Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
You idiot. Its for ALS. also pls dont undermine fb when youre just another cancer spot on youtube...
Let's be fair here, no one thinks The Rock, Robert Downey Junior, Chris Pratt or the Kardasians were ever going to be scientists. Rather their money went to research then another yacht.
First of all the money is going to scientists who research.
Second. The company whos receiving all the donations for ALS research, does all its tests on animals. So youre just contributing to unhealthy tests done on animals.
For every action is a consequence neither good nor bad.
Animals may die, but it is to try and find a cure for many sicknesses. I may sound cold hearted but I would rather see an animal then a human being poked and prodded any day.
Just Fork_Q's two pence.
In favour of less animals dying for medical research if possible, that would certainly be a moral improvement; but animals are used primarily for testing how toxic the chemicals and medicines are, which is why at that stage human volunteers are almost never used. Have to agree with Dean here.
Science depends entirely on morality, there would be no progress if scientists simply fabricate and make up research as they go along. Research conducted on animals is very tightly regulated with ethical considerations for the test animals welfare balanced with their utility to the research's aims.
It's 3am, I probably haven't thought this out clearly, but feel free to criticise...
Which after typing this, I started thinking. What would the world be like without humanity? I know it's unrelated, but still. Would animals continue to evolve as the world changes? Would Extinction practically stop?
If you value the lives of animals more than that of humans, some thing is seriously wrong here. Sure if they were to face extinction and are required to maintain balance, or if they are useful otherwise then it is of a concern. But that is not the context here.
And what is with the idiocy of people who think up and do such challenges ?
(Both questions are rhetorical in nature)