WOULD YOU APPROVE OF USING PROVEN CONVICTS FOR TESTING?

culture : WOULD YOU APPROVE OF USING PROVEN CONVICTS FOR TESTING?

[+] ballot by Red_Kitty07
ACTIVE Mon Sep 13, 04 - Fri Sep 17, 10
The other day in psych we were talking about this, and that was mentioned; what do you think-and say something intelligent...

yes
no
Only for cosmetics

Register to submit choices

Ballot #50857 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

Register to submit comments
You may still vote without registration

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank:

similiar ballots:
12950. Are you surprised about Australia? Being convicts and all
78271. England sent convicts to Australia. Who should we send there now?
74657. Is society better served by punishing or rehabilitating convicts?
55211. Innocent until proven guilty
70685. If it were proven that homosexuality were genetic . . .
102222. Has President Bush been proven correct?
102663. Should Muslims be considered innocent until proven otherwise?
118582. Which Country Has the Most Proven Oil Reserves in the World?
16702. Do you approve prostitution?
121876. What is it you do that your parents don't approve of?

COMMENTS:
For testing what?

by ABC on Mon Sep 13, 04 4:06pm [+]

Yeah, what kind of testing?

by nuckinfutz on Mon Sep 13, 04 4:07pm [+]

Maybe if they were on death road.

by thc2883 on Mon Sep 13, 04 4:10pm [+]

Yes, if they agree to it. Tee Bundy offered to be 'studied' instead of getting the death penalty. Meaning, he would have had intensive psychiatric testing, PET scans, EEGs, etc. every day for the rest of his life. We might have learned what makes a serial killer tick. However, the families of the girls he murdered probably wouldn't agree - and I wouldn't blame them.

by mojo on Mon Sep 13, 04 4:12pm [+]

*Ted, not Tee

by mojo on Mon Sep 13, 04 4:12pm [+]

for testing what?

by mike1952 on Mon Sep 13, 04 4:13pm [+]

oic

by mike1952 on Mon Sep 13, 04 4:13pm [+]

I agree with mojo.

by magdalenasdollar on Mon Sep 13, 04 4:14pm [+]

I need to learn to read the comments before making my own

by mike1952 on Mon Sep 13, 04 4:14pm [+]

I'm talking about testing cosmetics, drugs, and different medications. It would shut the animal rights lobbyists up for a while and since alot of them don't deserve to live anyway, we could use them...? You getting this?

by Red_Kitty07 on Mon Sep 13, 04 4:27pm [+]

Oh, PRODUCTS testing! Yes! For sure, why make innocent animals endure unnecessary suffering when there are human lowlifes willing and able to do it?

by mojo on Mon Sep 13, 04 4:42pm [+]

Hee hee, imagine being the one to apply lipstick to Ted Bundy!

by magdalenasdollar on Mon Sep 13, 04 4:43pm [+]

No ... the potential for abuse is too great.

"But he VOLUNTEERED for the testing! Really!"

by Cathexis on Mon Sep 13, 04 5:17pm [+]

Cathexis
Many things can be abused. That's not a good reason reason not to strive forward.

by thc2883 on Mon Sep 13, 04 6:30pm [+]

thc: Depends on the probability and the magnitude of abuse.

The people most willing to go forward are typically those least likely to suffer from it.

But someone has to speak for those who have little or no power.

by Cathexis on Mon Sep 13, 04 6:46pm [+]

What if the criminal volunteers?

by thc2883 on Mon Sep 13, 04 7:45pm [+]