousness.
www.releasechimps.org/resources/glossary/

* Something that can feel, or experience some form of emotion.
www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm

* 1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions 2: aware
biology.kenyon.edu/slonc/bio3/2000projects/poirier_a_lloyd_t/Glossary.html

* A living being which is capable of experiencing pain and suffering. It is unethical to cause a sentient to feel pain needlessly. See sapient, sophont.
www.humanists.net/resources/glossary.htm

Get the point?

I have owned many dogs all my life. If you don't know why they are called mans best friend, it is because they have the highest social functioning of anyone in the animal kingdom except man himself. They are very much conscious and aware beings. You don't need to make your own unique definition and expect it to be the universal law of what makes life. Just because we have a high capacity to reason, doesnt make us sentient, its our ability to feel.

I can't even believe you would go as far to justify the means of these scientists, by using the same logic they did. Dogs are not "sentient" therefore they are not alive, therefore it is ok to subject these beings to whatever expiriments we want them to. There are very few normal people, if any, who would agree with you on any level. Of course this being forumfall, you might find a few.

I don't think youll find a dictionary that suits your own unique definition of sentient. I'm sure all the tyrants, and morally deteriorated people, have redefined words to justify their own actions and outlooks.

And im sorry your scared of death. Im only afraid of the process of dying. I was dead for billions of years and it didn't inconveince me in the least bit. Trying to go against it, is as unnatural as trying to go against birth itself.

Sir, you are very delusional if you think your logic is sound. Im sure all the hitlers and stalins of the world considered themselves to be good people according to their "logic" But the rest of society knows better. And thank God, im glad they do. If people were raised without a moral code and ethical structure, this world would be in peril . Everyone would act like that one really weird kid in highschool who didn't talk to anyone, because he didnt have a backbone of common sense. Again, if you think the rest of civilized society is backwards in their morals, ethics, and beliefs. Go live with uncivilized society, im sure it fits you much better.

[Apex Vertigo]

I find it hard to care very deeply about the plight of animals when I am forced to support it by eating processed meat and taking animal tested medicine. I don't condone torture for the sake of torture, but animals are here to be used by the next biggest animal, we happen to be the biggest.

[ZeroCool]

Why is it a crime against life?

Well if you need help with reading comprehension, you can see that its a crime against life because your doing extremely fringe medical proceedures on a living, sentient being, against its will. If you think keeping a living being alive by having an artificial arterial pump inserted to its head without its body is okay, then there is no hope for you.

[Avan]

I find it hard to care very deeply about the plight of animals when I am forced to support it by eating processed meat and taking animal tested medicine. I don't condone torture for the sake of torture, but animals are here to be used by the next biggest animal, we happen to be the biggest.

if there's alternatives though, why not use them?

[pZombie]

I find it hard to care very deeply about the plight of animals when I am forced to support it by eating processed meat and taking animal tested medicine. I don't condone torture for the sake of torture, but animals are here to be used by the next biggest animal, we happen to be the biggest.

Tell that to the aliens once they abduct you, which happen to like the taste of human meat, and also like conducting experiment which involve cutting off your head balls and every other organ into pieces, keeping them artificially alive by pumping blood through them, and then sewing you up together.

It s all fine, as aliens would probably be the bigger animal.



It shouldn t be neccesary to induce fear into people to make them aware of how cold and heartless their thoughts are, lacking basic empathy for all living beings capable of feelings.

It s the wrong way if you have to learn via fear rather than empathy, but it s sometimes a good start to shake some people awake, which learn only when their own miserable existence is at danger.

[Apex Vertigo]

if there's alternatives though, why not use them?

If there are alternatives that do not hinder the process obviously they should be used, squandering such opportunities would fall under the category of torturing for the sake of torturing, but often times the spark of life is needed for these types of test, although not pleasant, they prove to be extremely beneficial to our own race.

[pZombie]

If there are alternatives that do not hinder the process obviously they should be used, squandering such opportunities would fall under the category of torturing for the sake of torturing, but often times the spark of life is needed for these types of test, although not pleasant, they prove to be extremely beneficial to our own race.

There is no excuse for torturing another being, for your own well being. That feels wrong and is wrong.

I would rather die of cancer than have someone else suffer against his will, just for a chance to get cured.

Once you accept that others are supposed to suffer for your own well being, be it animals in this case, you will not hessitate to go one step further. It will be the homeless guy which cannot defend himself and is consider useless anyway by a large portion of society.
Later it will be the poor which are jobless, and are also useless. It will walk it's way up and eventually reach you too.

Again, this is the wrong way of arguing, because the right way would be you getting enough basic empathy for living beings to not even consider such torture.

[Avan]

Once you accept that others are supposed to suffer for your own well being, be it animals in this case, you will not hessitate to go one step further. It will be the homeless guy which cannot defend himself and is consider useless anyway by a large portion of society..

That probably happens already, you know.

[PirateGlen]

Well if you need help with reading comprehension, you can see that its a crime against life because your doing extremely fringe medical proceedures on a living, sentient being, against its will. If you think keeping a living being alive by having an artificial arterial pump inserted to its head without its body is okay, then there is no hope for you.

To approach it ethically, I would ask: What harm is done?

You seem to presume that things you don't like should be self evident as crimes. I think you've just failed to critically examine why it's wrong. I suppose your self rightous approach to the entire issue makes that a difficult task, though.

[ZeroCool]

To approach it ethically, I would ask: What harm is done?

You seem to presume that things you don't like should be self evident as crimes. I think you've just failed to critically examine why it's wrong. I suppose your self rightous approach to the entire issue makes that a difficult task, though.

What harm is done?

Your taking a living being's head, seperated it from its body, and keeping it alive through an artificial arterial pump. If that dog could say "Kill me" im sure it would have There is nothing more unnatural, more of a crime against the natural cycle of life than that. There is nothing more ethically screwed up. Why harm is done? What if you were kept alive by this same method and consciously aware of it? Would you feel ethically harmed or violated?

If you cannot see whats wrong with that, then you are deteriorated beyond repair in your morals and ethics. Its a pity you were raised so wrong. Honestly, do you not have feelings? Mabye we should preform these expirments on you, since you, and a few others on this forum, dont meet the qualifications of a sentient being.

Tell you what. Post that first video on your facebook (if you have one), and try and explain to others it is just fine and does no harm.

Then see how many friends you have left.

Im so glad forumfall is such a minority. Forumfall is like that one kid in highschool who never talked to anyone because he thought everyone else was weird and backwards. Oh the irony.

Oh what, I have another little scenario for your critical evaluating mind. If you saw someone get beaten, raped, and tortured, what harm has it done? See how backwards that statement is.

[Don Chino]

When he picked up the hammer I thought he was going to say "And the dog still responds to pain" and then bash its head in.

I was sorely dissapointed.

[PirateGlen]

What harm is done?

Your taking a living being's head, seperated it from its body, and keeping it alive through an artificial arterial pump. If that dog could say "Kill me" im sure it would have There is nothing more unnatural, more of a crime against the natural cycle of life than that. There is nothing more ethically screwed up. Why harm is done? What if you were kept alive by this same method and consciously aware of it? Would you feel ethically harmed or violated?
Not really. It's my understanding that the dog in this scenario was fully restored to its former self. If I were similarly restored there would be no harm done to me. Any harm one might perceive from scar tissue is mitigated by the scientific contribution of the experiment. I would suffer a few scars if it meant saving the lives of other people.

If you cannot see whats wrong with that, then you are deteriorated beyond repair in your morals and ethics. Its a pity you were raised so wrong. Honestly, do you not have feelings? Mabye we should preform these expirments on you, since you, and a few others on this forum, dont meet the qualifications of a sentient being.
Apparently anyone that disagrees with you is not sentient?

Tell you what. Post that first video on your facebook (if you have one), and try and explain to others it is just fine and does no harm.

Then see how many friends you have left.
Argumentum ad Populum. Appealing to the emotions of myself or anyone else does not examine the real harm and benefits gained by this experiment. Facebook is for nerds.

Im so glad forumfall is such a minority. Forumfall is like that one kid in highschool who never talked to anyone because he thought everyone else was weird and backwards. Oh the irony.
A paragon of virtue you must be, how many people must die to satisfy your need to let emotion rule action?

Oh what, I have another little scenario for your critical evaluating mind. If you saw someone get beaten, raped, and tortured, what harm has it done? See how backwards that statement is.

The dog was not beaten, raped, or tortured. Another fallacy of the false analogy.

[ZeroCool]

Not really. It's my understanding that the dog in this scenario was fully restored to its former self. If I were similarly restored there would be no harm done to me. Any harm one might perceive from scar tissue is mitigated by the scientific contribution of the experiment. I would suffer a few scars if it meant saving the lives of other people.

Oh yes because you have had your head severed while still living, hooked up to an arterial pump, examined, then reattached. Compeletly moral and painless. The only harm is obviously the scar tissue, and not any complications that might have occured while the organs were removed from the body, hooked up to synthetic devies to prevent cell death, then placed back in the body and sewn back up I dont understand how you people live with yourselves.


Apparently anyone that disagrees with you is not sentient?


Anyone that thinks these expirments in any way are an ok proceedure, yes. And that not being self evident, goes to show to the masses and normal people how wrong you were raised and how poorly your sense of ethics developed.


Argumentum ad Populum. Appealing to the emotions of myself or anyone else does not examine the real harm and benefits gained by this experiment. Facebook is for nerds.


Defeated, why? Because no one in the right mind would agree with you, you are a very small minority, and this not being self evident that it is morally wrong, is just evidence that you were raised compeltely wrong and have the most fucked up views of morality and ethics i have ever seen on the internet. And LOL at saying facebook is for nerds. Im sure your great with the ladies.


A paragon of virtue you must be, how many people must die to satisfy your need to let emotion rule action?


How many people must die? Because i oppose the rape of sentient beings against their will and had the most fringe medical, morally questionable, expirments done on me? Then had to live with whatever mental duress and physical deformity I endured? Compete fail. You can say the same about the nazi medical expirments. How many people must die because you put a halt to scientific advancement? Im all for medical advancement, but there comes a point when you have to draw the line of morality. And some peoples perception of this is so skewed they dont see this line at all.


The dog was not beaten, raped, or tortured. Another fallacy of the false analogy.


Answer the question. What harm is done? I want to see how your brilliant, logical evaluating mind works.


Im sorry, please continue to make my day. I cant help but laugh at some people on forumfall and their view of the world / morals / ethics. They are the only people they know that agree with themselves, they might find a few others on the internet though. Lmfao. Im so glad the rest of the world doesn't think this way.

Please counter reply, i need another good laugh.

[ZeroCool]

Again, this is the wrong way of arguing, because the right way would be you getting enough basic empathy for living beings to not even consider such torture.

You see pzombie, forumfall is a like a stronghold for people that lack basic morals and empathy. How it got that way, I have no idea. But just know that the rest of the world developed a normal sense of empathy to see how those expirments are self evidently wrong. And the people that committed those artocities, and the people that try to rationalize it, just goes to show you how fucked up the human psyche can become, and how detached from reality and the rest of the world they really are.

[PirateGlen]

Oh yes because you have had your head severed while still living, hooked up to an arterial pump, examined, then reattached. Compeletly moral and painless. The only harm is obviously the scar tissue, and not any complications that might have occured while the organs were removed from the body, hooked up to synthetic devies to prevent cell death, then placed back in the body and sewn back up I dont understand how you people live with yourselves.
So anything risky is immoral because of what "might" happen? Are transplants similarly immoral? Is it immoral to run your blood through dialysis?

Anyone that thinks these expirments in any way are an ok proceedure, yes. And that not being self evident, goes to show to the masses and normal people how wrong you were raised and how poorly your sense of ethics developed.
Some of us think more critically than the basic "this makes me feel bad, therefore is it immoral". I suppose you wouldn't know about that. :)

Defeated, why? Because no one in the right mind would agree with you, you are a very small minority, and this not being self evident that it is morally wrong, is just evidence that you were raised compeltely wrong and have the most fucked up views of morality and ethics i have ever seen on the internet.
Ever? you must be new to the internet or otherwise lead a very sheltered life.
Seems "right mind" is a definition that means whatever you want it to mean. Having more people agree with you does not make you more "right". That's an obvious logical fallacy.

And LOL at saying facebook is for nerds. Im sure your great with the ladies.
Indeed I am. Don't need the internet to facilitate talking to someone. Turns out people did that sort of thing long before the internet or facebook.

How many people must die? Because i oppose the rape of sentient beings against their will and had the most fringe medical, morally questionable, expirments done on me? Then had to live with whatever mental duress and physical deformity I endured? Compete fail.
Was there some part of the video where the doctor whipped out his dick and raped the dog? If not let's stop pretending the dog got raped.

You can say the same about the nazi medical expirments. How many people must die because you put a halt to scientific advancement? Im all for medical advancement, but there comes a point when you have to draw the line of morality. And some peoples perception of this is so skewed they dont see this line at all.
More false analogies? You'd think, seeing as obviously right you are, you wouldn't need so many fallacious arguments to support your position. What is the supposed line? Are all mammals off limits to any sort of experiment you chose to declare fringe?

Answer the question. What harm is done? I want to see how your brilliant, logical evaluating mind works.
The obvious physical harm from the event, the mental trauma during the event, the mental trauma following the event, the financial harm for medical and lost wages, the societal harm associated with increased fear, the societal harm and financial harm with dimished community value. If I spent more time I suspect I could come up with more, but I suspect I've already given more than you'd thought of.

Im sorry, please continue to make my day. I cant help but laugh at some people on forumfall and their view of the world / morals / ethics. They are the only people they know that agree with themselves, they might find a few others on the internet though. Lmfao. Im so glad the rest of the world doesn't think this way.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I bet it makes you feel much better about your opinions when you conclude that people who disagree with you are not sentient. I'm sure genocide has never occurred based on this belief.

[pZombie]

To approach it ethically, I would ask: What harm is done?

You seem to presume that things you don't like should be self evident as crimes. I think you've just failed to critically examine why it's wrong. I suppose your self rightous approach to the entire issue makes that a difficult task, though.

Would it be immoral to cut of YOUR head without your consent and use it for similar experiments or even worse which include heavy torture in order to fill some gaps in behavioral science?

If not, explain why.

If yes, explain why.

Since immoral would be a very loaded term. Would you object against such practice, and if yes, explain how you would argue against it.

If not, how would you argue for it... lulz

[PirateGlen]

Would it be immoral to cut of YOUR head without your consent and use it for similar experiments or even worse which include heavy torture in order to fill some gaps in behavioral science?

If yes, explain why.

Not without my consent.

Torture (something not in these videos) should never be permitted.

[pZombie]

Not without my consent.

Torture (something not in these videos) should never be permitted.

Why not? you ingored my request for you to explain why not.


You did not ignore it deliberately, now, did you?

[PirateGlen]

Why not? you ingored my request for you to explain why not.

You did not ignore it deliberately, now, did you?

Because I have the right to do with my body as I chose with few exceptions.

Torture should never be permitted because it is not consistent with each other person's right to do with their body as they chose (with few exceptions).

[pZombie]

Because I have the right to do with my body as I chose with few exceptions.

Torture should never be permitted because it is not consistent with each other person's right to do with their body as they chose (with few exceptions).

I see, and i assume you mean right written in the lawbook.
So let us assume you would not live in the US or any other nation having such laws. Would it then be ok to tortune you and cut your head for experiments without your consent if such laws were not written down ?

[PirateGlen]

I see, and i assume you mean right written in the lawbook.
So let us assume you would not live in the US or any other nation having such laws. Would it then be ok to tortune you and cut your head for experiments without your consent if such laws were not written down ?

No, I meant right in exactly the way I used it. Natural right, if you having trouble keeping up.

[pZombie]

No, I meant right in exactly the way I used it. Natural right, if you having trouble keeping up.

natural right? this coming from you? - excuse me if i laugh now


what about that dog, it does not have such a right, yet you do?

and was it godgiven to you, or where did this right come from?


i feel i have cornered you a bit too much. tell me if you need a timeout


EDIT: This is hilarious, i cannot stop laughing. Now that it is about your own safety, and your own head, you suddenly make new natural rights up.

People watch and learn. Self righteous at it s best.

[PirateGlen]

natural right? this coming from you? - excuse me if i laugh now

what about that dog, it does not have such a right, yet you do?

and was it godgiven to you, or where did this right come from?

i feel i have cornered you a bit too much. tell me if you need a timeout

EDIT: This is hilarious, i cannot stop laughing. Now that it is about your own safety, and your own head, you suddenly make new natural rights up.

People watch and learn. Self righteous at it s best.

Actually... no. Natural rights are rights are not necessarily granted by a deity (even if some people believe them to be).

Natural rights are rights derived from reason. I didn't make these up and I've supported them for years, not just at this convenience as you seem to think. They've been explained long before I was born, but I would suspect it would make you feel warm and fuzzy inside leading yourself to believe you've cornered me in any way, so please enjoy the rare occasion.

Incidentally the dog does not have the same rights, though it does have some.

[pZombie]

Actually... no. Natural rights are rights are not necessarily granted by a deity (even if some people believe them to be).

Natural rights are rights derived from reason. I didn't make these up and I've supported them for years, not just at this convenience as you seem to think. They've been explained long before I was born, but I would suspect it would make you feel warm and fuzzy inside leading yourself to believe you've cornered me in any way, so please enjoy the rare occasion.

Incidentally the dog does not have the same rights, though it does have some.

You sufffer forum diaheria, but alright...

i am all ears how you will explain to us how those natural rights came to you, and not to the dog.

go on

EDIT: Before we get filled with more crap of you, i hope you did not mean the right of the strongest. Because in this case, we would make damn sure your head would be cut by someone stronger than you.

[PirateGlen]

You sufffer forum diaheria, but alright...

i am all ears how you will explain to us how those natural rights came to you, and not to the dog.

go on

EDIT: Before we get filled with more crap of you, i hope you did not mean the right of the strongest. Because in this case, we would make damn sure your head would be cut by someone stronger than you.

It's actually a culmination of natural law writers. If you actually want to understand you'll have a lot of reading ahead of you:

Here's Rousseau on animal rights
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_02.htm

Locke regarding cruelty of animals:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1692locke-education.html

Bentham:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=qeVFNvlsVH0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Even still I doubt these would educate you on the concept of natural rights, (mostly because what I've provided is narrowed to their relationship to animal rights) a concept that people still fumble with even after years of eduction related to the topic.

[pZombie]

It's actually a culmination of natural law writers. If you actually want to understand you'll have a lot of reading ahead of you:

Here's Rousseau on animal rights
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_02.htm

Locke regarding cruelty of animals:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1692locke-education.html

Bentham:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=qeVFNvlsVH0C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Even still I doubt these would educate you on the concept of natural rights, (mostly because what I've provided is narrowed to their relationship to animal rights) a concept that people still fumble with even after years of eduction related to the topic.

nice way out.. point to literature which magically makes the point for you.

i will accept your resignation.

[PirateGlen]

nice way out.. point to literature which magically makes the point for you.

i will accept your resignation.

I've resigned nothing. If you can't accept that the answer is bigger than you're prepared to endure, I can't help you with that.

Natural law and the relationship between natual law and animals is not a tidy sentence that is able or ought to be compacted into a forum post. I would suspect any explanation I offer you would declare to be insufficient, and rightly so, because it is not something so easily reduced.

To placate your belief that I am not trying, I'll offer something at the risk that you would conclude it is insufficient:

Natural law (depending on which writers one agrees with) concludes that nothing sentient should suffer. However, sentience does not convey other rights that humans enjoy like liberty to all things simply because they are sentient because not all sentient things have the capacity to govern their liberty, just as a person similarly incapacitated does not have the right to liberty. This is just one example that contrasts the natural law that would apply to humans and the natural law that applies to animals.

[pZombie]

Natural law (depending on which writers one agrees with) concludes that nothing sentient should suffer.

Mr Natural law concludes that nothing sentien should suffer - Hello Mr Natural law, where did you come from, and how did you arrive at your conclusion? knock knock
What? You were pulled by the hair and drawn into the discussion just to make a point? ok


However, sentience does not convey other rights that humans enjoy like liberty to all things simply because they are sentient because not all sentient things have the capacity to govern their liberty

so sentience which magically did give certain right to powerful non incapacitated humans, does not also magically give the right for liberty.
No, this right is given magically depending on if you are healthy and strong, and not some wreck or an animal.
I love this way of reasoning, it just does not sound very reasonable, expect it uses phrases like, cows can fly, because bananas are yellow. gg


just as a person similarly incapacitated does not have the right to liberty. This is just one example that contrasts the natural law that would apply to humans and the natural law that applies to animals.

This made me lulz - and will go without comment as it speaks for itself

[Bawlin]

Zerocool you should really think about becoming a journalist. The way you sensationalize and take out of context the words of everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% could really make for some great entertainment. You know, these gross exaggerations you make about what disgusting human beings we are are not unlike those used by Hitler and other dictators. I figured I'd just throw in that reference because you seem to enjoy using it so much.

[Rossco]

I think most people in this thread, the reasonable half at least, have come to the same following realization: there is a small minority in this thread, particularily two people, that cannot be argued with because they barricade their objective mind with self righteousness, misplaced ethics, and an affinity for not understanding rational argument.

In response, I feel we should all do the following:
1) Cease trying to enlighten this small minority.
2) Flame their asses to shit, because if God existed, he himself would tell you that he made a mistake when he made this minority (and their parents/whoever raised them).

Discussion ended.

[pZombie]

I think most people in this thread, the reasonable half at least, have come to the same following realization: there is a small minority in this thread, particularily two people, that cannot be argued with because they barricade their objective mind with self righteousness, misplaced ethics, and an affinity for not understanding rational argument.

In response, I feel we should all do the following:
1) Cease trying to enlighten this small minority.
2) Flame their asses to shit, because if God existed, he himself would tell you that he made a mistake when he made this minority (and their parents/whoever raised them).

Discussion ended.

Yes, i am sure if god existed, he would support such rats which find it ok for other sentient beings to suffer just so they can have an easier life.

EDIT: sarcasm

[Rossco]

Yes, i am sure if god existed, he would support such rats which find it ok for other sentient beings to suffer just so they can have an easier life.

EDIT: sarcasm

Dogs =/= Sentient

Intelligent, yes. But not sentient. And don't go pull some arbitrary definitions for consciousness or sentience off the internet and use those as an argument, because sentience is a philosophical topic/argument, not something you can summarize with a single definition of a word. Philisohopy =/= Word.

However, if you can manage to convince the majority of the biological doctorate scientific community to all agree that, "Dogs are Sentient," then I will stop opposing your views. But until you actually provide real evidence for your claims, beyond construing people's words and throwing baseless flaming shit at everybody like some religious preacher, I will continue to laugh at your ignorance.

In conclusion: Lulz, you iz funneh, Mr. Not-All-There, lulz rofl lol lmao roflcopter. Lol.

[pZombie]

Dogs =/= Sentient

Intelligent, yes. But not sentient. And don't go pull some arbitrary definitions for consciousness or sentience off the internet and use those as an argument, because sentience is a philosophical topic/argument, not something you can summarize with a single definition of a word. Philisohopy =/= Word.

However, if you can manage to convince the majority of the biological doctorate scientific community to all agree that, "Dogs are Sentient," then I will stop opposing your views. But until you actually provide real evidence for your claims, beyond construing people's words and throwing baseless flaming shit at everybody like some religious preacher, I will continue to laugh at your ignorance.

In conclusion: Lulz, you iz funneh, Mr. Not-All-There, lulz rofl lol lmao roflcopter. Lol.

I think anyone who reads your posts and reads the replies will understand that your position is one which was manufactured to suit your agenda, and your own selfish existence.
Now you keep winding around like a snake attempting to make wrong right and vice versa. keep trying

[akrippler]

Before you start crying about the dog used in the video, the main consesnus now a days is that, that film was just soviet propoganda to freak everyone else into thinking the russians were that far ahead of us technologically.

People believe he actually carried out the expirements, but the video was supposedly staged.

brain cells require more then just oxygenated blood to function. And the dog wouldnt be able to move its head without neck muscles.

[pZombie]

Before you start crying about the dog used in the video, the main consesnus now a days is that, that film was just soviet propoganda to freak everyone else into thinking the russians were that far ahead of us technologically.

People believe he actually carried out the expirements, but the video was supposedly staged.

brain cells require more then just oxygenated blood to function. And the dog wouldnt be able to move its head without neck muscles.

possible, but do you have a link to proof that?

But even if this was just propaganda and fake, it did make a point, didn t it?

[akrippler]

possible, but do you have a link to proof that?

But even if this was just propaganda and fake, it did make a point, didn t it?

No proof, thats why i said consensus, and believed.

And you made a point by posting it or the russians made a point by creating the film?

[pZombie]

No proof, thats why i said consensus, and believed.

And you made a point by posting it or the russians made a point by creating the film?

The point was made by the follow up discussion. There are several even more cruel experiments done to animals, this just being an example. It could have been a video of any other cruel experiment, so it does not really matter if this particular one is fake or not. And i am not sure the consensus is at all that this is fake. To me it looks very real, and there is quite some scientists which believe it is real at least according to what i read.

[Rimayven]

This thread delivers.

I wonder how PETA would react to this.

[pZombie]

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/ModernMechanix/1-1935/lrg_dog_life.jpg


just a bit more for you... again, this was done decades ago. imagine now

[Rimayven]

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/ModernMechanix/1-1935/lrg_dog_life.jpg


just a bit more for you... again, this was done decades ago. imagine now

Great stuff. I wonder how it applies to humans.

[Apex Vertigo]

There is no excuse for torturing another being, for your own well being. That feels wrong and is wrong.

I would rather die of cancer than have someone else suffer against his will, just for a chance to get cured.

Once you accept that others are supposed to suffer for your own well being, be it animals in this case, you will not hessitate to go one step further. It will be the homeless guy which cannot defend himself and is consider useless anyway by a large portion of society.
Later it will be the poor which are jobless, and are also useless. It will walk it's way up and eventually reach you too.

Again, this is the wrong way of arguing, because the right way would be you getting enough basic empathy for living beings to not even consider such torture.

So I suppose you are a vegan? If you care so much for the suffering of animals how could you possibly bring yourself to support such slaughter? Besides, they are animals, they aren't people and to make that leap is to be on par with PETA, and that quite frankly is never good.

[Rimayven]

Without animal research, we wouldn't have modern medicine. These gruesome experiments may seem sadistic until you realize their significance in the expansion of the boundaries of medical science.

[PirateGlen]

Mr Natural law concludes that nothing sentien should suffer - Hello Mr Natural law, where did you come from, and how did you arrive at your conclusion? knock knock
What? You were pulled by the hair and drawn into the discussion just to make a point? ok
I even said I would do it at the risk of you concluding it were insufficient, paraphrasing as it was, and yet what I predicted came true, as I knew it would: you declared that which I had already said was too much information to be paraphrased is too little information. Two points for foresight, I guess?

so sentience which magically did give certain right to powerful non incapacitated humans, does not also magically give the right for liberty.
No, this right is given magically depending on if you are healthy and strong, and not some wreck or an animal.
I love this way of reasoning, it just does not sound very reasonable, expect it uses phrases like, cows can fly, because bananas are yellow. gg
It's reasonable even if you cannot understand it. Is it reasonable to think animals should be at liberty to do whatever they wish?

What do you care whether it is reasonable when you do not think truth should be constrained to logic?

This made me lulz - and will go without comment as it speaks for itself
So you think crazy people should be at liberty to be crazy and perform crazy dog tests?

Are you vegan?

[Reckun]

unethical scientific pursuits have always raised a few alarm bells for me. because with every new advancement in science, we somehow get one step closer to having the potential for one person to kill more and more people.

science in and of it's self is morally and ethically neutral. it can be used to benefit humanity or destroy or harm it and while most human beings are sane individuals that (hopefully) would use to benefit humanity (either from charity or profit but that's another issue), there are the insane or simply evil people who would use it to create mass murder.

science doesn't kill people but people that use either scientific reasoning to justify murder, or techniques to carry it out do.

this guy wins the thread

[Cool Story]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11423291@N03/4109081096/

I loved this one in my home town

[ZeroCool]

So anything risky is immoral because of what "might" happen? Are transplants similarly immoral? Is it immoral to run your blood through dialysis?

Nice job at analysis. Did you major in english? Im sorry, but if when you were growing up, you did not develop the natural empathy that most people have developed, then there is no hope in agruing with you. I didnt say anything risky was immoral. I said, severing an alive, sentient, beings head, without its consent, hooking it up to an arterial pump, then reattching its is immoral, in every way. If you cannot see whats wrong in this, then you are hopeless. And you will struggle with society because they developed basic empathetic and moral values that everyone should of have developed while growing up.


Some of us think more critically than the basic "this makes me feel bad, therefore is it immoral". I suppose you wouldn't know about that. :)


Most of us in the world, have developed basic empathetic values that when we see something horrendous, we know there is something wrong. We don't need pi +2394 to the square root of 5 dvided by pie, to let us know that there is something wrong. Lmfao


Ever? you must be new to the internet or otherwise lead a very sheltered life.
Seems "right mind" is a definition that means whatever you want it to mean. Having more people agree with you does not make you more "right". That's an obvious logical fallacy.


Not ever, i was being sarcastic. And nothing makes you right either, although having %99 of peoples opinion on my side usually helps. And usually when most people agree with something, its considered common sense, hence the world "common"


Indeed I am. Don't need the internet to facilitate talking to someone. Turns out people did that sort of thing long before the internet or facebook.


No because everyone and their mother in college has a facebook. And the first thing a girl asks me for, before my number, is "hey do you have facebook" Although I should respond like you and say "no its for nerds"



Was there some part of the video where the doctor whipped out his dick and raped the dog? If not let's stop pretending the dog got raped.


Apparently again you need help with basic english. If i was raped of my computer, then that means it was forcefully taken from me. If i was raped of my (insert object) then that can mean it was forcefully taken from me. I used it in the same context. The dog was raped of his consent (to a high degree) and had the most morally questionable things done on him. If you think i was talking about these dogs actually being sexually raped, then you are either A) Completely dumb or B) just trying to make an argument cause you have nothing better to argue.


More false analogies? You'd think, seeing as obviously right you are, you wouldn't need so many fallacious arguments to support your position. What is the supposed line? Are all mammals off limits to any sort of experiment you chose to declare fringe?


Im not against the testing of things on animals. Although, I am against having a living beings head severed, studied for a period of time, then reattached. Im sorry if me and the rest of the world think that is a bit fringe. And you not seeing how thats fringe shows how empathetically and morally blind you really are.


The obvious physical harm from the event, the mental trauma during the event, the mental trauma following the event, the financial harm for medical and lost wages, the societal harm associated with increased fear, the societal harm and financial harm with dimished community value. If I spent more time I suspect I could come up with more, but I suspect I've already given more than you'd thought of.


Do you not see a correlation between this and a living being having its head severed while living, then reattached? Although probably not, because that is on a higher degree of mental duress and physical trauma.

What sounds more traumatic to you?

Being A) Forced to have sex against your will, while being beaten and tortued.

Or B) Forced to have your head cut off, attached to a pump so the blood was still being supplied you you didnt die naturally, then studied for a period of time, then reattached? All while still being sentient and alive?


Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. I bet it makes you feel much better about your opinions when you conclude that people who disagree with you are not sentient. I'm sure genocide has never occurred based on this belief.

I was not saying that people who agree with these actions are not sentient in a literal sense. Mabye i should of added a /sarcasm, because along with empathy, thats something that was stunted in your development.

And hey, im not the one thats using the same type of reasoning those scientists did to commit those atrocities. Im sure every tyrant used reasoning to justify their actions and outlooks on the world too. Theres a reason those kind of expirments were only done in the 1940's and in foriegn countries.

Oh and what scientific advancements did those scientists achieve by putting live beings through that? I just want to see if it was worth it all. What human beings are now alive and well, because some fucked up scientist did all that?

[ZeroCool]

Without animal research, we wouldn't have modern medicine. These gruesome experiments may seem sadistic until you realize their significance in the expansion of the boundaries of medical science.

Please tell me what scientific advancements came about by those expirments.

[Laxe]

I would personaly thank if i ever met any of these scientists since they boosted evolution very fast since first WW, thanks for making posible to have almost all things we all use now with small sacrifices

if you have something against all what u saw in thos videos, well go live in a cave and worship your god with stupid beliefs like having a soul

[Black Thunder]

also

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261&ei=nnk9s5dxnijwlqey5vs_dw&q=endgame&safe=active#

[Rossco]

What sounds more traumatic to you?

Being A) Forced to have sex against your will, while being beaten and tortued.

Or B) Forced to have your head cut off, attached to a pump so the blood was still being supplied you you didnt die naturally, then studied for a period of time, then reattached? All while still being sentient and alive?


Definitely A. B would be traumatic, yes, as I am sentient (which, again Mr. Can't Learn Properly, dogs are not sentient) and would be frightened of the repercussions of being decapitated. But A would be more traumatic, physically, and emotionally.

Besides, the realization that nearly indefinite artificially sustainable life is possible? I'd be more awe-inspired than anything else. If my death can lead to a discover that potentially ends death entirely, it would take very little consideration to make the decision to do such.

Also; let me ask you:
1. Are you religious?
2. Are you a vegan/animals rights activist of some form?
3. Where you brought up in an objective environment of total free social choice, or where your parents/guardians the average "You should believe what we believe because we believe it's right," kind of people?

[Rimayven]

Please tell me what scientific advancements came about by those expirments.

We now know what happens if we do this to a dog.

[PirateGlen]

Nice job at analysis. Did you major in english? Im sorry, but if when you were growing up, you did not develop the natural empathy that most people have developed, then there is no hope in agruing with you. I didnt say anything risky was immoral. I said, severing an alive, sentient, beings head, without its consent, hooking it up to an arterial pump, then reattching its is immoral, in every way. If you cannot see whats wrong in this, then you are hopeless. And you will struggle with society because they developed basic empathetic and moral values that everyone should of have developed while growing up.



Most of us in the world, have developed basic empathetic values that when we see something horrendous, we know there is something wrong. We don't need pi +2394 to the square root of 5 dvided by pie, to let us know that there is something wrong. Lmfao



Not ever, i was being sarcastic. And nothing makes you right either, although having %99 of peoples opinion on my side usually helps. And usually when most people agree with something, its considered common sense, hence the world "common"



No because everyone and their mother in college has a facebook. And the first thing a girl asks me for, before my number, is "hey do you have facebook" Although I should respond like you and say "no its for nerds"




Apparently again you need help with basic english. If i was raped of my computer, then that means it was forcefully taken from me. If i was raped of my (insert object) then that can mean it was forcefully taken from me. I used it in the same context. The dog was raped of his consent (to a high degree) and had the most morally questionable things done on him. If you think i was talking about these dogs actually being sexually raped, then you are either A) Completely dumb or B) just trying to make an argument cause you have nothing better to argue.



Im not against the testing of things on animals. Although, I am against having a living beings head severed, studied for a period of time, then reattached. Im sorry if me and the rest of the world think that is a bit fringe. And you not seeing how thats fringe shows how empathetically and morally blind you really are.



Do you not see a correlation between this and a living being having its head severed while living, then reattached? Although probably not, because that is on a higher degree of mental duress and physical trauma.

What sounds more traumatic to you?

Being A) Forced to have sex against your will, while being beaten and tortued.

Or B) Forced to have your head cut off, attached to a pump so the blood was still being supplied you you didnt die naturally, then studied for a period of time, then reattached? All while still being sentient and alive?



I was not saying that people who agree with these actions are not sentient in a literal sense. Mabye i should of added a /sarcasm, because along with empathy, thats something that was stunted in your development.

And hey, im not the one thats using the same type of reasoning those scientists did to commit those atrocities. Im sure every tyrant used reasoning to justify their actions and outlooks on the world too. Theres a reason those kind of expirments were only done in the 1940's and in foriegn countries.

Oh and what scientific advancements did those scientists achieve by putting live beings through that? I just want to see if it was worth it all. What human beings are now alive and well, because some fucked up scientist did all that?

Agree to disagree, then.

[nate4449]

Nice job at analysis. Did you major in english? Im sorry, but if when you were growing up, you did not develop the natural empathy that most people have developed, then there is no hope in agruing with you. I didnt say anything risky was immoral. I said, severing an alive, sentient, beings head, without its consent, hooking it up to an arterial pump, then reattching its is immoral, in every way. If you cannot see whats wrong in this, then you are hopeless. And you will struggle with society because they developed basic empathetic and moral values that everyone should of have developed while growing up.

Emotional arguments? Massive fail. Mutilating animals makes me feel good about myself, therefore it is okay.

Perhaps it is YOU whom will struggle with reality, bro.

Most of us in the world, have developed basic empathetic values that when we see something horrendous, we know there is something wrong.

"Most of us" in this world also believe in the jesus, global warming, Barack Obama, etc.

We don't need pi +2394 to the square root of 5 dvided by pie, to let us know that there is something wrong. Lmfao

Bwahahah, what is this? You sound like a angsty teenage girl who has just failed pre-algebra for the fourth time. Critical thinking =/= math, but the insight and problem solving abilities are most certainly relevant, perhaps this explains more about your reasoning abilities than you'd like us to know?

Not ever, i was being sarcastic. And nothing makes you right either, although having %99 of peoples opinion on my side usually helps. And usually when most people agree with something, its considered common sense, hence the world "common"

Argument by authority. 99% of people also used to think the world was flat, too. It really should be called common nonsense.

No because everyone and their mother in college has a facebook. And the first thing a girl asks me for, before my number, is "hey do you have facebook" Although I should respond like you and say "no its for nerds"

Or, rather than wasting your time on the internet and landing yourself in the friend zone, you could skip right to the part where you say "Nah, but here's my phone number."

And no sir, MMO's are for nerds. Social networking websites are for pathetic present/post highschool fags whom are too boring to actually do anything with their time, so they spend it texting with a pc and playing farmville.


Apparently again you need help with basic english. If i was raped of my computer, then that means it was forcefully taken from me. If i was raped of my (insert object) then that can mean it was forcefully taken from me. I used it in the same context. The dog was raped of his consent (to a high degree) and had the most morally questionable things done on him. If you think i was talking about these dogs actually being sexually raped, then you are either A) Completely dumb or B) just trying to make an argument cause you have nothing better to argue.

Slang. He was arguing rationally, you are arguing by emotion and common nonsense.

Im not against the testing of things on animals. Although, I am against having a living beings head severed, studied for a period of time, then reattached. Im sorry if me and the rest of the world think that is a bit fringe. And you not seeing how thats fringe shows how empathetically and morally blind you really are.

Where do you draw the line? The fact that you are too squeamish to appreciate what scientists are trying to do here only attests to your lack of experience in the real world. We are omnivores, we've done this sort of thing to animals since the beginning of our existence, except without the revivification part. And if we didn't do it, a fucking gator or a cheetah would do it for us.

Most of the world would think/does think that slaughterhouses are horrid and inhumane, but they ignore what needs to be done and they make use of what we gain from it.

B) Forced to have your head cut off, attached to a pump so the blood was still being supplied you you didnt die naturally, then studied for a period of time, then reattached? All while still being sentient and alive?

And what if they studied this sort of procedure untill it was perfected, to the point where they may save victims of plane crashes, car accidents and the like? What if they were to the point where they could transplant someone's head onto another body, or even a partially bionic one? Think of the human lives we may save, and tell me that the lives of our livestock are more important?

And hey, im not the one thats using the same type of reasoning those scientists did to commit those atrocities. Im sure every tyrant used reasoning to justify their actions and outlooks on the world too. Theres a reason those kind of expirments were only done in the 1940's and in foriegn countries.

Again, you blame reason as the cause of all evil, as if emotion was the shining beacon of good. Emotion, due to it's subjectivity, is in fact the simplest path to evil and atrocity.

Tyrants use emotion to control their populations, either by fear, or hate. They don't stay up at night wondering if they are a good person, trying to rationalize their endeavors; they ponder how to keep themselves in power and their population in check.

The holocaust didn't happen because it was "rational" to eliminate the jews, but because they worked for decades to raise little nazi boyscouts brainwashed to feel that the jews were evil and deserving of genocide.

Oh and what scientific advancements did those scientists achieve by putting live beings through that? I just want to see if it was worth it all. What human beings are now alive and well, because some fucked up scientist did all that?

Due to adversity from the squeamish, their work is always hampered and never allowed to reach perfection. Good job.

[ForzikTheFeared]

Your a moron. If I could see you slowly die, just so all the time I spent watching you could be used to further /My/ existence, I would; not because I don't like you, but because your morals - along with pretty much the rest of civilized societies morals - are completely fuckbuckled backwards.

Immortality > Average Human Morals

Even if you are trolling you are a piece of shit that should get his ass beat then unwillingly used for scientific purposes. I am not against eating meat and shit, but being that cruel to a animal just for our own purposes, even though we don't need it is bordering on egotistical psychopath god syndrome.

Fucking that video of the dog being shot and then one thrown in the garbage truck pissed me off so much in real life, it sickens me.

[nate4449]

Fucking that video of the dog being shot and then one thrown in the garbage truck pissed me off so much in real life, it sickens me.

Why? It happens to deer and birds all of the time.

[ZeroCool]

Emotional arguments? Massive fail. Mutilating animals makes me feel good about myself, therefore it is okay.

Perhaps it is YOU whom will struggle with reality, bro.

Emotional argument? If i see someone being mudered or raped on the side of the road, I feel that it is wrong and know that it is wrong . Its called basic instinct that most human beings developed while growing up. And if you want to see a museum of people that didnt develope this, visit forumfall. And no, your the one whos gunna struggle with the rest of the world, by advocating this kind of shit. Im not surprised at how delusional your are.


"Most of us" in this world also believe in the jesus, global warming, Barack Obama, etc.


When most of us in the world see rape or murder, we know its wrong. Although according to your logic, we should not act because most of us in the world believe in dumb things too. Well i got news for you buddy, the basic instinct of human empathy is universal and has nothing to do with religious or non religious beliefs. Complete fail on your part.



Bwahahah, what is this? You sound like a angsty teenage girl who has just failed pre-algebra for the fourth time. Critical thinking =/= math, but the insight and problem solving abilities are most certainly relevant, perhaps this explains more about your reasoning abilities than you'd like us to know?


Bawahaha, your too much of a dumbass to understand what I mean. Im saying we dont need exact analysis and science to tell us that something is wrong, we get that from the core of our being. Continue to amuse me.


Argument by authority. 99% of people also used to think the world was flat, too. It really should be called common nonsense.


My argument above, when >99% of us see rape or muder, we know from the core of our being that it is wrong. Its called basic instinct of empathy.



Or, rather than wasting your time on the internet and landing yourself in the friend zone, you could skip right to the part where you say "Nah, but here's my phone number."

And no sir, MMO's are for nerds. Social networking websites are for pathetic present/post highschool fags whom are too boring to actually do anything with their time, so they spend it texting with a pc and playing farmville.


My whole point in posting that was to combat what he said about facebook being for nerds. And wait facebook is only for present/post highschool fags? LOL get out of your moms basement dude. Please post again on this topic, I need another good laugh, please.



Slang. He was arguing rationally, you are arguing by emotion and common nonsense.


No he was not arguing rationality, he completely misinterpruted my definition of rape.


Where do you draw the line? The fact that you are too squeamish to appreciate what scientists are trying to do here only attests to your lack of experience in the real world. We are omnivores, we've done this sort of thing to animals since the beginning of our existence, except without the revivification part. And if we didn't do it, a fucking gator or a cheetah would do it for us.

Most of the world would think/does think that slaughterhouses are horrid and inhumane, but they ignore what needs to be done and they make use of what we gain from it.


Wait, we've done this thing since the beginning of time? Cut of each others heads, then hooked a blood pump up to the main arteries of the head so it didnt die naturally, then study it to see the cruel effects? LMAO.


And what if they studied this sort of procedure untill it was perfected, to the point where they may save victims of plane crashes, car accidents and the like? What if they were to the point where they could transplant someone's head onto another body, or even a partially bionic one? Think of the human lives we may save, and tell me that the lives of our livestock are more important?


So wait, we must continually put extreme unspeakable mental duress and physical trauma on lviing beings, so we might have a chance to perfect it with them, then move on to HUMAN BEINGS and do the same thing to them, so we might have a chance and perfecting it for them? Then going against the natural cycle of life and death and try to defy it? Mabye some people dont want to live after their bodies are completely mutaltaed. Mabye some people dont want to live in a vegitative state with only their head, and any mental duress and pain that goes along with it. Your a sick fuck you know that?


Again, you blame reason as the cause of all evil, as if emotion was the shining beacon of good. Emotion, due to it's subjectivity, is in fact the simplest path to evil and atrocity.

Tyrants use emotion to control their populations, either by fear, or hate. They don't stay up at night wondering if they are a good person, trying to rationalize their endeavors; they ponder how to keep themselves in power and their population in check.

The holocaust didn't happen because it was "rational" to eliminate the jews, but because they worked for decades to raise little nazi boyscouts brainwashed to feel that the jews were evil and deserving of genocide.


Im sorry if you didnt develop certain aspects of basic instinct when you were growing up. When people see someone undergo extremely questionable acts with unspeakable mental duress and physical trauma (rape, murder) They know that something is wrong. But they shouldnt do anything or question it, because according to you ALL emotion is subjective no matter what situation. Keep making my fucking day.


Due to adversity from the squeamish, their work is always hampered and never allowed to reach perfection. Good job.


Yeah and you know why? Because people in this world developed basic human attributes to prevent these horrible unspeakable events to happen. And your part of the very small minority of forumfall that thinks otherwise. And the whole point of this thread, was to say, "hey look at those fucked up scientists thats horrible" Not to say "Hey we should advocate this fucked up research because it might have a chance to perfect something that goes against the natural cycle of life and death because we are too afraid to die, and want to live our miserable lives as long as artificially possible." ... Lmfao

[nate4449]

I wrote a rather long and heartfelt response to this, but the forums ate it. So, to recap:

Emotional argument? If i see someone being mudered or raped on the side of the road, I feel that it is wrong and know that it is wrong . Its called basic instinct that most human beings developed while growing up. And if you want to see a museum of people that didnt develope this, visit forumfall. And no, your the one whos gunna struggle with the rest of the world, by advocating this kind of shit. Im not surprised at how delusional your are.

When most of us in the world see rape or murder, we know its wrong. Although according to your logic, we should not act because most of us in the world believe in dumb things too. Well i got news for you buddy, the basic instinct of human empathy is universal and has nothing to do with religious or non religious beliefs. Complete fail on your part.

My argument above, when >99% of us see rape or muder, we know from the core of our being that it is wrong. Its called basic instinct of empathy.

Is there an echo in here? No? Just me.

"Core of your being", empathy, feelings and basic instincts are all emotions, and have nothing to do with reason. I'm not trying to tell you that I don't have "feelingses" when I see pain and suffering, but rather that such "feelingses" are subjective and hold no reasoning to conclude that an act is "wrong". I still to this day feel that people whom I disagree with are stealing the oxygen from my air, does this make them criminal?


Extra example:

Bondage.

Case and point?


Bawahaha, your too much of a dumbass to understand what I mean. Im saying we dont need exact analysis and science to tell us that something is wrong, we get that from the core of our being. Continue to amuse me.

You're.

And the amusement is shared, most certainly.


My whole point in posting that was to combat what he said about facebook being for nerds. And wait facebook is only for present/post highschool fags? LOL get out of your moms basement dude. Please post again on this topic, I need another good laugh, please.

And I wrote that to "combat" the excuse that one makes a facebook for the sake of women. If you aren't chained to your parents, then there is no reason to waste time "commenting" and "sexting" on a damn public blog, see her in person and put it in her butt. Would you rather have her text you over the internets, or call you directly?

Everyone I knew in highschool used myspace, and near/upon graduation they all switched to facebook as it was the kewl thing to do. These people are horrendously boring, they sit around all day long changing the background color of their page, waiting desperately for someone to comment on their latest shitfaced/weekend pic whilst playing farmville. My friends do it, my parents do it, my fiance' does it, and it's pathetic.

We often hear that videogames are a waste of time, but I've never heard someone say such things about this pathetic social-networking fad. We've got cellphones, we've got texting, and we even have picture/video texting, why do we need personal website blogs? All this fad has ever accomplished has been to make people lazier less interesting.


No he was not arguing rationality, he completely misinterpruted my definition of rape.

Still, slang. Your definition is subjective, and only known to you. I could replace the word murder with banana and you wouldn't have a clue.

"Oh man, so I heard that there was a banana downtown last night. What is that, the fourth banana this week? These are strange times."



[OOC: We're all trolling each other here, he was just being facetious. Or wait, did you just pull reverse trollollogy? Shit.]

Wait, we've done this thing since the beginning of time? Cut of each others heads, then hooked a blood pump up to the main arteries of the head so it didnt die naturally, then study it to see the cruel effects? LMAO.

No, but we've butchered animals for our sake since the beginning, and I refuse th acknowlege the difference when we add in a few pumps for the sake of science.

So wait, we must continually put extreme unspeakable mental duress and physical trauma on lviing beings, so we might have a chance to perfect it with them, then move on to HUMAN BEINGS and do the same thing to them, so we might have a chance and perfecting it for them? Then going against the natural cycle of life and death and try to defy it? Mabye some people dont want to live after their bodies are completely mutaltaed. Mabye some people dont want to live in a vegitative state with only their head, and any mental duress and pain that goes along with it. Your a sick fuck you know that?

You value the lives of your kittens and puppies, but I don't suppose you would enjoy dying from something as trivial as the flu if we hadn't spent years in the past testing on animals.

The whole point of this type of research is to escape the "natural cycle". Perhaps people don't want to die, perhaps a mother who died in childbirth wants to see her babies, perhaps a disfigured and disabled toddler wants to live a full life.

I would slaughter over 9000 kittens and baby rats to grant those wishes, if only to point out the hypocracy and the outrage over the kittens rather than the rats.

Im sorry if you didnt develop certain aspects of basic instinct when you were growing up. When people see someone undergo extremely questionable acts with unspeakable mental duress and physical trauma (rape, murder) They know that something is wrong. But they shouldnt do anything or question it, because according to you ALL emotion is subjective no matter what situation. Keep making my fucking day.

I'm sorry that you DID. Surely, such an inability to reason without the use of emotional arguments should be grounds for disability? One could even go as far as to say that to ascend emotion is the next step in human evolution.

What if a majority of the population thought that murder was fun and that rape is sexy? The second is more likely, mind you.

Do you truly believe that if the majority agrees on something, that it means it must be true? Do you really have that much faith in the morons you see around you?

Yeah and you know why? Because people in this world developed basic human attributes to prevent these horrible unspeakable events to happen. And your part of the very small minority of forumfall that thinks otherwise. And the whole point of this thread, was to say, "hey look at those fucked up scientists thats horrible" Not to say "Hey we should advocate this fucked up research because it might have a chance to perfect something that goes against the natural cycle of life and death because we are too afraid to die, and want to live our miserable lives as long as artificially possible." ... Lmfao

Yes, humans as a species indeed have evolved emotions which may occasionally prevent them from slaughtering one another in addition to helping with childrearing.

I don't care what this thread "is about"; I'm just here to inform you that you are hypocritical at some level in your attempt to demonize the killing of livestock and pets.

Moreso, I am here to point out your personification of cute and large animals to the point of giving them human rights, while "naturalizing" the pain and torment of thinking human beings.

[Rossco]

I wrote a rather long and heartfelt response to this, but the forums ate it. So, to recap:



Is there an echo in here? No? Just me.

"Core of your being", empathy, feelings and basic instincts are all emotions, and have nothing to do with reason. I'm not trying to tell you that I don't have "feelingses" when I see pain and suffering, but rather that such "feelingses" are subjective and hold no reasoning to conclude that an act is "wrong". I still to this day feel that people whom I disagree with are stealing the oxygen from my air, does this make them criminal?


Extra example:

Bondage.

Case and point?




You're.

And the amusement is shared, most certainly.




And I wrote that to "combat" the excuse that one makes a facebook for the sake of women. If you aren't chained to your parents, then there is no reason to waste time "commenting" and "sexting" on a damn public blog, see her in person and put it in her butt. Would you rather have her text you over the internets, or call you directly?

Everyone I knew in highschool used myspace, and near/upon graduation they all switched to facebook as it was the kewl thing to do. These people are horrendously boring, they sit around all day long changing the background color of their page, waiting desperately for someone to comment on their latest shitfaced/weekend pic whilst playing farmville. My friends do it, my parents do it, my fiance' does it, and it's pathetic.

We often hear that videogames are a waste of time, but I've never heard someone say such things about this pathetic social-networking fad. We've got cellphones, we've got texting, and we even have picture/video texting, why do we need personal website blogs? All this fad has ever accomplished has been to make people lazier less interesting.




Still, slang. Your definition is subjective, and only known to you. I could replace the word murder with banana and you wouldn't have a clue.

"Oh man, so I heard that there was a banana downtown last night. What is that, the fourth banana this week? These are strange times."



[OOC: We're all trolling each other here, he was just being facetious. Or wait, did you just pull reverse trollollogy? Shit.]



No, but we've butchered animals for our sake since the beginning, and I refuse th acknowlege the difference when we add in a few pumps for the sake of science.



You value the lives of your kittens and puppies, but I don't suppose you would enjoy dying from something as trivial as the flu if we hadn't spent years in the past testing on animals.

The whole point of this type of research is to escape the "natural cycle". Perhaps people don't want to die, perhaps a mother who died in childbirth wants to see her babies, perhaps a disfigured and disabled toddler wants to live a full life.

I would slaughter over 9000 kittens and baby rats to grant those wishes, if only to point out the hypocracy and the outrage over the kittens rather than the rats.



I'm sorry that you DID. Surely, such an inability to reason without the use of emotional arguments should be grounds for disability? One could even go as far as to say that to ascend emotion is the next step in human evolution.

What if a majority of the population thought that murder was fun and that rape is sexy? The second is more likely, mind you.

Do you truly believe that if the majority agrees on something, that it means it must be true? Do you really have that much faith in the morons you see around you?



Yes, humans as a species indeed have evolved emotions which may occasionally prevent them from slaughtering one another in addition to helping with childrearing.

I don't care what this thread "is about"; I'm just here to inform you that you are hypocritical at some level in your attempt to demonize the killing of livestock and pets.

Moreso, I am here to point out your personification of cute and large animals to the point of giving them human rights, while "naturalizing" the pain and torment of thinking human beings.

Pretty much agree with you entirely. Really, though, you should stop arguing with him because he is, in fact, an imbecile - and everyone sensible knows that those of low logic skills fail miserably at using logic.

ZeroCool: Give me one logical reason why scientific experimentation in the hopes of defeating mortality are wrong. Not an emotional or moral reason, do me this single favour, and just give me a single reason - on my own level - why such a pursuit is wrong. Because, it does after all appear to be your main arguing point; the 'natural cycle' and 'defeat of death', wording it that such a scientific quest is immoral.