Poll: Who would you perform the tests on?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
LastLast
  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by Arnorei View Post
    So... you're comparing mass murderers, serial killers, mass rapists, mass child molesters to... people who download stuff illegally? ok...
    The people who download illegally are breaking laws aren't they? That does in fact make them lawbreakers and criminals. My point however was virtually everybody breaks laws at some point in their lives, and as such probably should be less willing to so easily throw people under the proverbial bus for breaking laws because they personally don't like what they did. Just because someone broke a law doesn't mean they no longer have human rights, which is something you should be grateful for if you've ever done something illegal.

    Backpedaling with 'well some laws are worse than others to break' is problematic. It ceases to become an issue of law and becomes one of simple personal opinion. What if the murderer is in prison for murdering a child molester? The vast majority of people in prison have a reason for what they did and a long chain of circumstances that got them to that point, many flat out need mental health care, there are not vast numbers of mentally stable mass murders and mass rapists who did those things just because they're bad people just sitting around (my country of 30 million people currently has exactly two of those type imprisoned that I can think of), and even if there were those people are still entitled to human rights.

    What happens in your scenario when we run out of those type of people to test on? Do we then move on to illegal downloaders because they too are criminals? Where's a line to define that which is not entirely arbitrary?

  2. #102
    Legendary! Wikiy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    6,733
    Quote Originally Posted by Calzaeth View Post
    I would pick 10.000 random citizens over 18 (or w/e the age of majority is in Rightway). Criminals are already paying the price for their actions, and the magical cure for cancer will benefit everyone. Therefore, everyone should risk being a victim of this horrible research that I would only conduct in this hypothetical scenario.

    Since I'll probably be called naïve, stupid, and any other number of things for not choosing the mass rapists etc., I'll leave the thread. You have my choice, and my reasons. =)
    This. What can i say, i have different moral beliefs than the next person, don't flame me for it.

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Arnorei View Post
    In this scenario the criminals are 100% guilty. Because it's not real life. I even wrote that in OP!
    And I doubt someone would become a serial killer, a mass rapist or a mass child molester by circumstance...
    Firstly. Yes I understand the premise I was just making a general observation about the views of some of the posters regarding this issue in the real world.
    Secondly, and this is where I will probably have a major disagreement with many people, If a serial killer, mass rapist or mass child molester doesn't become what they are through circumstance then you must say they chose that road. I don't think anybody rationally chooses to do that kinda stuff.

  4. #104
    Id get a mix of 10000 Criminals (not any criminal only the murderer) AND Old people.

  5. #105
    Warchief Letmesleep's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Spooning you without your knowledge
    Posts
    2,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    This. What can i say, i have different moral beliefs than the next person, don't flame me for it.
    Assuming 10,000 people have to die, what's the point of killing 10,000 people who haven't done anything instead of killing 10,000 people who have intentionally and repeatedly broken the social contract in the worst possible ways? How is that a morally superior choice? I'm interested to hear your rationale.
    Last edited by Letmesleep; 2012-12-14 at 01:05 AM.

  6. #106
    Mechagnome Neetz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    610
    At the rate humanity are destroying this world we live in, I'd say that pretty soon Cancer will be the very least of our problems.
    I personally wouldn't even test on animals let alone another human being, I nor anyone else has the right to do so imo.

  7. #107
    The Lightbringer N-7's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,572
    Quote Originally Posted by Spicy View Post
    At the rate humanity are destroying this world we live in, I'd say that pretty soon Cancer will be the very least of our problems.
    I personally wouldn't even test on animals let alone another human being, I nor anyone else has the right to do so imo.
    It is not as rapid as you make it sound like.

  8. #108
    Mechagnome Neetz's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Manchester, England
    Posts
    610
    Not at all, I didn't mean for it to sound like something that will happen in the next 10 years or so but the population of the world is swelling and the resources won't last forever. Thats all I meant.

  9. #109
    10,00 random people here I come!

  10. #110
    Warchief Letmesleep's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Spooning you without your knowledge
    Posts
    2,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam the Wiser View Post
    10,00 random people here I come!
    That just sounds chaotic and malevolent.

  11. #111
    The Lightbringer Calzaeth's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kopervik, Norway
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Letmesleep View Post
    Assuming 10,000 people have to die, what's the point of killing 10,000 people who haven't done anything instead of killing 10,000 people who have intentionally and repeatedly broken the social contract in the worst possible ways? How is that a morally superior choice? I'm interested to hear your rationale.
    Okay, so I didn't leave the thread like I promised on page 1. Here is my rationale:

    EVERYONE risks getting cancer, which means that everyone living will benefit from this magical cure, either because they themselves get cancer, or because someone close to them does. So it's already established that I do this for everyone's sake. That's the easy part of my rationale.

    Now the tougher one, that I'll probably be flamed for: Prison is the price you pay for crimes, so it is my firm belief that once a sentence is put into action, the criminal should have no further repercussions because of of said crime, at least no further repercussions from state/government. (Who can really prevent vigilantism, anyway?). Therefore, everyone in prison are already paying the price society has deemed appropriate for their actions, and I see no reason to further punish them. After all, if I am the dictator, I'll make damn sure that the punishment for crimes is harsh enough to satisfy me in the first place.

    To break it down simply:
    Will everyone benefit from the result? Yes.
    Have criminals already paid the price for their actions? Yes.
    Am I a naïve moron? Possibly.
    If you add me on Steam, Skype or whatever program/client I share my info for, please write something to identify you in the "Dude/gal wants to join your club"-message. Just so I know that an actual human is on the other end :P

  12. #112
    Dreadlord Rainec's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Where the bad salad is kept crisp on ice.
    Posts
    843
    I don't like the idea of signing people off to die, but I'd pick 1.
    Less evil in the world, less resources spent on keeping them in jail.
    That's all.
    Quote Originally Posted by pucGG View Post
    He's riding to work, he's not escaping from a star destroyer

  13. #113
    I'd test it on people who actually have cancer...

    Assuming you reform the question to be more Nazi-Germany like (lets do these random tests on people), then I'd go:

    - volunteers first
    - paid volunteers second
    - criminals (if the benefit/cost ratio is extraordinarily high)
    Last edited by yurano; 2012-12-14 at 02:01 AM.

  14. #114
    None of the above, I'd kill 10,000 liberals.

  15. #115
    Warchief Letmesleep's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Spooning you without your knowledge
    Posts
    2,010
    Quote Originally Posted by Calzaeth View Post
    EVERYONE risks getting cancer, which means that everyone living will benefit from this magical cure, either because they themselves get cancer, or because someone close to them does. So it's already established that I do this for everyone's sake. That's the easy part of my rationale.
    Correct, everyone has a possibility to benefit from the cure.

    Now the tougher one, that I'll probably be flamed for: Prison is the price you pay for crimes, so it is my firm belief that once a sentence is put into action, the criminal should have no further repercussions because of of said crime, at least no further repercussions from state/government. (Who can really prevent vigilantism, anyway?). Therefore, everyone in prison are already paying the price society has deemed appropriate for their actions, and I see no reason to further punish them. After all, if I am the dictator, I'll make damn sure that the punishment for crimes is harsh enough to satisfy me in the first place.
    Well, I'm not going to flame you, but I don't really understand. You'd be killing innocent people who may be currently contributing to the betterment of society in order to spare those rotting in jail for the worst crimes a person can commit. When you talk ominously about giving criminals a punishment harsh enough to satisfy you, adherence to the idea that "buy guys have had enough" seems arbitrary.

  16. #116
    I am Murloc! shadowmouse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Dongbei, PRC ... for now
    Posts
    5,909
    Sorry world, 500 years of cancer for you.

    A cure for cancer sounds worthy enough, but the precedent for medical research would extend beyond a one time event. Where would we draw the line? The common cold isn't usually fatal, but it does make people miserable, it costs industry millions of dollars of lost productivity every year and a cure is widely desired. "El Jefe, our cure for cancer was a success, the world is a happier place, and we now have enough income, resources and credibility to cure the common cold -- for the low, low price of 1,000 lives. Alzheimer's, that's gonna be a little tougher, but if you could let us have another 12,000, I think it is doable -- it is a tragic illness and a worthy cause."

  17. #117
    Stood in the Fire Kirse's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    418
    Killing others for medical testing against their will sets a bad precident and has the slippery slope problem. If x# people received x drug, then why not a greater number? If select murderers why not rapists? If rapists why not stat rape? etc.

    If human testing becomes absolutely necessary, I would only do it on a volunteer basis. I'm confident that people would agree to testing if they thought it could help save many lives, and those who are already sick have nothing to loose.
    "Healing is a game of Hungry Hungry Hippos. All the healers try to gobble all the marbles up. Disc priests take the marbles off the board."

  18. #118
    The Lightbringer Calzaeth's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kopervik, Norway
    Posts
    3,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Letmesleep View Post
    Correct, everyone has a possibility to benefit from the cure.



    Well, I'm not going to flame you, but I don't really understand. You'd be killing innocent people who may be currently contributing to the betterment of society in order to spare those rotting in jail for the worst crimes a person can commit. When you talk ominously about giving criminals a punishment harsh enough to satisfy you, adherence to the idea that "buy guys have had enough" seems arbitrary.
    That's the thing. I have no issues with harsh punishments, and I am usually the first guy to complain whenever a rapist gets away with a single-digit prison sentence. BUT after that sentence is served, I consider all his debt to society to be paid. Therefore, I wouldn't heap extra punishment on criminals.
    If you add me on Steam, Skype or whatever program/client I share my info for, please write something to identify you in the "Dude/gal wants to join your club"-message. Just so I know that an actual human is on the other end :P

  19. #119
    I wouldn't test the drug. But the hypothetical doesn't sit well with me. In clinical trials drugs are tested on animals until something shows that the benefits outweigh the risks. You would either have a good idea that the 10,000 people would likely get better from the drug you were testing, or you would have no proof that the drug will benefit them at all and therefore couldn't ever guarantee that after 10,000 people the drug would be perfect.

    Anyway, wouldn't test it in this hypothetical because you are basically asking if you would kill some people to save unknown other hypothetical lives later. Can't really be justified.

  20. #120
    Isn't this from Civ4?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •