I fucking love "science"

And liberals don't?

What happened to that rabbit?

>hazardous testing on live animals
because it's ethically justifiable and in most cases there is no alternative

Scientists don't have the power you describe. Scientists usually work for someone who works for money money money money. Scientists are not priests or saints, they're just less confused than most. It takes a hero to act freely from conviction, few people are heroic.

There's no alternative because scientists cbf for one when they're getting paid to torture animals NOW, and because there's no money in researching safe and humane options.
Science happened to that rabbit.

If a questionably unethical thing is done in the name of science, at least it has a specific research purpose (unlike religion, which is blind idiocy).

Religion is nothing but blind ideology and science will always aim to help its fellow mankind.

You're fooling yourself. The Tuskegee experiment was pretty scientific. It was still a fucking moral travesty.

According to your feefees. Religion and science weren't at odds until it became a political tool.

Name a single atrocious thing science has done that can't be justified

>it's ethically justifiable to test comestic products that could not be anymore useless on live animals

(according to my own morals and bias)

Name a single thing religion has done that can't be justified.

Turned the Earth into a hopeless warzone for half-wits.

Name a single atrocious thing anyone has done that can't be justified

Because half-wits didn't do that.

My point is literally just that.

Doomed innumerable animals to the human subjugation machine made up of over-breeding cultists.

The half-wits are the billions of cultists drowning the world in their ignorant recklessness.

>humans need an excuse to overbreed
R-Right

Go back to or or even better >>>/reddit/

>half-wits can convince smart people of something retarded
R-Right, right

So you mostly have a problem with Muslims seeing as they're most of those billions of cultists, right?

>32 replies and no one can just tell me how "science" got politically-charged

I said cultists. I mean cultists. Every single person that believes in supernature is a pox on this planet. Every Christian, every Jew, every Muslim follows the same ass-backward god of shortsighted obedience and cruelty to animals.

That's kinda bigoted, senpai.

Terririzing hundreds of generations of suckers with the threat of the big bad sky boogieman.

The word you're looking for is Intolerant. I admit it.

The trend starts in the XVII century because protestant scientist wanted to discredit the Vatican.

People drank the kool-aid and edgy kids from the 80s-present day who hated being taken to church every Sunday by their parents ride the train. Also a few pop-scientists who pander to morons helped.

*tips fedora

They're not scientists, user, they're science guys.

My mistake.

Your fedora smells like head sweat. Wash it?

>Cosmetic tests
Holy shit, what the fuck? That's so fucked up.

Obviously because fedoras only see their Iphone.

They don't see nuclear weapons, mustard gas and cancerous industrial waste being pushed into the atmosphere.

You'd think we would have a more humane option that doesn't predate WWII, either.

I know that animal tests were done for medicines, but cosmetics? Damn, women are worse than animals apparently.

You've never seen it? All the hippie green groups plaster it all over walls and TV. And they've done it for years.

>nuclear weapons are bad
Nuclear weapons are the entire reason we have not had WW3.

Doesn't mean it's safe that they even exist you fucking retard.

You would rather have another world war?

Pro-tip, nuclear winter is a myth.

Until we DO have WWIII, which'll last maybe half a day.

I'd rather weapons of mass destruction not exist yes.

Because if war happens in spite of their existence billions will die.

I Fuckin' LOVE Science!!!

WOOO!

Why do you think billions would not die from a conventional world war?

We have huge numbers of people more dependent than ever on vulnerable food supplies. Do you think Africa, which is on the verge of starvation even in peace-time, would be able to survive a world war?

Most civilian deaths in WW2 were indirect; they were caused by famine and disease.

I'd rather get vaporized instantly than starve for weeks then die of cholera to be honest.

>Why do you think billions would not die from a conventional world war?

Because they didn't during the largest war in history.

But today? Billions might die. The US and Russia alone have several thousand nuclear weapons each of varying destructive capacity.

Even if they were only being tactical about their nuking and not strategic, at least several hundred million would die.

>Because they didn't during the largest war in history.
Because Africa, South-East Asia, Western Europe, China, and Japan did not depend so heavily on foreign trade/charity for food.

Further, what food they do grow locally is heavily dependent on chemical fertilizer, which again is unlikely to be plentiful during a world war.

>I'd rather get vaporized instantly than starve for weeks then die of cholera to be honest.

Sucks to be you. You'll most likely just get 3rd degree burns and be a walking corpse for a few hours, or get radiated and slowly die from the inside out trough a matter of weeks.

>what food they do grow locally is heavily dependent on chemical fertilizer, which again is unlikely to be plentiful during a world war.

Yeah, because it's being used as a chemical weapon.

>You'll most likely just get 3rd degree burns and be a walking corpse for a few hours
Still quicker than starvation.

>or get radiated and slowly die from the inside out trough a matter of weeks.
Radiation poisoning is lethal within a couple days without serious medical intervention.

No, because the petrochemical refineries will be some of the first targets. Further, the ones that do manage to stay operational will be too busy making diesel and jet fuel.

Either way, only a MADman(MAD get it?) would think it's a good thing nuclear weapons exist.

No, people who don't want another world war think its a good thing.

The existence of nuclear weapons isn't going to stop another world war.

Go outside and ask people what they think about nukes without showering with your shitty opinions beforehand.

>The existence of nuclear weapons isn't going to stop another world war.
But it already has. Before WW2, there was a major war every 20-40 years, each one more deadly and more widespread than the last. We have not had one anywhere near as deadly or widespread since the invention of the nuclear bomb.

>But it already has

No it hasn't. You're just inferring that because nuclear weapons were invented 70 years ago.

Do you want me to remind you that 2 months after nuclear weapons were invented, they were used to murder 200000 people?

>Do you want me to remind you that 2 months after nuclear weapons were invented, they were used to murder 200000 people?
And prevent an invasion which would have resulted in the deaths of millions. And have not been used since.

And yet the US alone has been involved in at least 7 wars since then. We haven't had war between major powers for a multitude of reasons, not just nukes.

>And prevent an invasion which would have resulted in the deaths of millions.

You can't possibly know that to be true.

>And have not been used since.

Doesn't mean they never will.

All 7 combined have been less deadly and less destructive than WW2.

>>You can't possibly know that to be true.
Look up Operation Downfall, the planned US invasion of mainland Japan. Analysts expect over 1 million US casualties alone. Give that over 90% of Japanese civilians on Okinawa died during that battle, I think it's safe to assume similar or worse numbers for the home islands.

You don't seem to understand that as long as nuclear weapons exist, the threat of nuclear annihilation will always exist, no matter how much political game theory you pull out of your ass.

Not every single political actor is rational actor.

Nearly 5 million people on Vietnam, on a completely one-sided war that took place on a completely territory the size of Switzerland.
And that's pretty much what every war since WW2 has been. But they're still wars, and they're still violent, and pretty drawn out.

If there was another war between Europeans it would be just as deadly, and Nukes are far from the only reason that isn't happening.

5 million is absolutely nothing compared to WW2 or what a conventional WW3 would cost.

Nukes are not the only reason, but they're definitely a major one.

Mechanical engineer here, I have to agree with you to some degree. But it is like posting on Veeky Forums "god, history majors are so stupid they can't even do basic math."

The US could built an anti-nuke defense system if they were willing to commit the resources, but they didn't tough it was worth it even before the fall of the Soviet Union.

In fact the Soviet Union urged the US not do it because it would undermine the effectiveness of the Deterrence theory. So literally the only reason nukes are effective at Detante is because politicians allow it.

I've seen it a couple of times.

No defense system is perfect, all you have to do is spam enough nukes that some get through.

Further, building an effective anti-ballistic missile system is a good way to start a war; your opponent will know the system is under construction and will want to use his nukes while they're still useful.

There are some ideas for a perfect defense system. It's just a matter of throwing enough shit in it.
And no, unless there's high tensions, building up your defenses isn't a casus-belis in any real life scenario.

Yeah but it's dumb right

Tensions were pretty high in the 80's, which is when that ABM system you brought up got canceled.

sweet heavenly jesus what is happening in that pic

haha dude & humanities lmao

>No it hasn't. You're just inferring that because nuclear weapons were invented 70 years ago.
No, he's saying that because deterrence combined with the UN actually has prevented not only nuclear destruction since 1945, but any form of global conflict. It brought us out of the horrible period of total wars and back to the relative safety of limited wars. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, US hegemony in the now unipolar international system has produced a period of extreme peace. Don't think for a second that second strike capability has nothing to do with that.
Now, in the long run they are definitely extremely dangerous. Eventually a madman is bound to use nuclear weapons with a complete disregard for the consequences. So the fear is always there, which is horrible, but I'll gladly take it over fighting in a world war. I don't think you fully appreciate how bad those were.