6 ms·

>Medieval torture is a bad example because it was done with the intent of causing pain. This is not. Jews in concentration camps were experimented on with inte

>Medieval torture is a bad example because it was done with the intent of causing pain. This is not. Jews in concentration camps were experimented on with intent of scientific experiment. By your standard it is just ok. Intent doesn't matter to the subject of torture, be it an interrogated witch, 911 terrorist, Jew in concentration camp being experimented on or a dog being vivisected. > Today the idea is repugnant, but that's because we have analgesics we can use. No. The idea became repugnant to some [the most advanced people of the time] and through their effort the analgesics started to be used. In particular, ether was first used for surgery in 1846, while vivisection was still legal for more than half a century after that. Or do you mean UCSF doesn't have analgesics available: http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UCSF-lapses-mean-research-animals-suffer-4065881.php http://www.sfgate.com/education/article/UCSF-lapses-mean-res... > Once we get a better tool we'll use it, but don't criticize the past for not using a tool that didn't exist. That a convenient lie - alcohol, 'shrooms, opium, various barks, cola nut, etc... have been known for like thousands years. >Even worse would be to say not to do the experiment at all. False scare, like security vs. liberty. The humanity would probably be much better off if it excluded all experiments on live animals. Our primitive, medieval, violent mentality is that keeps us from developing into advanced civilization. Live and let live.

aperrien 13y ago
This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. Which do you value more, animals or humans?
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. it is not philosophical, it is routine everyday choice everyone of us make. Like these researchers at UCSF - whether to administer analgesics or not before cutting a body part - calling it a philosophical question clearly shows your own philosophy. >Which do you value more, animals or humans? By asking such a question you already stated your answer. I don't ask nor answer such a question as i don't assign specific value points on lives of humans or animals. Putting such specific values and compare them has always been leading humans who think of themselves as of higher value to mindlessly butcher, torture, etc... anybody whom they think of as of lesser value, be it humans or animals.
  - yew 13y ago
    It is not philosophical, it is routine everyday choice every one of us make. There is no answer that's not philosophical. Refusing to quantify your philosophy is philosophical. It amounts to asserting that taking a position is wrong when only people who disagree with the philosophy you implicitly accept are taking a position, so it's also rather hostile.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  If you actually value either, you also have to value the other? But I can also answer that with a question if you want: which do you value more, slow but steady progress, and planting for generations ahead and reaping from what generations before sowed, or instant gratification and profit, and the constant low-intensity war that entails? (not that we lack a constancy of military action in the world, but hey)
  - ars 13y ago
    > If you actually value either, you also have to value the other? If by value you mean assign a positive number then No. If by value you mean calculate then Yes. (Sorry for phrasing it that way, but I wasn't sure which you meant.) > which do you value more, slow but steady progress, and planting for generations ahead and reaping from what generations before sowed, or instant gratification and profit, and the constant low-intensity war that entails? Now I'm confused. In another post you appear to be against this experiment (i.e. the slow and steady progress), but the way you write this makes it look like the slow and steady progress is the better way - but that's the experiment. So which is it?
ars 13y ago
> Jews in concentration camps were experimented on with intent of scientific experiment. No they weren't. They were experimented on with the intent of causing pain. If you really believe that the intent was science then you owe it to yourself to learn more history. > Intent doesn't matter to the subject of torture Yes it does. If the intent is pain then pain will be maximized. If the intent is learning then pain will be minimized, or at least not increased. UCSF seem incompetent and negligent, but why are you using them as an example? There are always bad actors. You need to look at the normal, not the extreme. > alcohol, 'shrooms, opium, various barks, cola nut, etc... have been known for like thousands years. We know now that they could have used it. Yet from every account I've read they didn't. They had opium, yet did surgery without it. So despite theoretically having it, practically speaking, they didn't. > The humanity would probably be much better off if it excluded all experiments on live animals. If by better off you mean die young then I guess so. > Our primitive, medieval, violent mentality is that keeps us from developing into advanced civilization. Our "primitive, medieval, violent mentality" are what is causing us to advance. Peaceful non-competitive societies never progress. And what's primitive about it anyway? Do you consider yourself primitive? No? They why do you think anyone else is?
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >No they weren't. They were experimented on with the intent of causing pain. If you really believe that the intent was science then you owe it to yourself to learn more history man, are you serious or just doesn't know anything or just trolling? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 the rest of your statements are about the same. I'll just stop here.
  - russellsprouts 13y ago
    The experiments they did had no real scientific value. Nominally, they were doing research, but it wasn't rigorous or useful results.
    - 13y ago

aperrien 13y ago

This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. Which do you value more, animals or humans?

VladRussian2 13y ago
>This philosophical argument can be answered very simply. it is not philosophical, it is routine everyday choice everyone of us make. Like these researchers at UCSF - whether to administer analgesics or not before cutting a body part - calling it a philosophical question clearly shows your own philosophy. >Which do you value more, animals or humans? By asking such a question you already stated your answer. I don't ask nor answer such a question as i don't assign specific value points on lives of humans or animals. Putting such specific values and compare them has always been leading humans who think of themselves as of higher value to mindlessly butcher, torture, etc... anybody whom they think of as of lesser value, be it humans or animals.
- yew 13y ago
  It is not philosophical, it is routine everyday choice every one of us make. There is no answer that's not philosophical. Refusing to quantify your philosophy is philosophical. It amounts to asserting that taking a position is wrong when only people who disagree with the philosophy you implicitly accept are taking a position, so it's also rather hostile.
PavlovsCat 13y ago
If you actually value either, you also have to value the other? But I can also answer that with a question if you want: which do you value more, slow but steady progress, and planting for generations ahead and reaping from what generations before sowed, or instant gratification and profit, and the constant low-intensity war that entails? (not that we lack a constancy of military action in the world, but hey)
- ars 13y ago
  > If you actually value either, you also have to value the other? If by value you mean assign a positive number then No. If by value you mean calculate then Yes. (Sorry for phrasing it that way, but I wasn't sure which you meant.) > which do you value more, slow but steady progress, and planting for generations ahead and reaping from what generations before sowed, or instant gratification and profit, and the constant low-intensity war that entails? Now I'm confused. In another post you appear to be against this experiment (i.e. the slow and steady progress), but the way you write this makes it look like the slow and steady progress is the better way - but that's the experiment. So which is it?

ars 13y ago

> Jews in concentration camps were experimented on with intent of scientific experiment. No they weren't. They were experimented on with the intent of causing pain. If you really believe that the intent was science then you owe it to yourself to learn more history. > Intent doesn't matter to the subject of torture Yes it does. If the intent is pain then pain will be maximized. If the intent is learning then pain will be minimized, or at least not increased. UCSF seem incompetent and negligent, but why are you using them as an example? There are always bad actors. You need to look at the normal, not the extreme. > alcohol, 'shrooms, opium, various barks, cola nut, etc... have been known for like thousands years. We know now that they could have used it. Yet from every account I've read they didn't. They had opium, yet did surgery without it. So despite theoretically having it, practically speaking, they didn't. > The humanity would probably be much better off if it excluded all experiments on live animals. If by better off you mean die young then I guess so. > Our primitive, medieval, violent mentality is that keeps us from developing into advanced civilization. Our "primitive, medieval, violent mentality" are what is causing us to advance. Peaceful non-competitive societies never progress. And what's primitive about it anyway? Do you consider yourself primitive? No? They why do you think anyone else is?

VladRussian2 13y ago
>No they weren't. They were experimented on with the intent of causing pain. If you really believe that the intent was science then you owe it to yourself to learn more history man, are you serious or just doesn't know anything or just trolling? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_human_experimentation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 the rest of your statements are about the same. I'll just stop here.
- russellsprouts 13y ago
  The experiments they did had no real scientific value. Nominally, they were doing research, but it wasn't rigorous or useful results.
  - 13y ago