101–110 of 125 posts
So if you're performing CPR, could it increase the chance of survival if someone else performed mouth-to-anus on the person? Maybe in the future first aid kits won't just come with CPR masks but also anal dilators and a brush.
So if you're performing CPR, could it increase the chance of survival if someone else performed mouth-to-anus on the person? Maybe in the future first aid kits won't just come with CPR masks but also anal dilators and a brush.
I'm thinking it would probably be more of a first responder tool. Something in the ambulance.
Scuba diving just became more interesting
brb submitting the "Diving Suppository" to YC
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being found guilty of serial murder implies neither actual guilt nor, if actually guilty, that the murderer views other humans as playthings. A murderer may, in fact, believe they themselves are removing such people from the world. It’s probably also better if potential jurors don’t have the thought, “Well, I have some doubt but if this guy dies and I’m wrong, at least it’ll do a lot of good.”
The parent comment said "known serial killer". There was no discussion of guilt. I may be wrong about the play thing bit so to revise and be more specific in my stance; 1. If they have no issue with killing people. 2. have killed people 3. will continue to kill people If all or even most of those victims being people who do not harm others then I'm alright with the murderers being used in experiments or killed themse…
(1) is unknowable. (2) and (3) describe many, many people that are not generally considered to be serial killers (e.g., a soldier). If a 'known serial killer' were experimented on and died, (2) and (3) could also describe the researchers doing the experimentation.
We could modify (1) to say, "...and we have 100% certainty of this." But I guess really not certain what value the question has if we basically require 100% certain knowledge of the events and the internal state of the perpetrator. A 'no' answer would mean 'no' in the real world, too, but a 'yes' answer doesn't really tell us anything about the real world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, the overwhelming majority of animal testing is not for saving grandma. It's for testing a new brand of makeup.
I'd rather a thousand cute bunnies go blind (or worse) than one woman's eyesight be harmed by dangerous makeup.
It's the medical breakthroughs where I get uncertain. Cosmetics be damned.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The parent comment said "known serial killer". There was no discussion of guilt. I may be wrong about the play thing bit so to revise and be more specific in my stance; 1. If they have no issue with killing people. 2. have killed people 3. will continue to kill people If all or even most of those victims being people who do not harm others then I'm alright with the murderers being used in experiments or killed themse…
I did not get the sense @newsbinator was trying to remove the question to an entirely hypothetical realm, but stipulating that we somehow have this knowledge with hypothetical 100% certainty is fair enough. (1) is unknowable. (2) and (3) describe many, many people that are not generally considered to be serial killers ( e.g. , a soldier). If a 'known serial killer' were experimented on and died, (2) and (3) could als…
Somebody who is doubtlessly (and perhaps unrealistically) guilty of committing one of our highest crimes, for the sake of simplifying the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million children's lives in the next 10 years? Not in a civilized society with a rule of law
Some closely related cases for thought: How about experimenting on cell cultures harvested from an adult who was executed by the state? How about experimenting on cell cultures harvested from an aborted human fetus? In both cases, the source of the cells doesn't give consent, but their designated caretaker does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
„It was found that John Doe took liquid-oxygen enema before run, unfairly improving his performance.”
Given that liquid oxygen boils at about -300 F, if John Doe can finish a race after a liquid oxygen enema he deserves first prize for something!