Animal Testing. Not even once.. Why are we testing animals when there are in prison
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

Animal Testing

Not even once

+1489
Views: 43098
Favorited: 65
Submitted: 08/03/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to atrumaliger Subscribe to morbid-channel E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend

Comments(213):

[ 213 comments ]
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
Order:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
User avatar #243 - dlotm (08/07/2012) [-]
Then they All ******
User avatar #242 - OHaiMark (08/07/2012) [-]
The Secret of Nimh comes to mind
User avatar #238 - chefwurm (08/05/2012) [-]
IT'S DOC GERBIL'S WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#225 - thelamalord (08/05/2012) [-]
mfw
mfw
#135 - sirduckalot (08/04/2012) [-]
I don't see why everyone is surprised to see this.
Mice are really the one's doing tests on us; us being in control is an illusion. The mice control us.
#128 - whathappenslive (08/04/2012) [-]
Times of the great fall beneath the boundaries of imperfection. - Lemon camel
#127 - boxdweller (08/04/2012) [-]
I dread this day.
I dread this day.
#226 to #127 - thelamalord (08/05/2012) [-]
soon....
soon....
User avatar #122 - hairydickfarts (08/04/2012) [-]
I've always fantasized about having a tiny pet human like this...
User avatar #112 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
Jesus **** ******* batman, the sheer number of utilitarians on this site is just astounding!

Makes me wanna test the trolley problem :D (No one better wikipedia this or it loses its philosophical weight!)

A trolley has lost control. It is hurtling towards 5 people trapped on the track. You cannot stop the trolley, however you can divert it onto another path on which only one person is trapped. Do you divert the train?
User avatar #218 to #112 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
I let the 5 die.
BUT
I make sure it's painless.
Morphine out the ass injected into the IV drips.
User avatar #219 to #218 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
i forget what did you do in the first 2 scenarios?
User avatar #220 to #219 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
Fine.
No sedatives.
Let them die.
**** it.
User avatar #221 to #220 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
k... what did you do in the first two scnearios?
User avatar #222 to #221 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
Diverted the first one.
Pushed the fat bastard in the second one.
User avatar #223 to #222 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
what made the third situation different from the first two?
User avatar #224 to #223 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
5 lives that depended on me harvesting one.

One man deserves a lesser fate, like killed in a freak trolley accident, not harvested by a ruthless bastard such as myself.
User avatar #227 to #224 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
so... it's the action that disgusts you...?

In the first cases a trolley was smashing the guy, but in the last you were the one gutting him so it offends you?
User avatar #228 to #227 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
No, it's when I gut someone, I will do it in a most ruthless fashion.

Cupcakes won't have **** on me.
User avatar #229 to #228 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
But you WOULDN'T gut the guy...?
User avatar #230 to #229 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
Yeah, he hasn't provoked me in any sort of way, why submit him to my torture?
User avatar #231 to #230 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
why would you divert a trolley into a person? To save 5 lives.
User avatar #232 to #231 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
Yep.

and the 5 that need surgery requires the organs that I harvest from another individual, essentially, organ robbery.
User avatar #233 to #232 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
remember, no consequences. It's just how you feel personally about the action, not about anything else.

See your decisions in the first two cases follow one train of thought, but you went away from that train of thought in the 3rd case...
User avatar #234 to #233 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
Yep. I reject your reality and substitute it with my own.
User avatar #236 to #234 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
remember what I said about exercising restraint...
User avatar #237 to #236 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
Yeah, yeah, I know.
User avatar #130 to #112 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
>shaped charge on trolley track
>trolley stopped VIA derailment
>no lives lost

Next question, if you would be so kind?
User avatar #139 to #130 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
ha ha, so fahny.

You cannot do anything besides allow the trolley to hit the 5 or change its path and kill the one

Anything other than those two decisions nullifies the philosophical weight of the question
User avatar #143 to #139 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
You pulled up a scenario, I thought of an out of the box solution.

Either that, or I pull out an Abrams from my ass and go flank speed into its side, causing the trolley to lose all forward momentum.
User avatar #146 to #143 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
... But a philosophical scenario isn't asking for an out of the box solution that solves the problem without serious thought. It looks for a difficult choice. It looks for you to take a stand on either side of a line on what you deem moral.

You cheapen the experiment when you use something from outside of the rules of the scenario.

So I repeat, divert the trolley, or allow it to run its course
User avatar #148 to #146 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
>Divert trolley
>tell the ******** to run like his life depends on it (which it does)
>higher chance of survival than simply diverting the trolley.

Now, why is the ******** just standing on the track?

A smart man would jump out of the way, but noooo, this guy thinks he's king **** of **** mountain and gives 0 ***** about no trolley. If he doesn't get out of the way, that's one tard out of the way, and five lives saved. If he does, well, no lives lost.
User avatar #149 to #148 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
they are unconscious on the tracks. There is no way to prevent the collision

5 will die
or one will die

The only variable is whether or not you will divert the trolley. Do you stand by diverting it? Can I move on to the next scenario?
User avatar #152 to #149 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
Yes, diverting it would cause only one death, only one life lost.

Meanwhile, if I don't divert it, that's 5 lives lost, and 5 families without sons or daughters.

So, another quesiton?
User avatar #156 to #152 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
Yes. Next question. You aren't in the trolley anymore you're on an overhanging bridge above the tracks. You see the trolley out of control and there is a really fat man in front of you. Using your immense knowledge of physics you determine that he is just fat enough to stop the trolley before it hits those 5 people.

Do you push him in the way of the trolley?
User avatar #157 to #156 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
>implying I can push the fat bastard in the way in time
User avatar #159 to #157 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
Remember, this is philosophy, we're all Gods here. We can do whatever we want within the confines of the choices made available to us.
User avatar #161 to #159 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
Well, what's the TOT on the trolley to the 5 'unconscious' civilians?
User avatar #163 to #161 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
TOT?
User avatar #165 to #163 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
Time On Target, artillery term.
User avatar #167 to #165 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
it's irrelevent. You have all the time in the world to make the decision but you don't have enough time to save the civilians yourself...
User avatar #168 to #167 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
>all the time in the world to make the decision
>not enough time to save the civilians

Now that just doesn't make sense.
With that logic, I'll just step away from it, it'll never get there.
User avatar #170 to #168 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
Yes but that breaks the magical time rift that you're occupying and allows the time to follow a linear path...

listen I can spend all day trying to quantum physics you up a justification... just accept the situation for what it is and please stop trying to come up with easy outs.
User avatar #171 to #170 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
Fine.

I'd throw the fat bastard at the trolley.
User avatar #214 to #171 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
You're not supposed to make the scenarios better, you're supposed to choose the option that you believe to be the lesser of two evils...
User avatar #215 to #214 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
Alright.

I'll play.

I'll conform to your 'logic'.
User avatar #217 to #215 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
btw, it's not logic it's about moral leans... those aren't logical
User avatar #216 to #215 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
so do you harvest the organs or let the 5 die
User avatar #212 to #171 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
but it's not my responsibility to patch loopholes. This scenario isn't supposed to be a 5 page dissertation. It's supposed to be a basic situation with only two options provided. I am not obligated to make it impossible for you to be an ass and ignore the fact that you're not allowed to make up new options. However, you ought to have just a teensy bit of restraint and learn how to follow instructions instead of demanding that everything be formatted to suit you. Otherwise do not submit to the exercise.
User avatar #213 to #212 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
Then how am I to help you create better scenarios if I do not adapt to them?
User avatar #210 to #171 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
but if you improve you ruin the exercise...
User avatar #211 to #210 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
I adapt, and I overcome.
One thing you may learn from this: Improve your scenarios so people like myself can't find loopholes.

That's all I did, exploit loopholes in the scenario itself.
0
#209 to #171 - Sethorein has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #207 to #171 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
there is in philosophical exercises that aim to determine what your moral persuasion is...

No seriously, have you ever had to decide between two options you really don't want to do and had to pick the lesser of two evils?
User avatar #208 to #207 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
Yeah, but here, I can improvise.
User avatar #205 to #171 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
... so what you're saying is you don't like tough decisions so you just don't make them. K
User avatar #206 to #205 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
No, what I'm saying is your decisions are sub-optimal, and mine are the logical choice.

Your Kobiyachi-Maru is flawed. There is no such thing as a no-win scenario.
User avatar #199 to #171 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
Next time someone tells you to suspend your disbelief, try NOT ignoring them... 6 times...
User avatar #204 to #199 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
>implying I have morals
Look, this apparently, you cannot process.
Everyone lives in my scenarios.
Yours, there is loss of life no matter what.

I process your scenario and come up with the most optimal solution.
This, apparently, you CAN'T process, and you reject it, since it does not 'challenge my moral perspective' enough.

Conclusion: 404 Reality not found
User avatar #202 to #199 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
No, you gave me a scenario with 2 obvious options that result in failiure.
I respond with 'needs moar info', so I can properly assess my situation.
You ignore that, and continue with your 2 obvious options.
I finally give in after MULTIPLE TRIES to get more information about my scenario.

Well, the purpose of the exercise is a mental sparring game where 'lives' are at stake. You give me 2 options. I give you a third which WOULD WORK, but NO, YOU APPARENTLY CANNOT PROCESS IT.

Suspension of disbelief is believing it.
I don't believe you.
This is getting us nowhere.
You apparently cannot process reasoning skills.
User avatar #203 to #202 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
...you're kidding right... it's not about pass and fail, it's a lose lose situation where you need to decide WHAT is more important to you, the quanitity of lives saved or the manner in which lives are lost. The fact that you are so dense that you couldn't figure that out just astounds me. Tell me, on a survey would you just add new options if the answers provided for you to fill in didn't suit you? I only have you two options because THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS THAT APPLY everything else is an easy out. A way for everyone to win which doesn't challenge your moral perspective in the ******* slightest.

Conclusion: You're too obsessed with winning when this wasn't even a competition of winners and losers.
User avatar #200 to #199 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
>you give me scenario
>I answer with logic
>THIS ISN'T ABOUT LOGIC, CRAZY, THIS IS ABOUT PHILOSOPHY
>I use logic, one does not simply stop using logic
>I continue with my logical mindset
>You get buttfrustrated at me for it
Look, you can either think out your scenarios better, or stop creating them.
User avatar #201 to #200 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
No I give you a scenario, I give you two options, you ignore the two options and make your own which completely negate the purpose of the exercise where you do not have that 3rd option -_-

also do you know what suspension of disbelief IS?!
User avatar #198 to #171 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
I'm done.

You're not listening to me, I'm not listening to you.
User avatar #196 to #171 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
you cannot wake him and you cannot kill them. You can either let them die or harvest his organs while he sleeps.

How many times do I have to repeat, NO BRINGING THINGS TO THE TABLE THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE SITUATION :|
User avatar #197 to #196 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
>implying, as a doctor, I wouldn't CC for personal safety purposes
And what, is the ****** in a coma or something?
User avatar #194 to #171 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
the organs will all be accepted. Remember, the theoretical frictionless surface. It stops being philosophical when you start adding other issues beside the decision you make...
User avatar #195 to #194 - DaCrazyOne (08/05/2012) [-]
I'll wake up the innocent life first, ask if he's okay with the procedure, if he's okay with sacrificing his life for 5 strangers, then I'll operate.

If not, then the 5 strangers are to die.

I'll pull out my pistol and execute them.

Make it quick, clean.
User avatar #173 to #171 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
Good Good.

Now you're a doctor. There's been a horrible trolley incident with 5 injured men. Each is missing a different organ. They will die if you do not replace the organs but you have none to give. There is a man asleep in the other room. Do you harvest his organs to save the 5 men?
User avatar #192 to #173 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
Screwed The Pooch, military term.
User avatar #191 to #173 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
Nope.

Why, you ask?

Because there's still a chance that their body will reject the organ, and I don't know if the sleeping individual in the other room is compatible with ANY of the patients.

So, 5 deaths instead of 6.
User avatar #188 to #173 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
>implying I have a full surgery suite on hand for such an operation
>implying I wouldn't go straight to prison for operating on a non-volunteer organ donor

Either way, I STP.
Damned if I do.
Damned if I don't.

Time for reality check, buddy.

All of your scenarios are flawed.
User avatar #190 to #188 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
by that I mean, what does STP mean... isn't that a temperature constant?
User avatar #189 to #188 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
these aren't supposed to reflect reality. They're like the frictionless surface in physics. Existing only in a theoretical manner in order to teach a principle. It's only flawed because you keep trying to think of these situations as rational which they aren't. They're philosophical. They are about how you view morality and the value of human life. Now do you do the procedure or don't you?
User avatar #181 to #173 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
>Doesn't matter which organs are lost
Oh yes it does.

Also, if the accident ****** up the organs enough, that they go 'missing', wouldn't they die from blood loss ANYWAY on the way to the hospital?
User avatar #184 to #181 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
No easy outs.

If you harvest the man the 5 will live and he will die
If you don't he will live and they will die.

Decision.
User avatar #177 to #173 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
That doesn't answer my question.

Which organs were lost?
User avatar #180 to #177 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
doesn't matter. All of them are vital and he has just the right ones to replace all of them in those 5 men. Remember what I said about easy outs? We are working with the assumption that he will die if you act, they will die if you don't.
User avatar #174 to #173 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
Well, depends on the lost organs and the fate of the sleeping man.
User avatar #176 to #174 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
he will die
User avatar #158 to #157 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
130 pounds doesn't really give me much to work with on my part....
User avatar #153 to #152 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
question*
#126 to #112 - anonymous (08/04/2012) [-]
In problems like this you must turn to law, if you don't divert the trolley you've done nothing and are not prosecuted and sent to prison, but if you do divert it you have actively killed someone and if they can prove it you get prosecuted and sent prison.

One does nothing especially if you leave before anyone sees you were there, but the other ruins your life because you're a " ******** " and have severe troubles getting a job or passport and traveling, your choice ******* or ******** which is it.
User avatar #140 to #126 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
Imagine there is no law. Would you divert the trolley?
#150 to #140 - anonymous (08/04/2012) [-]
That was not apart of the original question, changing the question after getting an answer changes the circumstances.

But no I wouldn't because if there was no law it would be Anarchy and gangs would be almost everywhere doing crazy **** like this and watching it, if I diverted the trolley they would kill or do worse to me.
User avatar #154 to #150 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
The question is assuming a sort of plane of existence separate from our current one.

One where you are god. Where you determine your OWN law. So in this case, no law tells you what to do, but your decision here decides what the precedent will be. You should not be afraid of breaking the law for fear of creating anarchy because people will follow your guidelines as if it were law henceforth.

So if you were in charge. If there was no threat of anarchy. If it was only this isolated case. Would you divert the trolley or wouldn't you?
#160 to #154 - anonymous (08/04/2012) [-]
And now we're getting away from the question, like every "philosophical question" it eventually turns into the questioner not giving their answer but rather changing the question farther and farther skewing reality into an undefinable mess until they reach a point where the answerer won't go any farther because of the extreme ******** .

If I'm a god I can change the laws of physics, make the trolley go back up the hill, have it turn to dust, make it into a cake, have the people move on their own regardless of restrictions, I can have a spider scare a person who's driving 5 miles away into crashing into an electrical pole causing it to tilt and eventually fall over knocking out power and making the electronics short circuit and have the rails stay in a position where the trolley will fall of the rails and crash.

I don't have to even LOOK at the trolley when I am a GOD I can have any number of situations happen BECAUSE I'M A ******* GOD I can do what I please.
User avatar #162 to #160 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
I'm done playing


You have no consequences
You have one choice
Divert the trolley or don't

You're that kid in class who always answers questions with questions aren't you.
I was trying to make it easier for you because you had about as many completely irrelevant hangups as a person COULD have in a philosophical situation WHERE THE ONLY THING OF ANY RELEVENCE IS THE INFORMATION PRESENTED. Bringing law into it was retarded. Bringing anarchy in was retarded. It's not the questioners fault that you are incapable of answering a god damn question with the information provided

SO THERE ANSWER THE GOD DAMN QUESTION
DIVERT THE TROLLEY OR DON'T IF THERE ARE NO CONSEQUENCES AND YOU ARE LIMITED TO ONLY THAT ONE OPTION.

Jesus christ... I don't even know if I want your answer anymore...
#115 to #112 - anonymous (08/04/2012) [-]
No. the earth is over populated ;)
User avatar #116 to #115 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
Then new question for you.

If you could click a button and kill every vegetative, disabled, psychotic, and incredibly villainous person... would you?
#124 to #116 - anonymous (08/04/2012) [-]
How can you compare disabled people with psychotic and villainous people? Also I'd kill the latter two. World gets safer and population goes down a healthy level.
User avatar #138 to #124 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
I was just thinking of undesirable or less useful populations...
#129 to #124 - anonymous (08/04/2012) [-]
how can you generalize and compare psychopaths with villainous people. There are many psychopaths who lead normal lives and never hurt anyone only a small fraction ever harm another human. A psychopath is someone who has a mental condition that prevents him from relating emotionally to other living things and human beings not a condition that forces someone to kill.
User avatar #141 to #129 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
just coming up with undesirable populations.
User avatar #131 to #129 - DaCrazyOne (08/04/2012) [-]
anon #2 has a point.
#118 to #116 - anonymous (08/04/2012) [-]
No. Some are valuable to society, like Stephen Hawking. I'm not one of those people that think you can just generalise people like that, almost everyone serves some kind of role in society and are needed, but it doesn't escape the truth that there are too many of us.
User avatar #120 to #118 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
I'd like you to respond to my original comment then
#133 to #120 - anonymous (08/04/2012) [-]
Fine. If you had no idea who the people were, what their occupation was, history of genetic disease, intelligence, qualifications/skills. Then I would let 5 go, since there are 7 billion others in the world and if any rare skills were lost then there is a good chance one of the other 7 billion will also have those skills, and there are less people we have to worry about feeding. It sounds harsh and evil, but we can't sustain ourselves, and it's worse in my opinion to allow people to live a life of constant suffering and then a painful death by starvation.
User avatar #147 to #133 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
...so you'd let those 5 die so that there's more resources for the rest of the world.

That's strangely utilitarian... even if the utilitarian response is to divert the train...
User avatar #179 to #147 - biomedic (08/04/2012) [-]
I'm trying to look at the bigger picture, 'think global act local' you know :) I'm a huge advocate of The Club Of Rome, if this is the kind of debate that really interests you then you should consider reading their manifesto. It predicts population demographics up to 2050 and considers a hell of a lot of variables, and has a good commentary on the expected socio-economic effects of peak oil.
User avatar #183 to #179 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
The thing is... population will eventually level out... we're reaching the end of our boom...
User avatar #186 to #183 - biomedic (08/04/2012) [-]
Yes it will... But I was suggesting you read the manifesto because some of the theories to how and why that might happen are interesting. I'm not debating you if that's the sense you're getting.
User avatar #187 to #186 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
...it's not just a lack of resources thing? We'll physically be unable to support larger populations and birth/death rates will equal out? Or what o_o
User avatar #239 to #187 - biomedic (08/05/2012) [-]
well it all comes down to resource availability I guess... But it's not things you expect, like how soil erosion is taking away our ability to produce crops in the western world and we have to increase imports. Like in the UK where our own agriculture can't even feed 50% of the population. So that mixed with running out of oil by 2050 means our economies will collapse and our ability to import food will be taken away, so people panic, wars will ensue no doubt and it's a downward spiral from there.
User avatar #240 to #239 - Sethorein (08/05/2012) [-]
that will be fun...
#109 - anonymous (08/04/2012) [-]
Gah this reminds of radioheads myxomatosis, probably because it says myxomatosis lol
#104 - thearrogantprick (08/04/2012) [-]
Nazi bunnies......
0
#102 - burcheck **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #99 - svbeansv (08/04/2012) [-]
why a bunny?
#93 - alucardshellhound (08/04/2012) [-]
**alucardshellhound rolled a random image posted in comment #282578 at FJ Pony Thread 14 **
User avatar #89 - ronyx (08/04/2012) [-]
If mice were as smart as humans are portrayed on the picture then we wouldn't be testing on them.
User avatar #88 - Lambda (08/04/2012) [-]
I propose we do away with animal testing and just use the rapists and serial killers from the prisons. Then if we run out of them, start using teenagers who say "swag" a lot.
Doing science AND making the world a better place.
User avatar #105 to #88 - fnordyy (08/04/2012) [-]
And thus the zombie apocalypse
User avatar #110 to #105 - xgeneration (08/04/2012) [-]
I think we're all well prepared for that so won't be much of an apolocyse.
#73 - mexicanfood (08/04/2012) [-]
That needle is so ******* big compared to those humans that if they ever injected you with something that big you would die of blood loss first.

User avatar #72 - cannonofanon (08/04/2012) [-]
I really think this should happen to most humans.
User avatar #75 to #72 - IamEllis (08/04/2012) [-]
I'd rather have it be tested on mice than be given to me or my family with unkown side effecs
#81 to #75 - anonymous (08/04/2012) [-]
test it on prisoners. thats good use of the ******* money just to feed and give them a place to say.
#85 to #81 - anonymous (08/04/2012) [-]
According the the Prisoner of War treaty, no one may use prisoners as test subjects.
#100 to #85 - anonymous (08/04/2012) [-]
That's a shame:(
User avatar #106 to #100 - Sethorein (08/04/2012) [-]
Why... you may be a criminal but you're still a human being... You still have the basic human rights even if most extra ones have been taken from you...
#69 - hulikaani (08/04/2012) [-]
**hulikaani rolled a random image posted in comment #326 at Communist. **
User avatar #68 - painispancakes (08/04/2012) [-]
Is it me or does the rabbit in the background looks like a playboy logo?
[ 213 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)