/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4230984]

How does /sci/ feel about human experimentation? And no trolling please.

Personally I think illegalizing consensual human experimentation is outrageous.

[Anonymous No.4231009]

If people consent, I don't care.

[Anonymous No.4231032]

well maybe you do but i dont and i'm in the majority so stfu

[Anonymous No.4231052]

i not only think that banning consented experimentation is idiotic, but also immoral

[Anonymous No.4231066]

>>4230984
Someone has to try it.

The thing is sometimes you have to lie to a group of people, and when you lie the threat has to be below a certain level

[Anonymous No.4231070]

>>4230984
>Bioethics

I cannot explain in words, HOW MUCH I FUCKING HATED THAT COURSE.

Not everything is as clear cut as it seems OP. It turns out the the safest way to prevent abuse is just to make most human experimentation highly regulated or illegal.

You get all sorts of fucked up situations in piss poor countries, where people are being taken advantage of ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Hence the high regulation, or just plan illegalization.

[Anonymous No.4231076]

>>4231070
Sometimes you need to take advantage of somebody to get ahead in this world, and everybody comes across at least ONE unavoidable situation in life that requires taking advantage and screwing somebody over; the best step is just trying to minimize the after effects of it as much as possible.

[Anonymous No.4231079]

bioethics = religion bullshit erryday

[Anonymous No.4231090]

>>4231076
So it is ok for multinational companies (or american companies) to go into India, Africa (or other places where a large population is illiterate) and pay a few bucks for thousands of people to be guinea pigs for potentially lethal experimental drugs?

This is ok with you? Would it be ok if the companies came into your country and did the same thing? Taking advantage of the poor and dumb? This is fine with you?

[Anonymous No.4231093]

>>4231090
If it benefits humanity in the end, a few lives are worth it. Sad, but true, but it is life as is.

[Anonymous No.4231096]

Personally, I think they should legalize involuntary human experimentation. As long is it is on scummy people such as the mentally deranged and dangerous prisoners. Would give their life a purpose.

Did you know almost all knowledge of what happens to the body when it freezes to death comes from the Nazis human experimentation? go figure.

[Anonymous No.4231099]

>>4231093
Ok. So you are pro slavery then? Is that okay with you? Your logic would suggest that it is perfectly fine with you?

[Anonymous No.4231104]

>>4231090
Wasn't "the ends justify the means" originally quoted from Machiavelli? Either way, that quote's relevant here. I mean a few experimentations in India would definitely help eradicate the rabies problem they have in the poverty stricken parts of the country, saving more people than whoever signed up to be experimented on.

[Anonymous No.4231106]

>>4231093
Would you feel the same way if you were the "disposable life"? Is that fine with you? Or would that change your mind about the whole thing?

[Anonymous No.4231111]

>>4231099
Slavery is not consensual though, so it doesn't count here. We're talking about consensual human experimentation, where people choose to be experimented on. Making even that illegal is not only detrimental to humanity and society, but highly immoral.

[Anonymous No.4231116]

>>4231106
In order for me to be one of the disposal life, I would have to choose to be an experimentee, meaning I gave permission to be used for experiments.

[Anonymous No.4231122]

>>4231106
>>4231099
>>4231090
>>4231070
>ITT: Christfags
We would have so much more cures and treatments for diseases by now if we had more direct human experimentations going on.

[Anonymous No.4231124]

>>4231104
It is the international company that benifits from the "indian experiments", not the indians.

The indians make a few bucks, so they don't fucking starve, and then most die from horrible side-effects. The results of the scientific study are then used to develop drugs for america or europe. There is no guarantee that the study was for some "great human good". In fact it probably isn't. As study for the "great human good" aren't done with such shady procedures.

The study could end up being for something trivial, that only the super-rich care about.

[Anonymous No.4231125]

I always think consensual is a horrid word. ConsenTual makes a lot more sense.

Anyway, it should be allowed on the condition the person undergoing trials can give informed consent. That means no art majors in need of the money, only people who understand the risks involved.

[Anonymous No.4231126]

>>4231093
>>4231099
To be fair, you agree with the first poster. It is worth a few innocent people going to jail to get a bunch of guilty people in jail. You probably do disagree over when this line of reasoning is valid, though.

[Anonymous No.4231133]

>>4231122
Nah, probably some ultra liberal who is under the delusion that all humans evolved to have the same mental capacity. And that all humans, rich or poor, have the same level of thought capabilities ect.

[Anonymous No.4231136]

>>4231133
>ect
It's etc., from the latin "et cetera", meaning "and the rest".

[Anonymous No.4231138]

>>4231124
Then this is a case of business ethics, not science. And they made money so their families can still live, even after the experimentee is going through so much in their benefit, so it's worth it, and they should be touted as heroes for risking so much.

[Anonymous No.4231139]

>>4231126
The question is the extent to which we can take harmful action. If we kill a million people to save 10, but those 10 go on to procreate and make 2 million who wouldn't otherwise exist, then have we really killed a million to save 10?

[Anonymous No.4231143]

>>4231136

He talks about ultra liberals being under a delusion and then he mentioned 2 of the many things that they think is true, and then he says "and the rest", what is wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.4231144]

>>4231124
The company wouldn't make money unless people were willing to buy the product. And if large numbers of people are willing to buy the product, you can bet that it is probably helping them. Yes the company benefits, but so do the people. Both party's benefit, that is how business transactions work.

[Anonymous No.4231145]

>>4231124
>There is no guarantee that the study was for some "great human good". In fact it probably isn't.
it's in the name of science, so it is for the great human good. while leaving a third world country to suffer for the benefit of a first world country may be bad, it's still a step forward for humanity

[Anonymous No.4231153]

>>4231139
>If we kill a million people to save 10, but those 10 go on to procreate and make 2 million who wouldn't otherwise exist, then have we really killed a million to save 10?
Mathematically this isn't possible, since the results from experimenting on a homosapien would affect more than those lost in the experimentation. It's more of a case of killing 10 to save 2 million, or 10 million; not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.4231154]

>>4231143
oh, it just leads to bad conclusions. For instance thinking that sacrificing a random american life for to save two starving Africans would be a good deal, when in reality it isn't.

[Anonymous No.4231155]

>>4231111
>We're talking about consensual human experimentation

No. Not really. Not the way someone in the western world would think of as "consensual". The experimentees really may not have a choice.

Most of the people for experiments like that are illiterate and superstitious. In all reality they probably have no fucking idea what you are talking about. You could get them to sign anything.

Or it might be the case, that there "legal proxy" is some tribe leader. SO basically they can be sold into servitude (experimentation). Shit like this actually happens all the time.

Also, in the brief chance that they are capable of understanding the "experiment" and actually have the mind to consent, it might be the only way for them to survive. Piss poor is piss poor, and desperate people do desperate things.

If you have the choice of immidate death from starvation, or taking a pill and then being given a bowl of rice and living a couple of more days (hopefully). WHICH ONE WOULD YOU DECIDE?

[Anonymous No.4231160]

>>4231155
They chose to be experimented on in this first place, it was in their consent, so it's morally and ethically justified, even if it risks death. Saving two lives is worth the death of one.

[Anonymous No.4231162]

>>4231143
>>4231154

Whoops, I thought he meant that "etc" was used wrongly, but apparently he was correcting a spelling error.

[Anonymous No.4231163]

>>4231153
Well no, not necessarily. We might have some kind of global infertility problem, and 10 of a hyperfertile strain of humans who all had cancer. Assume there's some kind of deus ex machina thing going on with killing people curing cancer, and you get the point.

[Anonymous No.4231168]

>>4231155
>If you have the choice of immidate death from starvation, or taking a pill and then being given a bowl of rice and living a couple of more days (hopefully). WHICH ONE WOULD YOU DECIDE?
the latter, obviously. i still had the option to choose between the two, and i made it

[Anonymous No.4231171]

>>4231160
You and I (and the other poster) have different moral ideas of consent, obviously. You think that consent covers all, and we believe that maybe it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.4231172]

>>4231138
>And they made money so their families can still live

Nope. They made some money, so they could live for a few days. They they died, and there families are still in the same fucking situation, having to sell themselves for experimentaion just to survive.

[Anonymous No.4231173]

>>4231171
Can I give a third view?

Informed consent covers all, and they did not give informed consent because they didn't and couldn't understand the medical risks.

[Anonymous No.4231177]

>>4231172

I'm a student and I participate in medical experiments to earn some extra cash, is it wrong of them to accept me under those circumstances?

[Anonymous No.4231178]

>>4231177
Exactly. I mean, the whole point of doing things in exchange for money is that it give you money.

[Anonymous No.4231180]

>>4231172
They can choose to not to, no one or nothing is taking away their choice. They still had one, they still made one, end of story. The only way to make this immoral would be to knock out a random person and precede with the experiments. If they choose to be experimented on, despite on how desperate the situation, they still had a choice in the matter, that no one or no circumstance has forced them, then it's morally justified and highly beneficial.

[Anonymous No.4231188]

>>4231172
I'm not sure what you are getting at, it is not like either party is any worse off. In fact, both benefit from it. I'm not sure why you are against it.

[Anonymous No.4231192]

>>4231124
>>4231155
>>4231163

A lot of these are just adding unrealistic circumstances to the situation in order to front an illogical and unscientific argument that is essentially anti-science and anti-humanity. Human experimentation has so many benefits to it than refusing it for everyone else puts us in similar positions as of those in the Dark Ages. Not to mention taking away consent or the option to allow someone to put themselves through experiments and tests speaks more of "religious morality" than anything else, the type of morality that takes away man's choice in life.

[Anonymous No.4231201]

>>4231192
No, you do not attack the hypothesis. That's weak. You're also assuming I'm against the idea, when in fact I'm giving it to see what peoples' opinions here are.

You and I both know there are instances in which research could kill more people than it saves the lives of.

[Anonymous No.4231204]

I think as long as its heavily regulated, consensual human experimentation is the way to go. It can give homeless people jobs etc.

[Anonymous No.4231207]

>>4231201
>No, you do not attack the hypothesis. That's weak. You're also assuming I'm against the idea, when in fact I'm giving it to see what peoples' opinions here are.
Tu quoque

>You and I both know there are instances in which research could kill more people than it saves the lives of.
Unrealistic and hardly relevant circumstance.

[Anonymous No.4231212]

>>4231173
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. I think it's also academic in some respect, as there is no such thing as (perfectly) informed consent.

[Anonymous No.4231217]

>>4231201
a situation where an experiment kills more people than it saves the lives of is more than likely commercially nonviable. Meaning that the experiment in question is likely to not happen to begin with.

[Anonymous No.4231218]

>>4231096
A lot of it came from Japan during WWII though. Since they kept their experiments alive longer. Most of our WWII germ research came from what they did in China.

[Anonymous No.4231222]

>>4231207
>Tu quoque
Nope. I am not saying I'm not wrong because you're doing the same thing as me. I am giving you an example, and you are attacking it rather than addressing the issue it purveys.

>Unrealistic and hardly relevant circumstance.
Again, you refuse to accept the very real possibility so you don't need to address it

>>4231217
Also attacking the hypothesis. The deciding factor here isn't commercial viability, it's ethical.
>>4231212
True, gauging understanding is a bitch.

[Anonymous No.4231223]

>>4231173
Yeah this is pretty much true. Not informing the person on how or what he's going to be experimented on, and I mean everything in complete detail as to give 'em a choice or thought to back out, is worse than a torturous and frivolous experiment altogether.

[Anonymous No.4231231]

>>4231222
>Nope. I am not saying I'm not wrong because you're doing the same thing as me. I am giving you an example, and you are attacking it rather than addressing the issue it purveys.
>Again, you refuse to accept the very real possibility so you don't need to address it
>Also attacking the hypothesis. The deciding factor here isn't commercial viability, it's ethical.

+3 tu quoques and a couple ad hominems.

[Anonymous No.4231237]

>>4231231
Show me each and every example, broken down, or shut up.

[Anonymous No.4231240]

>>4231222
I didn't believe the "tu quoque" claimant until,
>you are attacking it rather than addressing the issue it purveys
>Again, you refuse to accept the very real possibility so you don't need to address it

You're an attacking asshole, you have no right being on a science board.

[Anonymous No.4231242]

>>4231222
I'm saying that because of commercial viability unethical experiments are unlikely to be carried out. Because ethical experiments and commercial viability kind of share a common trait that the experiment benefits more people than it harms.

[Anonymous No.4231243]

>>4231160
>>4231173
>>4231171
>informed consent

They developed that idea, just to deal with the kinda abuses I have been mentioning. It is a very sticky issue though.

Just like different counties have different laws, they also have different ideas of "informed consent", or "consent". Different places have different types of human rights, and legal ideas. It becomes very complicated. Some countries still have slave FOR FUCKS SAKE. There "informed consent" may legally be determined by there FUCKING MASTER!

One thing is certain, people from poorer countries have a long and continued history of being taken advantage of by richer counties. This includes medical experimentation. It is a huge fucking mess to try and understand and change it all for the better, but people try. There are tons of "bioethisicts", and all scientists in high positions are usually required to be familiar with bioethics.

There is no "right" or "wrong" answer. Maybe all humans should be equal ? Maybe human experimentaion is wrong? Maybe slavery is fine? Maybe anything we do is fine, as long as it is for the greater good? ALL ARE FUCKING VALID ARGUMENTS.

[Anonymous No.4231251]

>>4231243


The primary thing you do in bioethics (like alot of math), is reduce your problem to a more familiar problem. For all purposes the majority of "human experimention" in the world today, ends up BEING FUCKING SLAVERY. Not because it was intended to be so, but because of the shitty way everything is set up. Maybe this is fine, maybe this is bad? You be the fucking judge.

Just remember, just because you aren't the "slave" right now, doesn't mean you (or those like you) won't be the "slave" in the future. America for example is in great decline. It's rich are not loyal to the country, and are more loyal to money. It may be rich international companies taking adavantage of americans in 50+ years. Will you still fill the same way about human experimentaion, when it is you grandchildren that are doing it, just to keep there bellies full?

[Anonymous No.4231254]

>>4231237
You're personally attacking him by claiming bits of hypocrisy rather than actually presenting an argument. You're just some kid beating up another kid on a playground for having a different colour pants. Not to mention "Show me each and every example, broken down" is an unrealistic and unfair proposition in an argument, as well as "shut up" is an ad hominem and personally attacking people rather than making proper and forthright arguments.

[Anonymous No.4231259]

>>4231242
>commercial viability unethical experiments are unlikely to be carried out

NOPE. How are you making such a conclusion? There is no correlation between "commercial viability" and unethical (or ethics) experiments. Please recheck your train of thought.

[Anonymous No.4231260]

>>4231251
>batshit insane occupy wallstreeter detected.

[Anonymous No.4231261]

>>4231240
Why are you acting as if ad hominem is absolutely invalid? He IS avoiding the point, and he IS attempting to divert the conversation. I didn't insult him personally, I told him that he was wrong. If you honestly believe that constitutes a personal attack, you have on right being on a science board.

>>4231242
Look at Dr Mengele, or the Japanese' internment camps and experimental units. There are already examples of commercial viability not being the issue.

>>4231243
Well, all humans should have equal legal rights. Including the right to end their own lives, or sign themselves into indentured servitude. However, they should also be unable to excercise those rights unless they can demonstrate they know what they're on about.

[Anonymous No.4231270]

>>4231261
>Why are you acting as if ad hominem is absolutely invalid?
Because it turns into insults and personal attacks rather than arguing.

>He IS avoiding the point
Tu quoque.

>he IS attempting to divert the conversation
Conspiracizing.

>I didn't insult him personally
Yes you did.

>I told him that he was wrong
Personal attack and ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.4231271]

>>4231254
>You're personally attacking him by claiming bits of hypocrisy rather than actually presenting an argument.
-I cannot present an argument because you have not said anything I disagree with.
-I am not claiming you are hypocritical, please tell me where I am

>Not to mention "Show me each and every example, broken down" is an unrealistic and unfair proposition
That I committed the fallacy of Tu Quoque three times in one post is an unfair proposition in an argument.

Shut up is me letting you know how amicable I am to being told I'm doing things wrong when I'm clearly not. It's not an ad hominem attack as it is not an attack on your credibility or your person. I'm not saying "shut up, you're retarded" I'm saying "present an argument or retract your previous statements, as they are null"

[sage No.4231273]

>>4231260
>doesn't respond to any actual ideas presented by other

>would rather just cover ears and call names

I guess I forgot /sci/ is full of trolls

[Anonymous No.4231278]

>>4231201
>No, you do not attack the hypothesis. That's weak.
What? Have you never done science at all in your life? If you don't have a good or even a proper hypothesis present, it doesn't deserve to stand in any position, and it's your fault for having such a crappy hypothesis in the first place. lrn2science

Also, there was no hypothesis in this thread at all, just simple hypotheticals.

[Anonymous No.4231284]

>>4231259
Commercially viable products benefit more people than they cause harm to. That much is obvious. Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So as far as experimentation is concerned, if it is commercially viable it is probably ethical.

[Anonymous No.4231293]

>>4231270
>Because it turns into insults and personal attacks rather than arguing

I would love to see you have a conversation with an anti-vaxxer, or a three year old who thinks you're going to hell. Simply saying "I don't think you understand" or "there's a good book you can learn more from here" is an ad hominem attack. It is not fallacious, it doesn't lead to squabbling unless both people speaking are deliberately foolish.
>Tu quoque.
No, because I'm avoiding nothing. You have yet to say anything I'm in opposition to, because instead of responding to my point you are responding to the specific example; You commit the fallacy if ignoratio elenchi.

>Conspiracizing.

there's one of him, so nope.

>Yes you did.

"Fuck you" is a personal attack, but not ad hominem. "Fuck you, you're retarded" is both. "Shut up" is neither, because it doesn't insult him and it doesn't insult his ability.

>Personal attack and ad hominem.
This is where I actually use ad hominem. If you think my simple disagreement is an ad hominem attack and a personal attack, you are clearly too immature and ignorant to have a conversation.

[Anonymous No.4231298]

>>4231271
>I cannot present an argument because you have not said anything I disagree with.
Irrelevant.

>I am not claiming you are hypocritical, please tell me where I am
It's an appeal to hypocrisy when you claim "he's just saying X because of Y," or "he's doing X instead of Y;" still claiming hypocrisy.

>That I committed the fallacy of Tu Quoque three times in one post is an unfair proposition in an argument.
No it's not, because that actual claim is right and the proof has been pointed out in this three at least four times now by others (making this post the fifth).

>Shut up is me letting you know how amicable I am to being told I'm doing things wrong when I'm clearly not.
That's still a personal attack, an ad hominem, and invalid.

>It's not an ad hominem attack as it is not an attack on your credibility or your person.
It is, even grossed more by the fact that it's pointing out to the person themselves than their argument. Also,
>it is not an attack on your credibility or your person.
Primacy effect.

[Anonymous No.4231299]

>>4231298
>Irrelevant.
/conversation

[Anonymous No.4231304]

>>4231293
>I would love to see you have a conversation with an anti-vaxxer, or a three year old who thinks you're going to hell.
Tu quoque, diverting the argument, and irrelevant point.

>It is not fallacious
All ad hominems are fallacies, regardless of intent. Only the person's argument should be pointed out or to, not them themselves.

>there's one of him, so nope.
Tu quoque, again...

>not an ad hominem
All ad hominems are personal attacks, and all personal attacks are attacks on their credibility.

>you are clearly too immature and ignorant to have a conversation.
Another tu quoque, and another ad hominem.

[Anonymous No.4231308]

>>4231304
>All ad hominems are fallacies, regardless of intent. Only the person's argument should be pointed out or to, not them themselves.

I give you the ad hominem fallacy fallacy:
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

Or, automatically thinking your opponent is wrong because he said something mean.

[Anonymous No.4231311]

>>4231284
Are you trying to be serious? Because it appears they you don't know basic logic. What you have said may seem "correct" to you, but it is not a reasonably or logically sound argument. You are just stating irrelated opinions. Nothing more. Basically you doing religion.

>Commercially viable products benefit more people than they cause harm to. That much is obvious.

Nope. You are assuming shit, through some kind of "anchor" reasoning (which is incorrect).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring

>Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

This is your opinion. This is not a fact.

>So as far as experimentation is concerned, if it is commercially viable it is probably ethical

This statement is just nonsensical. You say that commerical viability implies (=>) ethical. None of your other statements (even if they were true), would lead to this.

All you are stating is unrelated opinions. You aren't using any logic or reason in your thinking. You should think alittle more next time. Remember logic and reason is your friend. Logic and reason requires some forethought and dedication, IT ISN'T THE SAME THING AS JUST STATING RANDOM OPINIONS!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_biconditional

[Anonymous No.4231318]

>ITT kids who have never heard of clinical trials

[Anonymous No.4231325]

>>4231308
Questionable and unreliable citation. Reads too much like a blog.

>Or, automatically thinking your opponent is wrong because he said something mean.
Straw man.

[Anonymous No.4231329]

>"shut up" is an ad hominem
Also, he never used the "tu quoque" fallacy.
I swear, /sci/ just loves to argue with its new toys.

[Anonymous No.4231333]

>>4231329
Person he was trolling at here

I regret it might well be me who told him about it. I started using the term a month or two back and hadn't seen it here before.

[Anonymous No.4231334]

>>4231311
If it is so obviously wrong, how about you give an example of a commercially viable experiment that is morally unethical.

[Anonymous No.4231337]

>>4231334
Fracking

Harvesting organs from live humans

[Anonymous No.4231339]

>>4231337
You mean "organ donations?"

[Anonymous No.4231340]

>>4231339
No, I mean harvesting organs from live humans. "Donor" would imply consent

[Anonymous No.4231343]

>>4231340
Most harvesting is consented though, so it is donating.

[Anonymous No.4231346]

>>4230984
Every kind of medication, is first tested on healthy volunteers and paients who have given their consent.

if you're against "human experimentation" don't use any pharmaceutical that has been developed. Enjoy your herbs and needle poking.

[Anonymous No.4231347]

>>4231337
depends on the situation, if the person who is being saved is more important to society than the person who is having their organs harvested, as far as i am concerned it is ethical. (e.g. if you had the choice of killing a child rapist to save Einstein, would you?). And if the person who is having their organs harvested is more valuable, it isn't really a commercially viable operation.

[Anonymous No.4231359]

>>4231334
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

[Anonymous No.4231378]

Human experimentation? As long as the benefits are really useful for humanity, and outweight the 'cost' of humans being lab rats, I see nothing wrong.

If someone experiments on humans, and doesn't advance humanity... well, he better get some fucking results soon or he should be killed.


Simple and efficient system. Truly brilliant people deserve to be above commoners and pesky morals.

[Anonymous No.4231383]

>>4231378
That's a horrid idea. Discovering something works shouldn't be commended any more than showing it doesn't, else we encourage forgery. There's already enough pressure on drug vetters to falsify results.

[Anonymous No.4231386]

>>4231359
>>4231359
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syphilis_experiments_in_Guatemala

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

[Anonymous No.4231391]

>>4231386
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

"From 1988 to 2008, the number of overseas clinical trials for drugs intended for American consumption increased by 2,000%, to approximately 6,500 trials. These trials are often conducted in areas with large numbers of poor and illiterate people who grant their consent by signing an "X" or making a thumb print on a form. These tests are rarely monitored by the FDA, and have in some cases proved deadly, such as a case where 49 babies died in New Delhi, India during a 30-month trial. The cost of testing in countries without safety regulations is much lower; and, due to lax or nonexistent oversight, pharmaceutical corporations (or research companies they've contracted out to) are able to more easily suppress research that demonstrates harmful effects and only report positive results."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2011/01/deadly-medicine-201101?printable=true&curren
tPage=3#ixzz18NY8yGh9

[Anonymous No.4231396]

>>4231359
Unethical yes, but not commercially viable.
And I have a feeling that if there was a situation where this experimentation was commercially viable, it would have done more good than harm. But as it goes, try again.

[None !!BJiYgff8zf2 No.4231404]

If being an experimental subject is the best that a person can possibly offer to society, then that person should be allowed to undergo experimentation if he wishes to.

Obviously society should be grateful for such people, just as society is grateful for doctors, scientists, etc.

[Anonymous No.4231410]

i think op even if trolling brings up a good subject

human experimentation in terms of cutting off limbs and genetically changing live 100% human people into part pigs and part insects, things of that nature

[Anonymous No.4231423]

>>4231391
have you seen the conditions of poor people in India? To be honest the the revenue the people made from the experimentations probably more than made up for the damages caused by the few experiments that went awry.

Not to mention all the lives that got saved by decent medicine that got released thanks to the experimentation. The fact of the matter is that the world is a better place for that experimentation having taken place.

[Anonymous No.4231427]

> go to 4chan
> /b/ is boring
> /d/ is boring
> have a look at /sci/
> find good nerd porn
Sauce! I want moar!

[Anonymous No.4231454]

>>4231396
HA HA. You just proved yourself incorrect. You don't seem to have enough critical reasoning ability to understand it though. No problem, I'll be happy to dumb it down for you.

You stated that "commercially viable => ethical" is true. THIS IS YOUR IDEA, WHAT YOU STATED. For commercially viable cases (what we are current talking about) commercially viable = T. This means that you are claiming,
"T => ethical" is a true statement. You claim this to be true. Your claim is opinion, and you openly ask people to disprove your idea...

Which they did....
Anons have already demonstrated (and you have admitted this) cases where "commercially viable => unethical", is a true statement.
Hence, "T => unethical" is true. YOU ADMIT THESE CASES EXIST.

Now, USING THE MOST BASIC FUCKING LOGIC AND REASONING ABILITY.
"T => unethical" is the same as "T => ~ethical". Hence, "T => unethical" is true (which you admit is), is the same as "T = > ~ethical" is true. This is a FUCKING FACT, DERIVED FROM SHIT YOU ADMIT TO!

Hence, "T => ~ethical" (A FUCKING FACT) is discovered, which is in direct contraction to your opinion of "T => ethical".

HENCE YOU FUCKING OPINION IS PROVEN TO BE INCORRECT BULLSHIT THROUGH BASIC LOGIC. Basic proof by contradiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

Please read more. You need to develop your critical thinking skills more. Good luck to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_biconditional

[Anonymous No.4231463]

>>4231454

[Anonymous No.4231464]

>>4231454
I guess the part I may have failed to mention is that if the right thing to do is the unethical thing to do, your ethics are fucked up. So maybe it isn't doing the ethical thing to do that matters, so much as it is doing the right thing to do.

[Anonymous No.4231467]

>>4231454
BRAVO!

[Anonymous No.4231471]

>>4231464
You failed at just about everything.

[Anonymous No.4231477]

>>4231464
>incoherent nonsense

You lost, just leave.

[Anonymous No.4231481]

>>4231454
nice

[Anonymous No.4231489]

>>4231464
>right thing to do

Implying the "right thing" is not subjective

[Anonymous No.4231510]

>>4231489
>>4231481
>>4231477
>>4231467
>>4231463
Are there seriously this many people monitoring a thread that had a 15 minute gap between between that dudes post and the last one? smells like samefag...

[Anonymous No.4231520]

>>4231464
FYI:
if you replace "ethical" with "right thing to do". >>4231454 is still a correct.

Replacing one phrase with another, both representing pretty much the same concept, has no effect on the validity of the argument. You are still be wrong Anon

[Anonymous No.4231528]

>>4231510
It took me awhile to read it and then reply. I am not that good at understanding Proofs.

[Anonymous No.4231535]

>>4231520
ethical and the right thing to do are not the same thing. For instance if you work at an icecream shop and spill some icecream on the counter, the right thing to do would be to not let it go to waste and eat it. However, that would be unethical.

[Anonymous No.4231541]

>>4231510
>hundreds or thousands of people on 4chan
>freaks that a thread could have 5 lurkers

/sci/ probably has at least ~100 people on at all times. Mostly lurkers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.4231548]

>>4231535
Please leave /sci/

[Anonymous No.4231553]

>>4231535

[Anonymous No.4231558]

>>4231535
<------/b/

[Anonymous No.4231576]

>>4231553
>>4231548
Can I at least know what part of that was wrong?

[Anonymous No.4231584]

>>4230984
>>4231099
>>4231090
>>4231070
>>4231106
>>4231124
>>4231155
>>4231172
>>4231251
>>4231243

This man (although I am inclined to believe it is actually a woman) is a gentleman and a scholar, the rest of you are just sheltered Western teens fapping over the idea that human experimentation will gurantee your techno-rapture by bringing the singularity closer

[sage No.4231585]

>>4231576
Go look up definition of ethical.

\thread

[sage No.4231600]

>>4231584
>>4231584

[Anonymous No.4231608]

>>4231584
or maybe trolls? this is 4chan, and the part where OP says no trolling might have been too good for them to pass up...

[Anonymous No.4231617]

>>4231608

Nope, this was typical /sci/ "I HAV IQEEE OF 140 THEREFORE ANYUN STUPIDER IN LIKE AFRIKA OR INDIA SHOULD JUST KILL THEMSELVES FOR SCIENCE THEY ARE NIGGERS AMIRITE xD I AM SO SMART AND HABE NO EMOTIONS LIKE SHELDON FROM BIG BANG"

[Anonymous No.4231626]

>>4231617
...sounds like a troll

[Anonymous No.4231627]

>>4231600

is this suppose to be the person that was arguing against human experimentation ?

[Anonymous No.4231630]

>>4231626

you've not been on /sci/ long enough

[Anonymous No.4231658]

Let me explain something to you. A normal person when confronted with something as majestic, intricate and beautiful as a classic painting would stand in awe and appreciate its beauty. Someone of your childish ilk would tear the painting apart, desperately searching for the source of its beauty until there was nothing left, not realising you have no idea what you're searching for.

[Anonymous No.4231734]

Human experimentation is a very valuable resource for technological improvement. Our government should experiment on humans, consensual or not. In this age, we should ideally experiment on clones. But otherwise we should have the CIA kidnap people from other countries like Canada for testing.