Do you think dissection is wrong?

Right now, biology classes and anatomy classes are dissecting pigs and cats and some people (PETA CLUB) find it very wrong.

Those people argue that it's inhuman/wrong/cruel/etc.
They also argue that there are software programs that emulate dissection, but I don't think it would be the same as dissecting a real animal as software is only limited to what is coded. Also, wouldn't the software need to have real animals dissected too?

I'm pretty sure nobody associated with PETA is in a position to argue that dissection is wrong given that they kill 85% of the animals they want to "protect."

PETA basically has two kinds of members:

1.) Smug *******s who have nothing in their lives to feel superior about so they choose a random social problem they don't really care about and invent a movement which is actually destructive to their cause. This is also why Greenpeace and vegans exist.
2.) People who can't get off unless they choke an animal to death first (i.e. Ingrid Newkirk).

riiight...

Next time one of the PETA guys is seriously ill, just deny him any treatment, because all of our gathered information would be... 'unethical'

Basically what I'm saying is that your school should dissect PETA members.

you should poll them on simulated child pornography

Man, all we ever got to cut up was whatever we bought from the butcher's.

And that was all of once.

Unethical.

i had to dissect a baby pig when i was in high school. it smelled so bad

still awesome.

my HS biology class was graded on a curve.

the pig dissection test was 10% of the total grade.

i got 100%.

my class hated me.

that was me in my English IV/Media Studies class. everything was graded on a curve, but i got straight As in that class. everyone either hated me or wanted to sit next to me to cheat off me

I got in trouble in HS because when we dissected the baby pigs, I cut the head off and put it on a stake.

You'd think a person with such high marks in English could invest in some punctuation and spelling here and there.

i don't see any spelling errors, i just see missed capitalization and such

What does 'graded on a curve' mean?

I think there are a few ways to do it, but basically, whatever the highest grade is the new 100% If the highest grade in the class was a 95%, then everyone gets 5% added to their grade.

Kind of based on collective performance.

But when someone over achieves the lazy people get burned.

the placement of that bracket was pure genius. It made me read that as a sentence.

Yeah, I don't see spelling problems, but there is evil punctuation followed by a run-on.
But y'know... it's a forum, as long as it's easily readable it's usually good enough.

That's one type of curve.
Bell curve grading is another type of curve.

That's ****ing stupid. How does that work in a mathematics exam? What happens if everyone gets everything correct? Surely everyone should get 100%? Or what if everyone is ****ing retarded? Surely they should all fail?

Doesn't this make any sort of comparison between classes, or over time, absolutely worthless?

What you know depends on what you know, not any of the other ****ers.

If everyone, or if even one person, gets 100%, there's no curve.

The thought process, I think, deals with the grades being a reflection on the instructor. If the highest anyone could get was a 93, for example, it suggests that maybe the professor only adequately covered 93% of the material and the class shouldn't be responsible for the rest if he/she didn't cover it adequately.

Of course, other professors go "**** you, I covered the material, it's not my fault my students didn't study enough. You don't know the material, you don't pass."

Hey, I'm not agreeing with it, but it can be damn handy.

I think it's so ethical that I will donate my entire corpse to medical science. Hopefully the can scrounge some spare parts to save someone, and the parts that can't save anyone can possibly lead to a cure for something somewhere down the line.
I can't wait for my biology classes pig slicing next year, going to be fun.

High school English courses focus on unquantifiable literary analysis at the expense of lexicon, syntax and semantics. It's not unbelievable that someone would get excellent marks and still be incapable of communicating her ideas eloquently.

Not that I think her grammar and spelling are bad.

The idea is that your grade reflects your abilities relative to all other students who have taken the course, regardless of circumstance.

Let's say it's English. One professor believes that nobody can be perfect and refuses to grade papers higher than 90%. Another professor believes that everybody is a beautiful unique butterfly and always grades every paper from 90% to 100%. Students from the second class are not better; their professor just grades higher. It's unfair that they would have a higher academic standing than the students who took the course from the more challenging professor.

Or Mathematics. One professor has a very cut-and-dry course teaching just the basics of calculus. Another professor throws in some partial differential equations because he thinks it's bloody fascinating. People who took the first course had an easier time and got higher marks, while people who took the second course got lower marks on average. How do you measure academic standing?

It's pretty basic statistics. If each class gets a truly random sample of students their abilities can be plotted with a bell curve. It doesn't always exactly work out that way, but it's close enough. It also prevents side effects like GPA inflation.

My organic chemistry class was graded on a bell curve. I don't think they are fair, but I honestly can't complain. The organic prof made his tests ridiculously hard. There would be some panic and worry when I'd make a 51% on the test but that would go away when we found out the highest grade was a 57%.

And no, we weren't 'tards. Although we all felt like it on test day.

In the classes I teach, I definitely don't use bell curves, and I don't curve test scores unless a majority of students are missing the same things on the test (which probably means I didn't explain/teach it well to begin with).

I don't give bonus work either.

And since this thread was originally about dissection, and I've taught several classes in the past that required dissection, all I'll say is that I never ceased to be amazed at how similar the anatomy of other mammals and humans are. It's a great way to learn more about our own anatomy at the same time get a better understanding of how fragile life really is.

Back when I was in highschool, many years ago, we did the baby pig dissection.

I suppose it surprises no-one to learn that I brought my digital camera and documented this. Here, have some dissection pictures:

http://kyle90.info/images/dissection1.jpg

http://kyle90.info/images/dissection2.jpg

http://kyle90.info/images/dissection3.jpg

high school is over. im no longer graded.

I love dissecting stuff. I can't comprehend what possible moral opposition people would have to poking dead things. I agree with mort in the idea that it would likely bring you closer to animals than anything, in my opinion. To know they're a real living thing with similar parts and pieces is enlightening to some people.

Unfortunately, ethics is subjective.

Under my code of ethics, I don't see anything wrong with it so far as the dissecting. The animal is already dead and you are now making use of it's remains to better yourself, better humanity, or both. Dissecting that animal may inspire you to become an animal surgeon and save the lives of animals in the future. Dissecting the animal may inspire you to develop something that enhances the quality of life for animals and/or humans.

I guess the only questionable thing would be if they have you kill the animal. It should already be an animal that died and was quickly preserved after death.

PETA should donate all of the animals they euthanize so that science classes can dissect them.

No child left behind, I suppose.

If you don't like dissecting things, don't take biology. Easy.

Linked because I happened to be eating while reading this thread... stupid me

bwahahhahahaha

You don't like bacon?

mb, how do you see pictures? its normally linked for me when im logged on

When aren't you eating?

Also, is that all it took to throw your stomach off? Weak.

+1

I don't know about your school, but at RIT, the fetal pigs (and other animals) we dissect are already dead from unrelated reasons. That is, they only use pigs that have died, they do not kill pigs for dissection.

For dissection in class, it seems this is the only truly ethical method. For dissection or experimentation in medical research that can lead to helping humans, it is most certainly ethical.

Do I think dissecting Massassians is wrong?

Nope!

YOU BLOODTHIRSTY ANIMALS!!1 HOW COULD YOU KILL THESE SOULS FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOUR "MEDICAL" RESEARCH!! You all are just in the pockets of big pharmaceuticals! All these companies kill in the name of their so-called "science." You people should be boycotting these monsters! You all sicken me. Do you feel good shoveling unhumanely slaughtered cows, chickens, pigs, fish into your gorge? Do you not feel the pain of Gaia as MILLIONS of her precious children are fed into the demon-maws of human-kind? Honest to Earth...