Old news. All you can really take from that is that you should avoid Egyptian salad dressing ;)
This isn't as bad as what happened in England. A man was about to board a plane and he was told to turn his t-shirt inside out because there was the IMAGE of two guns on it. Apparently it could have offended other passengers >_>
Again I go back to the slippery slope argument, your same logic could be applied to many parts of society. Although I'm sure people would object to many of them, but if they are wowed with the prospects of a possible cure for cancer or better treatments I'm sure the general public could be tricked into having any group be put up for testing.
Who are you to decide what makes a human being human? Who are you to decide ANYTHING for that matter? Who is anyone to decide? This is where the problem arises. Just because you think that using criminals who are serving their punishment dished out to them by society as guinea pigs for research is a fair thing to do doesn't mean it is right. Even if the majority of people think that it would be a fair thing to do, that doesn't mean they are right. No one person can make that decision.
I honestly didn't know that xD Thanks for telling me.
So people are saying they would want blood on their hands? What the state does the people do by proxy.
Lost started okay, then nose-dived like the plane crash that started it all.
At least they're still alive. @Bushido: Everyone has to be treated the same or we end up on a slippery slope. I know what you mean and how you feel but if we want a fair and democratic society this is the way it has to be. Say you go ahead with this. Then people might start to say, we could do it with other sections of society. It goes to a popular vote and suddenly all Muslims (for example, especially in the current global climate) are eligible to be experimented on. Then atheists, the unemployed etc. Anyone that society deems useless or unwanted. Not that simple is it.
The point stands that they could be. Nothing in this universe is absolutely certain and I'm sure there have been plenty of real cases where there is a mountain of evidence against one person and it turns out that they are innocent. The state (and therefore we) have no right to subject that person to experiments that may drastically increase their chances of getting cancer just because we think they are guilty.
First point, OH NOES IT HAS A VERY SLIGHT CHANCE OF CAUSING CANCER WE MUST STOP INGESTING IT D: You do realised that breathing, eating, living near granite, having parents, generally living (from background radiation), Brazil nuts, flying (that's a big one) etc. are all carcinogenic? It really pisses me off when people go AHHHH IT'S GOING TO GIVE ME CANCER! It's not, it will increase your chance by a very small amount not actually give you cancer. /rant As for death row inmates, I completely disagree with the death penalty but I can see the appeal of making life sentence inmates do a service to humanity. But, what if someone is later cleared? "Oh sorry mate, we treated you like a lab rat and gave you cancer because we thought you were guilty, no hard feelings k?" That isn't really going to work =/
Ermm, no. Seal culling needs to stop. If PETA are the only ones going to protest about it then so be it. I do agree they that can be annoying at times but I don't see any of you on the streets protesting about the barbaric cruelty that is the baby seal cull.
How does disintegration have a vector? It comes from within the thing, arising from the very nature of all matter. Therefore, no vector.
Law of Entropy. As time increases the amount of disorder in a system will increase. This meaning that the very matter of the fort and the dog will eventually disintegrate into sub-atomic particles meaning that neither dog nor fort remains. Of course protons have a very long lifespan so you'd be waiting a while.
Pudding cup! :lolface:
One part of that doesn't exist, therefore we have nothing to fear.
Macs are the shittiest computers of all time =D
And if you think about it from the perspective of the bar, they lose money if you ban anyone with babies or young children. A curfew scheme would be easy and cheap to implement and maintain but would also increase customer satisfaction and revenue =D
[For my ballads.]
It so is! D: OMG THAT IS SO CUTE. Are you trying to kill me with cute? >: xxxxxxxxxx
I thought you were Laurence_Fox :(
