PDA

View Full Version : is animal testing wrong if they make the animal cuter?



xsecx
07-28-2009, 12:20 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/28/spinal.injury.blue.dye/index.html

linsee
07-28-2009, 07:44 PM
You beat me to posting this.

I am disgusted by how cute I found that photo.

lo0m
07-29-2009, 12:47 AM
yes, it is indeed wrong.. what is cute is just your personal opinion.. i find normal mouse cuter for example...

XTrueColorsX
07-29-2009, 02:24 AM
yes, it is indeed wrong.. what is cute is just your personal opinion.. i find normal mouse cuter for example...

Agreed

xsecx
07-29-2009, 08:25 AM
yes, it is indeed wrong.. what is cute is just your personal opinion.. i find normal mouse cuter for example...

I think you'll find that blue mice that had a spinal injury but can walk again are universally cuter than albino ones who can't.

JoeyX
07-29-2009, 06:46 PM
Even though I'm a complete hypocryte cause I still eat meat and all. But I do however believe it is not our choice, our right, or our responsibility, to cure, change the color, help, or not help an animal. I believe what is right is to let nature take its' course. That is why I considered becoming vegan, because I believe killing animals is wrong, and is unnatural. Now if you go outside hunting in a loincloth, and hunt an animal down with your bare-hands, then sure that is pretty natural in itself, because you're doing what any other animal does...but trying to "cure" an animal, or "kill in massive #'s" is ridiculous, unnatural, and completely wrong. Let nature take its' course, its is not our job or right, to feel the "need" to cure an animal.

Just because you helped an animal, and/or made it more cute, does not justify the fact that you are doing something to the animal that it did nor did not ask for, which in my eyes means, not our responsibility. Everybody talks about animals being free, well whether we are curing them, or eating them, they are not free.

rodrigo
07-29-2009, 06:53 PM
Even though I'm a complete hypocryte cause I still eat meat and all. But I do however believe it is not our choice, our right, or our responsibility, to cure, change the color, help, or not help an animal. I believe what is right is to let nature take its' course. That is why I considered becoming vegan, because I believe killing animals is wrong, and is unnatural. Now if you go outside hunting in a loincloth, and hunt an animal down with your bare-hands, then sure that is pretty natural in itself, because you're doing what any other animal does...but trying to "cure" an animal, or "kill in massive #'s" is ridiculous, unnatural, and completely wrong. Let nature take its' course, its is not our job or right, to feel the "need" to cure an animal.

Just because you helped an animal, and/or made it more cute, does not justify the fact that you are doing something to the animal that it did nor did not ask for, which in my eyes means, not our responsibility. Everybody talks about animals being free, well whether we are curing them, or eating them, they are not free.

i didnt think it was about curing animals, though.

xGriffox
07-29-2009, 07:16 PM
i didnt think it was about curing animals, though.

It's not. It is almost a guarantee that those mice had spinal injuries inflicted upon them for the sole purpose of testing this.

xsecx
07-29-2009, 07:32 PM
Even though I'm a complete hypocryte cause I still eat meat and all. But I do however believe it is not our choice, our right, or our responsibility, to cure, change the color, help, or not help an animal. I believe what is right is to let nature take its' course. That is why I considered becoming vegan, because I believe killing animals is wrong, and is unnatural. Now if you go outside hunting in a loincloth, and hunt an animal down with your bare-hands, then sure that is pretty natural in itself, because you're doing what any other animal does...but trying to "cure" an animal, or "kill in massive #'s" is ridiculous, unnatural, and completely wrong. Let nature take its' course, its is not our job or right, to feel the "need" to cure an animal.

Just because you helped an animal, and/or made it more cute, does not justify the fact that you are doing something to the animal that it did nor did not ask for, which in my eyes means, not our responsibility. Everybody talks about animals being free, well whether we are curing them, or eating them, they are not free.

Do you plan on not taking any medicine or receive any medical procedure or are you just going to let nature take it's course?

xsecx
07-29-2009, 07:33 PM
It's not. It is almost a guarantee that those mice had spinal injuries inflicted upon them for the sole purpose of testing this.

omlettes and eggs.

rodrigo
07-29-2009, 07:34 PM
It's not. It is almost a guarantee that those mice had spinal injuries inflicted upon them for the sole purpose of testing this.

i cant discuss that because its not documented, maybe they did, maybe they didnt. i dont know and actually i dont care.

JoeyX
07-29-2009, 09:21 PM
Do you plan on not taking any medicine or receive any medical procedure or are you just going to let nature take it's course?

I honestly rarely take medicine. I believe that if I have a headache, and just deal with it, I'll get more immune to it, because my body works it out itself, and whether this is true or not, it seems to work for me, seeming how I rarely get headaches nor do I even get sick anymore as much as I did when I popped an advil whenever the slightest part of my head hurt.

To me surgury is something that "our kind" I guess you could say,...does. We are smarter than animals, so we know how to help ourselves and each other. However, I don't believe in animal testing for humans. This again where I can admit I kinda become the hyprocryte here because I do know that alot of medical procedures are learned on animals, which I do think is completely wrong.

lo0m
07-30-2009, 01:00 AM
omlettes and eggs.

no way - it's exactly the right point.. how many mice had to die before this one turned blue? science has hundreds of ways today to test new medicines in lab without using any animal at all. according to scientists themselves. but guess what.. it all comes down to the budget problem.. it is cheaper for Loreal to inject their shampoo to the eyes of ten dogs than to do massive laboratory tests.
and as for the favorite "come on, it will benefit all human race, new medicine can be discovered" argument.. fuck human race.. fuck new medicine.. the absence of medicine would cure the world, not the existence of it.. we are overpopulated for this planet and yet we are rude enough to kill other sentient beings for our own benefit..

mouseman004
07-30-2009, 05:28 AM
fuck human race.. fuck new medicine.. the absence of medicine would cure the world, not the existence of it..

That does not even make sense. How would the absence of medicine cure the world? Do you hate humans?

xsecx
07-30-2009, 08:28 AM
I honestly rarely take medicine. I believe that if I have a headache, and just deal with it, I'll get more immune to it, because my body works it out itself, and whether this is true or not, it seems to work for me, seeming how I rarely get headaches nor do I even get sick anymore as much as I did when I popped an advil whenever the slightest part of my head hurt.


So if you come down with an infection or the flu or any other kind of serious illness, are you going to just let nature take it's course?



To me surgury is something that "our kind" I guess you could say,...does. We are smarter than animals, so we know how to help ourselves and each other. However, I don't believe in animal testing for humans. This again where I can admit I kinda become the hyprocryte here because I do know that alot of medical procedures are learned on animals, which I do think is completely wrong.

but surgery isn't letting nature take it's course. Why is it wrong to have vet's help animals but right for doctors to help people?

xsecx
07-30-2009, 08:32 AM
no way - it's exactly the right point.. how many mice had to die before this one turned blue? science has hundreds of ways today to test new medicines in lab without using any animal at all. according to scientists themselves. but guess what.. it all comes down to the budget problem.. it is cheaper for Loreal to inject their shampoo to the eyes of ten dogs than to do massive laboratory tests.
and as for the favorite "come on, it will benefit all human race, new medicine can be discovered" argument.. fuck human race.. fuck new medicine.. the absence of medicine would cure the world, not the existence of it.. we are overpopulated for this planet and yet we are rude enough to kill other sentient beings for our own benefit..

do you have any kind of medical conditions that require medication on a regular basis? If so, do you take medication for it? If not, are you simply not going to and then suffer and eventually die? To that point, if you believe the earth is over populated and should be culled, then why are you still alive? It seems kind of selfish to wish for the deaths of millions but just as long as you're not among them.

Also, how much work have you done in laboratories? I don't really see how you can compare something like shampoo testing to the article. If you are an expert on scientific research, how would you propose that the research in the article be done without animals?

JoeyX
07-30-2009, 03:23 PM
So if you come down with an infection or the flu or any other kind of serious illness, are you going to just let nature take it's course?



but surgery isn't letting nature take it's course. Why is it wrong to have vet's help animals but right for doctors to help people?


If I have the flu or anything, I generally stick it out. It sucks, but I do. Honestly. I believe thats why I never get the flu or anything anymore really.

It is wrong for a vet to help animals because that animal DID NOT and CANNOT ask for help, so it is not our obligation nor right to help them. We as humans WALK into the doctors office, agree and sign papers and pay, etc., to agreeing to get surgery. We help "our own kind", because we agree to, we can communicate with each other. What would you do if some huge thing that was smarter than you, could take control of you with their hands, and do tests and/or surgery on you, for their kind, without being able to communicate with you to ask you if thats ok, whether or not you need it. Just doing it for its' own needs and/or wants.

JoeyX
07-30-2009, 03:30 PM
do you have any kind of medical conditions that require medication on a regular basis? If so, do you take medication for it? If not, are you simply not going to and then suffer and eventually die? To that point, if you believe the earth is over populated and should be culled, then why are you still alive? It seems kind of selfish to wish for the deaths of millions but just as long as you're not among them.

Also, how much work have you done in laboratories? I don't really see how you can compare something like shampoo testing to the article. If you are an expert on scientific research, how would you propose that the research in the article be done without animals?

I have severe Sleep Apnea. I stop breathing in my sleep over 50 times an hour, every hour, all night while sleeping, and everytime I stop breathing my mind wakes me up to get my body to start breathing again. Because of this, I get little to no sleep, I have taken a test on it, and am supposed to wear a mask that DOES fix this problem and helps me breathe. If I don't wear the mask I could die at anytime because I could stop breathing one night, and my mind could possibly not wake me up. However I do not use it, because I believe if I deal with the problem, and let my body do what it has to do, it will fix itself. If not, then my theory is proven wrong, but I've got used to it, and I feel that I can and will eventually overcome it.

Are you honestly also stating that in this day in age, in all honesty, with all the bullshit electronics, and research, and abilities to do things....are you saying its' unable to test things without using animals? I just don't believe it.

Adam Edge hwc
07-30-2009, 03:35 PM
I think there has to be some other way,then testing on animals.I mean if were looking for medacines or whatever to better help us.Then i think we should be testing it on ourselves.But thats me,i know not many people agree with that.

rodrigo
07-30-2009, 03:43 PM
I think there has to be some other way,then testing on animals.I mean if were looking for medacines or whatever to better help us.Then i think we should be testing it on ourselves.But thats me,i know not many people agree with that.

they do test on people and labs pay for that, but for a medicine to be tested on humans, it has to be tested on other animals, or the risks are too high.

JoeyX
07-30-2009, 03:51 PM
I think there has to be some other way,then testing on animals.I mean if were looking for medacines or whatever to better help us.Then i think we should be testing it on ourselves.But thats me,i know not many people agree with that.

I agree with that completely. I know this might seem a little off the wall, but lets presume animals can speak and have an opinion. What would they say if we asked to test on them? They would tell us to fuck off.

So because an animal is "dumb" or not smart enough to make its' own decision, speak our language. So basically because were unable to communicate with an animal, that gives us the right to do whatever the fuck we want to them? Because we are stronger, unable to have an opinion, can hold them down, and do whatever we want to them, that makes it ok? That's like saying "its ok to rape someone", its the same thing, lets look at the facts here:

1. you're not caring for the opinion of the animal / victim of rape.

2. you're unwillingly doing something to the animal / victim of rape, without permission, nor caring to even wonder the opinion.

3. when you're done with the animal / victim of rape, you don't care what is left, what has been done, or what happens from there on.

4. etc.


P.S. When I say "animal / victim of rape", I'm listing 2 different things, in no way am I comparing them. What I'm comparing is the person causing the harm and what they are doing.

rodrigo
07-30-2009, 03:57 PM
I agree with that completely. I know this might seem a little off the wall, but lets presume animals can speak and have an opinion. What would they say if we asked to test on them? They would tell us to fuck off.

So because an animal is "dumb" or not smart enough to make its' own decision, speak our language. So basically because were unable to communicate with an animal, that gives us the right to do whatever the fuck we want to them? Because we are stronger, unable to have an opinion, can hold them down, and do whatever we want to them, that makes it ok? That's like saying "its ok to rape someone", its the same thing, lets look at the facts here:

1. you're not caring for the opinion of the animal / victim of rape.

2. you're unwillingly doing something to the animal / victim of rape, without permission, nor caring to even wonder the opinion.

3. when you're done with the animal / victim of rape, you don't care what is left, what has been done, or what happens from there on.

4. etc.


P.S. When I say "animal / victim of rape", I'm listing 2 different things, in no way am I comparing them. What I'm comparing is the person causing the harm and what they are doing.

so it's also not okay when carnivore animals go and hunt cause the facts are:
1. they dont care for the opinion of the animal / victim of rape.
2. they are unwillingly doing something to the animal / victim of rape, without permission, nor caring to even wonder the opinion.
3. when they are done with the animal / victim of rape, they dontcare what is left, what has been done or what happenes from there on.
4. ... 4 is not really a point, or it is?

JoeyX
07-30-2009, 03:58 PM
they do test on people and labs pay for that, but for a medicine to be tested on humans, it has to be tested on other animals, or the risks are too high.

What risks are too high? That we are gonna hurt our own kind? So that gives us the right to be ignorant and say, "well fuck that, lets just hurt an poor helpless innocent animal instead". Why test/kill an animal that can't have an opinion, that can't do anything about it, for that one reason? Just because its defenseless and can't have an opinion lets test on it, because testing medicines for our own life gain on our own people is "wrong", so lets be ignorant and do it on an innocent animal.

Another thing, why on mice? Why not a tiger, why not a lion? Why not something that can FUCK a human up,....EXACTLY! Point proven, we use innocent defenseless animals. Now I know someone might say "we could use a lion, just put em' to sleep, and go from there, but that would just cost more and take more time", but exactly my point. We use what is easiest for us, what is cheapest for us, what is defenseless, what is "ugly" and not cute, like we wouldn't use a bunch of chihuahua's to test on, which actually I'm sure they have, but you get my drift on what I'm saying.

JoeyX
07-30-2009, 04:06 PM
so it's also not okay when carnivore animals go and hunt cause the facts are:
1. they dont care for the opinion of the animal / victim of rape.
2. they are unwillingly doing something to the animal / victim of rape, without permission, nor caring to even wonder the opinion.
3. when they are done with the animal / victim of rape, they dontcare what is left, what has been done or what happenes from there on.
4. ... 4 is not really a point, or it is?

It is not right if we do it by gun. If we kill an animal with our bare hands, then its nature in my eyes. Just like if a lion kills a deer or some shit, to me that is fine. That is nature. But if the big bad lion made a gun and starting shooting everything, then no that isn't right, or if he started testing on animals for his own personal gain lol, then no that isn't right either. I know that sounds ridiculous. I just believe if an animal is to be killed, it should be done by nothing more than with your bare hands, because to me that is nature, a gun is not a part of nature(why I stopped hunting), testing is not a part of nature.

Also, a carnivore is not smart enough to think otherwise than to hunt down an animal....we are. We can survive without meat, without any kind of animal consumption of any kind. Thousands upon thousands of vegans do it everyday, and live healthy lives, so it gets past the point of whether its even right or wrong, its the fact that we are smart enough to rid ourselves the need to using animals in anyway, but yet we still do because as humans no matter how smart we really are, we are: Lazy, Money Driven, worry about our kind only(when we have the intelligence and ability to not hurt/kill another thing), ignorant people who will only do things for our benefit, not caring for a life as long as it can't speak, give an opinion, or fight back.

Look at me for example. I'm a hypocryte as we speak. I still eat meat, I hate the fact that I do, but I do. I'm trying to figure out a way to become vegan, for me its' a very hard process and I don't know if I can do it, because of my own ignorance, and self-pleasure and availability of just eating whatever is in the fridge, rather than thinking about what I'm eating and fixing the problem, etc.

rodrigo
07-30-2009, 04:07 PM
Another thing, why on mice? Why not a tiger, why not a lion? Why not something that can FUCK a human up,....EXACTLY! Point proven, we use innocent defenseless animals. Now I know someone might say "we could use a lion, just put em' to sleep, and go from there, but that would just cost more and take more time", but exactly my point. We use what is easiest for us, what is cheapest for us, what is defenseless, what is "ugly" and not cute, like we wouldn't use a bunch of chihuahua's to test on, which actually I'm sure they have, but you get my drift on what I'm saying.

OH MY GOD!
LIEK OH MY GOD!1!!ONE

YOU JUST DISCOVERED THE TRUTH! AND WHILE YOU WERE POSTING!

i just thought it was because mice shared the 99% of their genes with humans... but i guess i was wrong and it was all because they are smaller and defenseless.

and did you see the mice? it was blue a supercute!

straightXed
07-30-2009, 04:10 PM
If I have the flu or anything, I generally stick it out. It sucks, but I do. Honestly. I believe thats why I never get the flu or anything anymore really.

It is wrong for a vet to help animals because that animal DID NOT and CANNOT ask for help, so it is not our obligation nor right to help them. We as humans WALK into the doctors office, agree and sign papers and pay, etc., to agreeing to get surgery. We help "our own kind", because we agree to, we can communicate with each other. What would you do if some huge thing that was smarter than you, could take control of you with their hands, and do tests and/or surgery on you, for their kind, without being able to communicate with you to ask you if thats ok, whether or not you need it. Just doing it for its' own needs and/or wants.

So how do ill babies communicate that they are ill and want help, is it wrong to help them?

straightXed
07-30-2009, 04:16 PM
I have severe Sleep Apnea. I stop breathing in my sleep over 50 times an hour, every hour, all night while sleeping, and everytime I stop breathing my mind wakes me up to get my body to start breathing again. Because of this, I get little to no sleep, I have taken a test on it, and am supposed to wear a mask that DOES fix this problem and helps me breathe. If I don't wear the mask I could die at anytime because I could stop breathing one night, and my mind could possibly not wake me up. However I do not use it, because I believe if I deal with the problem, and let my body do what it has to do, it will fix itself. If not, then my theory is proven wrong, but I've got used to it, and I feel that I can and will eventually overcome it.

Are you honestly also stating that in this day in age, in all honesty, with all the bullshit electronics, and research, and abilities to do things....are you saying its' unable to test things without using animals? I just don't believe it.


So you risk your life for what is comming across as a really arogant moral stance yet you are prepared do ridicule and lay into your sister for controlling the fate of her life based on a mental ill health. Do you actually feel happy being such a complete contradiction in everything?

And if you believe there are ways to do the types of testing that is done on animals electronically perhaps you can point to it and give a brief insight on how that would work?

straightXed
07-30-2009, 04:18 PM
I think there has to be some other way,then testing on animals.I mean if were looking for medacines or whatever to better help us.Then i think we should be testing it on ourselves.But thats me,i know not many people agree with that.


Human testing occurs, risks are often minimised each step of the process, in order to test on humans people test on animals beforehand.

rodrigo
07-30-2009, 04:18 PM
It is not right if we do it by gun. If we kill an animal with our bare hands, then its nature in my eyes. Just like if a lion kills a deer or some shit, to me that is fine. That is nature. But if the big bad lion made a gun and starting shooting everything, then no that isn't right, or if he started testing on animals for his own personal gain lol, then no that isn't right either. I know that sounds ridiculous. I just believe if an animal is to be killed, it should be done by nothing more than with your bare hands, because to me that is nature, a gun is not a part of nature(why I stopped hunting), testing is not a part of nature.

so whats nature, acording to you?
why a lion killing for survival is different from us killing to survive?



Also, a carnivore is not smart enough to think otherwise than to hunt down an animal....we are. We can survive without meat, without any kind of animal consumption of any kind. Thousands upon thousands of vegans do it everyday, and live healthy lives, so it gets past the point of whether its even right or wrong, its the fact that we are smart enough to rid ourselves the need to using animals in anyway, but yet we still do because as humans no matter how smart we really are, we are: Lazy, Money Driven, worry about our kind only(when we have the intelligence and ability to not hurt/kill another thing), ignorant people who will only do things for our benefit, not caring for a life as long as it can't speak, give an opinion, or fight back.

so you do know if we can test stuff withouth hurting anybody?
cause if not, you're just talking out of ignorance and trying to prove a point just because you assume the technology is developed.

you seem extremely judgemental of human race, and i dont share that opinion. sure we have a shitload of flaws as a society. i dont know if you're lazy and money driven, according to you, you are and that shows for why you dont really investigate stuff.

the not caringpart... Ed already answered that with the babies post.



Look at me for example. I'm a hypocryte as we speak. I still eat meat, I hate the fact that I do, but I do. I'm trying to figure out a way to become vegan, for me its' a very hard process and I don't know if I can do it, because of my own ignorance, and self-pleasure and availability of just eating whatever is in the fridge, rather than thinking about what I'm eating and fixing the problem, etc.

that just seems lazy, keep eating meat then and keep being a hypocrite i guess...


...and have fun dying of an illness

straightXed
07-30-2009, 04:18 PM
they do test on people and labs pay for that, but for a medicine to be tested on humans, it has to be tested on other animals, or the risks are too high.

Ooops,i should have read this!

straightXed
07-30-2009, 04:22 PM
I agree with that completely. I know this might seem a little off the wall, but lets presume animals can speak and have an opinion. What would they say if we asked to test on them? They would tell us to fuck off.

So because an animal is "dumb" or not smart enough to make its' own decision, speak our language. So basically because were unable to communicate with an animal, that gives us the right to do whatever the fuck we want to them? Because we are stronger, unable to have an opinion, can hold them down, and do whatever we want to them, that makes it ok? That's like saying "its ok to rape someone", its the same thing, lets look at the facts here:

1. you're not caring for the opinion of the animal / victim of rape.

2. you're unwillingly doing something to the animal / victim of rape, without permission, nor caring to even wonder the opinion.

3. when you're done with the animal / victim of rape, you don't care what is left, what has been done, or what happens from there on.

4. etc.


P.S. When I say "animal / victim of rape", I'm listing 2 different things, in no way am I comparing them. What I'm comparing is the person causing the harm and what they are doing.

This is pretty ridiculous but when a person rapes what is their objective and ultimate goal? And what is the objective of laboritories testing on animals?

xsecx
07-30-2009, 04:24 PM
If I have the flu or anything, I generally stick it out. It sucks, but I do. Honestly. I believe thats why I never get the flu or anything anymore really.

You probably haven't been sick simply because you're in your 20s and not been around people who are infected not because you've somehow given yourself some kind of super immunity because you haven't taken medicine.



It is wrong for a vet to help animals because that animal DID NOT and CANNOT ask for help, so it is not our obligation nor right to help them. We as humans WALK into the doctors office, agree and sign papers and pay, etc., to agreeing to get surgery. We help "our own kind", because we agree to, we can communicate with each other. What would you do if some huge thing that was smarter than you, could take control of you with their hands, and do tests and/or surgery on you, for their kind, without being able to communicate with you to ask you if thats ok, whether or not you need it. Just doing it for its' own needs and/or wants.

ok, so you think animals that are clearly suffering should be left alone? Do you also think the same for people who can't communicate?

xsecx
07-30-2009, 04:26 PM
I have severe Sleep Apnea. I stop breathing in my sleep over 50 times an hour, every hour, all night while sleeping, and everytime I stop breathing my mind wakes me up to get my body to start breathing again. Because of this, I get little to no sleep, I have taken a test on it, and am supposed to wear a mask that DOES fix this problem and helps me breathe. If I don't wear the mask I could die at anytime because I could stop breathing one night, and my mind could possibly not wake me up. However I do not use it, because I believe if I deal with the problem, and let my body do what it has to do, it will fix itself. If not, then my theory is proven wrong, but I've got used to it, and I feel that I can and will eventually overcome it.

Are you honestly also stating that in this day in age, in all honesty, with all the bullshit electronics, and research, and abilities to do things....are you saying its' unable to test things without using animals? I just don't believe it.

is this completely in contradiction to your statements in the other thread? You're clearly abusing yourself and are doing something that could very easily lead to your own death, so why aren't you bitching at yourself?

and yes, I am. I believe that people who are smarter than me and work in the field of science know a fuckload more about the subject than I do.

straightXed
07-30-2009, 04:26 PM
What risks are too high? That we are gonna hurt our own kind? So that gives us the right to be ignorant and say, "well fuck that, lets just hurt an poor helpless innocent animal instead". Why test/kill an animal that can't have an opinion, that can't do anything about it, for that one reason? Just because its defenseless and can't have an opinion lets test on it, because testing medicines for our own life gain on our own people is "wrong", so lets be ignorant and do it on an innocent animal.

Another thing, why on mice? Why not a tiger, why not a lion? Why not something that can FUCK a human up,....EXACTLY! Point proven, we use innocent defenseless animals. Now I know someone might say "we could use a lion, just put em' to sleep, and go from there, but that would just cost more and take more time", but exactly my point. We use what is easiest for us, what is cheapest for us, what is defenseless, what is "ugly" and not cute, like we wouldn't use a bunch of chihuahua's to test on, which actually I'm sure they have, but you get my drift on what I'm saying.


So you have an issue with what animal is used? Perhaps the costs and practicalitys of testing on lions really don't make it an optimum choice, you seem aware of that so whats your point? You think it should be less discriminate against other animals? You think working with animals that give quicker efficiancy in results should not be in the for front and that what should be considered is every animal having a chance to be tested on? Its all nonsense.

xsecx
07-30-2009, 04:28 PM
What risks are too high? That we are gonna hurt our own kind? So that gives us the right to be ignorant and say, "well fuck that, lets just hurt an poor helpless innocent animal instead". Why test/kill an animal that can't have an opinion, that can't do anything about it, for that one reason? Just because its defenseless and can't have an opinion lets test on it, because testing medicines for our own life gain on our own people is "wrong", so lets be ignorant and do it on an innocent animal.

Another thing, why on mice? Why not a tiger, why not a lion? Why not something that can FUCK a human up,....EXACTLY! Point proven, we use innocent defenseless animals. Now I know someone might say "we could use a lion, just put em' to sleep, and go from there, but that would just cost more and take more time", but exactly my point. We use what is easiest for us, what is cheapest for us, what is defenseless, what is "ugly" and not cute, like we wouldn't use a bunch of chihuahua's to test on, which actually I'm sure they have, but you get my drift on what I'm saying.

so who exactly should medical testing be done on and under what conditions?

Adam Edge hwc
07-30-2009, 04:34 PM
See but high risk?Thats on us to risk what were trying to help us.Not on animals.

mouseman004
07-30-2009, 04:38 PM
I have severe Sleep Apnea. I stop breathing in my sleep over 50 times an hour, every hour, all night while sleeping, and everytime I stop breathing my mind wakes me up to get my body to start breathing again. Because of this, I get little to no sleep, I have taken a test on it, and am supposed to wear a mask that DOES fix this problem and helps me breathe. If I don't wear the mask I could die at anytime because I could stop breathing one night, and my mind could possibly not wake me up. However I do not use it, because I believe if I deal with the problem, and let my body do what it has to do, it will fix itself. If not, then my theory is proven wrong, but I've got used to it, and I feel that I can and will eventually overcome it.



That doesn't make sense and is medically invalid. Not treating an illness or an issue isn't going to eventually cure it. I know this because my dad has sleep apnea. Do you have a driver's license? because eventually they will suspend your license if you don't start wearing that mask, because it is dangerous for you to be driving if you aren't getting any REM sleep.

Your body isn't some magic vessel that evolves to fix itself. If you had a disease, your body isn't going to fix it because you decide not to treat it. If that were the case, nobody would ever be sick.

mouseman004
07-30-2009, 04:39 PM
See but high risk?Thats on us to risk what were trying to help us.Not on animals.

Do you eat meat?

straightXed
07-30-2009, 04:40 PM
See but high risk?Thats on us to risk what were trying to help us.Not on animals.

Its inpractical and we would not advance at anywhere near a rate that would make it worth doing and we'd all still be painting x's on peoples doors. Further more the risks not only benifit humans, animals get sick and treated too. Cue ridiculous notion that we should leave animals to rot and die as they can't communicate a need or want for medical advances!

Adam Edge hwc
07-30-2009, 05:31 PM
I never said let them rot,if were trying to help them then im for it.But i got the notion that this about testing on animals to help us.I know out there are many ways on find cures an other things to help us then testing on animals.

straightXed
07-30-2009, 11:47 PM
I never said let them rot,if were trying to help them then im for it.But i got the notion that this about testing on animals to help us.I know out there are many ways on find cures an other things to help us then testing on animals.

Ok, then please, be my guest...show me what other methods give the same level of results and advancement that testing on animals does...if there really is such a method then i would like to know in order to get behind it.

And if you are for the advancement of vetinary medicine then are you saying that its ok to test medical advancement intended for animals on animals? And that anything for humans should only be tested on humans?

JoeyX
07-31-2009, 12:19 AM
OH MY GOD!
LIEK OH MY GOD!1!!ONE

YOU JUST DISCOVERED THE TRUTH! AND WHILE YOU WERE POSTING!

i just thought it was because mice shared the 99% of their genes with humans... but i guess i was wrong and it was all because they are smaller and defenseless.

and did you see the mice? it was blue a supercute!

Thanks for the sarcasm.

Whatever the reason doesn't give us the right to test on animals for our own benefit.

I don't care if its "cute" or not, an animal is not a item to me, its not a new shirt, or new shoes, or something I think looks good or is "cute". An animal is another living thing that needs to be respected.

JoeyX
07-31-2009, 12:21 AM
So how do ill babies communicate that they are ill and want help, is it wrong to help them?

No, because that is our own kind.

JoeyX
07-31-2009, 12:23 AM
So you risk your life for what is comming across as a really arogant moral stance yet you are prepared do ridicule and lay into your sister for controlling the fate of her life based on a mental ill health. Do you actually feel happy being such a complete contradiction in everything?

And if you believe there are ways to do the types of testing that is done on animals electronically perhaps you can point to it and give a brief insight on how that would work?

To me, I don't feel I'm risking my life. And my sisters life and my families lives will always be more important to me than my own life will ever be. So I guess thats a contradiction...?

So are you really trying to argue the point that we aren't far enough advanced to do testing without using animals? ....come on.

JoeyX
07-31-2009, 12:30 AM
so whats nature, acording to you?
why a lion killing for survival is different from us killing to survive?



so you do know if we can test stuff withouth hurting anybody?
cause if not, you're just talking out of ignorance and trying to prove a point just because you assume the technology is developed.

you seem extremely judgemental of human race, and i dont share that opinion. sure we have a shitload of flaws as a society. i dont know if you're lazy and money driven, according to you, you are and that shows for why you dont really investigate stuff.

the not caringpart... Ed already answered that with the babies post.



that just seems lazy, keep eating meat then and keep being a hypocrite i guess...


...and have fun dying of an illness

I believe its how we kill animals that is wrong in a sense. I think it is natural to kill an animal using only yourself, your bare hands, just as any animal does, but not weapons that don't even give the animal a chance.

I guess it is out of ignorance, because no I'm not a scientist, but I just can't believe that we wouldn't have the technology yet to test things on animals, but we have all this other amazing technologies in the world.

I'm not lazy or money driven in the least. I think you might have not understood me. I'm not lazy what so ever in anyway. I'm not money driven in the least, money is a way of getting by in this world to me, because I have no other choice but to live that way. I hate money in every aspect of the word, its all debt to me, but thats another conversation to me.

With the babies post like I said, they are our kind, to me that is our obligation to take care of them, WE brought them into this world. We didn't bring other animals here, they aren't our kind, not our job to help or not help them, nor test on them.

I mean this was only supposed to be a debate and conversation but seeming how you want to come at me and say shit like "have fun dying of an illness", wow...respectful there.

JoeyX
07-31-2009, 12:37 AM
All these posts lead to sub things that I think I can answer in one answer.

I do not, think any animal, should be tested on, at all, for any reason we come up with, for our advantage. If there was an animal bigger, and smarter than us, and did the same to us, and tested on humans because we were 99% alike or whatever reason came up with, we wouldn't like it, we wouldn't want to be tested on, we wouldn't want to killed, color changed, hurt, caged, eaten, etc.

Its not about the kind of animal, or the size, as I might have misinterpreted earlier. My main focus was to say that animals that do not come from us(our babies come from us, our obligation), are not our responsibility to take care of, is not our right to test on for our benefit.

Once again, people seemingly want to get personal on something that is nothing more than a debate to me, and a difference of opinions. So if you would like to act like a grown up, and not say some rude shit to me, then please respond. All others, grow up and have some respect. It pisses me off that I come on here, because I find everybody's opinions interesting here, whether or not I agree or disagree with them, or I think they are "contradicting themselves" or whether or not they are saying something I think is ridiculously stupid.

I answer everything I say on here with respect, if that can't be done back to me, please let me know, because I do not need to post here, I just enjoy posting here, because most of the time everybody seems civil.

JoeyX
07-31-2009, 12:41 AM
You probably haven't been sick simply because you're in your 20s and not been around people who are infected not because you've somehow given yourself some kind of super immunity because you haven't taken medicine.



ok, so you think animals that are clearly suffering should be left alone? Do you also think the same for people who can't communicate?

again humans are our kind. Any animal I'm going to leave alone, because I don't feel it is my duty to help them. Take it like this, someone would easily help a hurt animal of their liking(ex: dog), but what about a bear? Would you help a bear? fuck no,...it don't want your help, it'll prolly try and bite the shit out of you if it was still able, you're not its kind, leave it alone. Even if it sucks, its life.

JoeyX
07-31-2009, 12:44 AM
That doesn't make sense and is medically invalid. Not treating an illness or an issue isn't going to eventually cure it. I know this because my dad has sleep apnea. Do you have a driver's license? because eventually they will suspend your license if you don't start wearing that mask, because it is dangerous for you to be driving if you aren't getting any REM sleep.

Your body isn't some magic vessel that evolves to fix itself. If you had a disease, your body isn't going to fix it because you decide not to treat it. If that were the case, nobody would ever be sick.

I'm not saying its medically valid. Its just I generally don't use medicine, ever, for anything.

lo0m
07-31-2009, 01:51 AM
sorry for the delay.. too much work


do you have any kind of medical conditions that require medication on a regular basis?
yes
If so, do you take medication for it?
no, my vegan lifestyle sorted it out that i haven't take the medicine for a long time

If not, are you simply not going to and then suffer and eventually die? To that point, if you believe the earth is over populated and should be culled, then why are you still alive? It seems kind of selfish to wish for the deaths of millions but just as long as you're not among them.
i didn't say this..


Also, how much work have you done in laboratories?
done some at college, not much
I don't really see how you can compare something like shampoo testing to the article. If you are an expert on scientific research, how would you propose that the research in the article be done without animals?

i'm sure that if scientist wouldn't use animals they would have come with an alternative.. it has happened in numerous fields and many scientists prove that it is possible.. if this is not possible today i would not simply do it..example to make myself clear: what if you could cure cancer, but you had to test the drug on 300 little infants, would you risk their lives? what if it wasn't cancer but some primarily dog disease that you had to first inject to the children? would you do it? i wouldn't, i would try finding a different way.. this is the same principle.. i'm sure you will oppose but i don't make a difference between human and non-human animal... also, ethics and morals are superior to technology or health.. my 2 cents

straightXed
07-31-2009, 02:02 AM
No, because that is our own kind.

That doesn't explain that they aren't communicating that they want to be helped any more than an animal would. Your logic is flawed.

straightXed
07-31-2009, 02:13 AM
To me, I don't feel I'm risking my life. And my sisters life and my families lives will always be more important to me than my own life will ever be. So I guess thats a contradiction...?

So are you really trying to argue the point that we aren't far enough advanced to do testing without using animals? ....come on.

No, if you read I am asking for you to point to this information about how you can test things as well without animals as you can with. Please show me this.

and whilst you may not feel like you are risking your life what you posted illustrated that are. And perhaps you should take a step back to get a better view of the contradictions that you are continually making.

JoeyX
07-31-2009, 03:18 AM
That doesn't explain that they aren't communicating that they want to be helped any more than an animal would. Your logic is flawed.

I don't think it's flawed. I believe a baby is our own kind, whether or not it can communicate doesn't matter, FOR THE REASON that it is our kind. It is our responsibility whether the baby can talk or not, whether it is someone that will never be able to communicate, it is our kind so I feel we are obligated to take care of it. Just as any animal is obligated to do what it can for its kind, but an animal should not be helped by a human because it is not our kind. Human is our kind, so we take care of humans without consent. That's my opinion.

JoeyX
07-31-2009, 03:21 AM
No, if you read I am asking for you to point to this information about how you can test things as well without animals as you can with. Please show me this.

and whilst you may not feel like you are risking your life what you posted illustrated that are. And perhaps you should take a step back to get a better view of the contradictions that you are continually making.

I'm not saying I have hard evidence. But I'm saying I believe that there most likely is another way to test things, besides using animals. And even if there isn't one single other way to test things besides using animals, does that still mean we should do it? Simply because we do or do not have the technology, neither answer gives us the right to do it. It is wrong.

What contradictions am I making, point em' out for me honestly.

xsecx
07-31-2009, 08:02 AM
again humans are our kind. Any animal I'm going to leave alone, because I don't feel it is my duty to help them. Take it like this, someone would easily help a hurt animal of their liking(ex: dog), but what about a bear? Would you help a bear? fuck no,...it don't want your help, it'll prolly try and bite the shit out of you if it was still able, you're not its kind, leave it alone. Even if it sucks, its life.

But your whole concept of doing things to/for our kind is based on our kind being able to say they want it and animals can't.

yes, but that's not actually how it is. there are actually wilderness vets who do help large wild animals.

xsecx
07-31-2009, 08:12 AM
sorry for the delay.. too much work


yes
no, my vegan lifestyle sorted it out that i haven't take the medicine for a long time


Then I'm confused, how can you say you have a medical condition that requires medicine?



i didn't say this..


well then how was "fuck human race.. fuck new medicine.. the absence of medicine would cure the world, not the existence of it.. we are overpopulated for this planet and yet we are rude enough to kill other sentient beings for our own benefit." meant to be taken? What do you think would happen with the absence of medicine if not the deaths of millions?



done some at college, not much

what kind of research?



i'm sure that if scientist wouldn't use animals they would have come with an alternative.. it has happened in numerous fields and many scientists prove that it is possible.. if this is not possible today i would not simply do it..example to make myself clear: what if you could cure cancer, but you had to test the drug on 300 little infants, would you risk their lives? what if it wasn't cancer but some primarily dog disease that you had to first inject to the children? would you do it? i wouldn't, i would try finding a different way.. this is the same principle.. i'm sure you will oppose but i don't make a difference between human and non-human animal... also, ethics and morals are superior to technology or health.. my 2 cents

it's possible in some cases but not all. If there was a better way to do it, why wouldn't they be doing it? do you really think the scientific community as a whole has some kind of global conspiracy that feels compelled to only test on animals even if there is a better way out there? If testing on 300 infants could cure cancer, then absolutely I would. Out of the lives that have been lost in animal testing, how many lives, both human and animal have been saved by the research? Do you think more animals died that lives have been saved? And if so, why?

straightXed
07-31-2009, 11:28 AM
I don't think it's flawed. I believe a baby is our own kind, whether or not it can communicate doesn't matter, FOR THE REASON that it is our kind. It is our responsibility whether the baby can talk or not, whether it is someone that will never be able to communicate, it is our kind so I feel we are obligated to take care of it. Just as any animal is obligated to do what it can for its kind, but an animal should not be helped by a human because it is not our kind. Human is our kind, so we take care of humans without consent. That's my opinion.

But you said it was because an animal "did not and cannot ask for help" and thats why its not our right or obligation to help them. Or do you now say that is no longer the basis of your opinion because its highlighted to be ridiculous and flawed?

It seems you like to embrace segregation as well as contradiction, what if a human believes they are of a very different kind to another sort of human, this is particularly true of war torn areas, should a medic not assist in helping the life of a resisting rebel who has been injured trying attack the nation of the medic? Does your segregation go this far or does your chop and change basis for your opinion prevent this.

And what about if the animal injury was as a result of a human, like if i hit a dog. The dog didn't ask to be hit by my car and i would hazzard that it wouldn't want to be hit by the car. As i have already encroached upon its right not to be hit by interacting with it should i not want to limit the ammount of effect my actions effect the dog by getting it back to a stable physical condition?

straightXed
07-31-2009, 11:41 AM
I'm not saying I have hard evidence. But I'm saying I believe that there most likely is another way to test things, besides using animals. And even if there isn't one single other way to test things besides using animals, does that still mean we should do it? Simply because we do or do not have the technology, neither answer gives us the right to do it. It is wrong.

What contradictions am I making, point em' out for me honestly.

So you can't really promote it, you don't have any clue what benifits are gained with animal testing you are pretty ignorant to the whole thing and your stance is based on emotion with little to no substance. Until you can point to some hard evidence the point just has nothing going for it as an alternative. So if you believe there are alternatives then put that forward with evidence of such so we can discuss it and examine why its not made popular. As it stands we are still aty the point that you think it is wrong but have no alternative to submit to the conversation.

And if you actually read you will see that i have pointed out your contradictions, you just seem capable of denying them as contradictions with baseless "opinions" but the twothat keep creeping up is your ranting about how wrong animal testing is yet your half assed approach to eating meat and being a vegan. And then there is your disregard to your medical condition which is in contradiction with actions you posted in another thread where you come of as a really ignorant and uncarring ass with no understanding of mental health issues. If that seems personal to you then please excusxe it, its not an attack but that is how you are comming off.

rodrigo
07-31-2009, 12:46 PM
I mean this was only supposed to be a debate and conversation but seeming how you want to come at me and say shit like "have fun dying of an illness", wow...respectful there.

well, i see nothing wrong with it, you're the one that says that animal testing is wrong and if you're true to what you say you wouldnt take medicine cause most of them was actually tested on animals.

to the rest, i wont answer back, cause you clearly dont have your shit straight even with yourself.

xGriffox
07-31-2009, 06:03 PM
This is a bit old, but still valid:
"In March, London clinicians injected six volunteers with tiny doses of TGN1412, an experimental therapy for rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis that had previously been given, with no obvious ill effects, to mice, rats, rabbits, and monkeys. Within minutes, the human test subjects were writhing on the floor in agony. The compound was designed to dampen the immune response but it had supercharged theirs, unleashing a cascade of chemicals that sent all six to the hospital. Several of the men suffered permanent organ damage, and one man's head swelled up so horribly that British tabloids refer to the case as the 'elephant man trial.'"

http://www.slate.com/id/2142814/

Animal testing has some serious issues in terms of effectiveness and morality which I feel many people here are not looking into at all. You can come to the point in your consciousness where you can openly reject the willing passivity and harm of drugs and intoxication but you cannot bring yourself to even begin to evaluate the possible moral fallacy of other behaviors within our culture? Why is this?

straightXed
07-31-2009, 06:11 PM
This is a bit old, but still valid:
"In March, London clinicians injected six volunteers with tiny doses of TGN1412, an experimental therapy for rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis that had previously been given, with no obvious ill effects, to mice, rats, rabbits, and monkeys. Within minutes, the human test subjects were writhing on the floor in agony. The compound was designed to dampen the immune response but it had supercharged theirs, unleashing a cascade of chemicals that sent all six to the hospital. Several of the men suffered permanent organ damage, and one man's head swelled up so horribly that British tabloids refer to the case as the 'elephant man trial.'"

http://www.slate.com/id/2142814/

Animal testing has some serious issues in terms of effectiveness and morality which I feel many people here are not looking into at all. You can come to the point in your consciousness where you can openly reject the willing passivity and harm of drugs and intoxication but you cannot bring yourself to even begin to evaluate the possible moral fallacy of other behaviors within our culture? Why is this?

What makes you think they weren't evaluated, just because the end result of the evaluation is not the same as yours?

xGriffox
07-31-2009, 06:17 PM
What makes you think they weren't evaluated, just because the end result of the evaluation is not the same as yours?
In this case by the insistence on the part of those for animal testing that it is the be all and end all of progress in the field of medicine, that it is (at least according to what I have read here) always effective, and that there are no logical alternatives.

straightXed
07-31-2009, 06:28 PM
In this case by the insistence on the part of those for animal testing that it is the be all and end all of progress in the field of medicine, that it is (at least according to what I have read here) always effective, and that there are no logical alternatives.

I think you are misinterpretting things, what has been asked for is the people who are against the testing to point to alternatives. This has been asked repeatedly and still no one has pointed to anything...they haven't even pointed to unsucessful alternatives. Sooner or later people will come to the conclusion that there are no alternatives that are workable if people aren't willing to point to them. As for the testing being the be all and end all or that it is always effective, again this is a matter of your interpetation that seems to be missing certain elements of text which are clearly there but you have some how ommited.

Now with all that said why do you assume that the opinions held were not evaluated? Can evaluation only lead to one possible outcome? I mean you've got people here who want no treatment for any animals, who want to refrain from use of medicine etc. because of their evaluation...do you agree with that also?

JoeyX
07-31-2009, 08:43 PM
But your whole concept of doing things to/for our kind is based on our kind being able to say they want it and animals can't.

yes, but that's not actually how it is. there are actually wilderness vets who do help large wild animals.

My whole concept is saying when it comes to OUR KIND, it is our duty to help our kind weather or not we ask for it. But it is not our responsibilty or right to help anything else that isn't ours....how is this so hard to comprehend? I'm not saying agree with me, but its honestly not hard to comprehend my opinion.

I don't believe any animal that is not HUMAN, we should not help. It is not our right or responsibility. Simple as that.

JoeyX
07-31-2009, 08:45 PM
well, i see nothing wrong with it, you're the one that says that animal testing is wrong and if you're true to what you say you wouldnt take medicine cause most of them was actually tested on animals.

to the rest, i wont answer back, cause you clearly dont have your shit straight even with yourself.

I don't take medicine, how many times do I have to say that? Do you people not read what I write? Please read what I write, if you did, you would know that I said before I DO NOT TAKE MEDICINE.

JoeyX
07-31-2009, 08:50 PM
But you said it was because an animal "did not and cannot ask for help" and thats why its not our right or obligation to help them. Or do you now say that is no longer the basis of your opinion because its highlighted to be ridiculous and flawed?

It seems you like to embrace segregation as well as contradiction, what if a human believes they are of a very different kind to another sort of human, this is particularly true of war torn areas, should a medic not assist in helping the life of a resisting rebel who has been injured trying attack the nation of the medic? Does your segregation go this far or does your chop and change basis for your opinion prevent this.

And what about if the animal injury was as a result of a human, like if i hit a dog. The dog didn't ask to be hit by my car and i would hazzard that it wouldn't want to be hit by the car. As i have already encroached upon its right not to be hit by interacting with it should i not want to limit the ammount of effect my actions effect the dog by getting it back to a stable physical condition?

Humans should help humans, simple as that. By any means. I believe we shouldn't help animals, that are not humans, again how is this not simple to understand? You're examples are humans helping humans issues.

If you a hit a dog you think it is the responsibility to help the dog? If a bear bites your arm, is it the bears responsibility to fix your arm? If a bull stomps on your head accidently(rare, but it could happen), is it the bulls job to fix you and get you back to stable physical condition? Exactly, look at it from a nonhuman point of view.

The big bad bear doesn't go "oh thats a human right there", they don't what we are, they don't care, were nothing more than something they are 1. either afraid of and run away. 2. afraid of and attack you. 3. afraid, attack, and eat you.

xsecx
07-31-2009, 10:50 PM
My whole concept is saying when it comes to OUR KIND, it is our duty to help our kind weather or not we ask for it. But it is not our responsibilty or right to help anything else that isn't ours....how is this so hard to comprehend? I'm not saying agree with me, but its honestly not hard to comprehend my opinion.

I don't believe any animal that is not HUMAN, we should not help. It is not our right or responsibility. Simple as that.

you may have meant to say that, but that's not what you said previously. I also don't see how you can logically extend responsibility to the whole human race but then cut off the animal world completely. You're saying that humans should enforce their will on other humans because they're all part of the same species whether they want it or not? Just so we're clear, you're completely for the extinction of some animals and for undue animal suffering, right?

JoeyX
08-01-2009, 02:02 AM
you may have meant to say that, but that's not what you said previously. I also don't see how you can logically extend responsibility to the whole human race but then cut off the animal world completely. You're saying that humans should enforce their will on other humans because they're all part of the same species whether they want it or not? Just so we're clear, you're completely for the extinction of some animals and for undue animal suffering, right?

How am I for the extinction of some animals? What animals am for the extinction of? I'm not saying any animal should be extinct, but that doesnt make it my job in life to prevent that from happening.

And yes that is what I'm saying about the human species. We are our own kind, we should help each other no matter what.

What makes it become our duty to help another species? Because we "care"? If we care to help a species, then shouldn't we do that with EVERY species, including bugs? Never step on a bug, or swat a fly? People on help what is "cute" or what they think is "right", but if its' ugly, then "fuck that animal, let em' suffer" right? No. That is not right. My point is....it is not our kind, it is not our duty.

straightXed
08-01-2009, 04:13 AM
Humans should help humans, simple as that. By any means. I believe we shouldn't help animals, that are not humans, again how is this not simple to understand? You're examples are humans helping humans issues.

Well its not simple to understand based on the criteria you posted for this, how is that you can't comprehend that? You gave reasoning that discounts humans helping humans in certain situations.



If you a hit a dog you think it is the responsibility to help the dog? If a bear bites your arm, is it the bears responsibility to fix your arm? If a bull stomps on your head accidently(rare, but it could happen), is it the bulls job to fix you and get you back to stable physical condition? Exactly, look at it from a nonhuman point of view.

Ummm, So you think we should not live like humans and ignore all other animals and how we used them in so many ways? You are against anything that uses anaimals in everyway? You are against those that work to stop animal cruelty, poaching, wilderness management etc. We should be devoid of all responsibility of our actions towards animals as a race over our evoloution? The ideas of a bull offering me medical help are a bit daft but i remember a while back a child fell into a gorilla enclosure knocking himself unconcious, the gorilla nursed the boy, probably did more than a lot of humans would have done, can i think from that nonhuman point of view or should that be discounted? This isn't an isolated case. If i thought a bear or a bull could nurse me i can see no reason why i would not think it right for that to happen. You want to look at it from a non human point of view but it then ignores the difference in the human condition...again flawed logic.


The big bad bear doesn't go "oh thats a human right there", they don't what we are, they don't care, were nothing more than something they are 1. either afraid of and run away. 2. afraid of and attack you. 3. afraid, attack, and eat you.

Thats not strictly true and you have a very limited view of how animals think and act for someone that promotes seeing things from an animals point of view. Some people work extensively with bears and befreind them, these people risk being mauled by bears, but hey i befriend humans and thats a pretty crazy race to live amongst, i can be killed by some humans but not all humans will have that reaction...this runs true for animals too and its something specialists learn when aiding animals in the wild. Again is the fact an animal could kill you a reason not to help it because if so it is something else that is true of humans also, something being our own kind seems to have no exclusivity whatsoever aside from that is what you have decided, the why's and what for's of that stance seem hugely thin on the ground.

I just think you have opinions based on a lot of nothing much at all besides your inital emotional reaction, you add to it with baseless and non conclusive information. Its certainly not hard to read what your opinion is but comprehension issues come from how you formulate your opinions. You are heavily contradictive and single minded and it puzzles me how you wouldn't spend a lot more time researching the facts and allowing your opinion to shift with things. I would happily change my opinion if you could point to conclusive things but you don't seem to. You have a set opinion and ideas which you don't want to entertain at all just go right past you.

And dude everytime you post and still eat meat is pathetic, you really should learn to live in accordance with your beliefs, you have no reason not to and maybe it might add a little substance to the things you are saying but right now its quite laughable how inconsistant you are.

straightXed
08-01-2009, 04:16 AM
I don't take medicine, how many times do I have to say that? Do you people not read what I write? Please read what I write, if you did, you would know that I said before I DO NOT TAKE MEDICINE.

I bet you will at somepoint in the future.

JoeyX
08-02-2009, 03:47 AM
Again, another post I'm done talking on, apparently I'm making contradictions that nobody gives me examples that I see on. So its whatever.

And to say that you "bet" I will take medicine at some point in the future, is like me saying I "bet" you are going to break edge. See for me, I don't "bet" or "wish" anybody should ever do anything they are against, whether or not I agree with it. Just shows that you are the ignorant one for saying something like that, whether or not you agree, don't "bet" that I'm going to do something. Because where I'm from, it's a seeming trend that arrogant ignorant kids, are always the ones who do things like break edge. So take that how you please, but I'm tired of being respectful on here, when people are completely rude back. I come on here for conversation, debate, at my own leisure, I'm not trying to say mean things to people, or basically make fun of someone, I know when someone is coming at me.

I'm not saying agree with me, but don't add your little ignorant things here and there....its' childish.

xsecx
08-02-2009, 10:08 AM
Again, another post I'm done talking on, apparently I'm making contradictions that nobody gives me examples that I see on. So its whatever.

And to say that you "bet" I will take medicine at some point in the future, is like me saying I "bet" you are going to break edge. See for me, I don't "bet" or "wish" anybody should ever do anything they are against, whether or not I agree with it. Just shows that you are the ignorant one for saying something like that, whether or not you agree, don't "bet" that I'm going to do something. Because where I'm from, it's a seeming trend that arrogant ignorant kids, are always the ones who do things like break edge. So take that how you please, but I'm tired of being respectful on here, when people are completely rude back. I come on here for conversation, debate, at my own leisure, I'm not trying to say mean things to people, or basically make fun of someone, I know when someone is coming at me.

I'm not saying agree with me, but don't add your little ignorant things here and there....its' childish.

I think you may want to reconsider your use of the term ignorant. In this thread and the guns one, it doesn't appear that any of your opinions are based on any facts, but purely your emotions. I think you if you did more research on both topics these conversations would be going a different direction.

straightXed
08-02-2009, 11:27 AM
Again, another post I'm done talking on, apparently I'm making contradictions that nobody gives me examples that I see on. So its whatever.

When asked for examples i gave them, asking for examples was not needed however as they were already written in previous posts. Perhaps you should address the examples and explain why you think they are not contradictions?


And to say that you "bet" I will take medicine at some point in the future, is like me saying I "bet" you are going to break edge. See for me, I don't "bet" or "wish" anybody should ever do anything they are against, whether or not I agree with it. Just shows that you are the ignorant one for saying something like that, whether or not you agree, don't "bet" that I'm going to do something. Because where I'm from, it's a seeming trend that arrogant ignorant kids, are always the ones who do things like break edge. So take that how you please, but I'm tired of being respectful on here, when people are completely rude back. I come on here for conversation, debate, at my own leisure, I'm not trying to say mean things to people, or basically make fun of someone, I know when someone is coming at me.

But i do bet that you will take medicine at somepoint in the future, its not my wish for you to do so its just something i feel is highly likely. If you want to take that to mean that i am ignorant and arrogant then i have to ask why? If you are unable to accept that i think that without being respectful in replying then i suggest not replying and not trying to debate without anything of substance. What i said isn't mean and if you were to say that you bet i will break edge i wouldn't be offended at all, i might ask what makes you think that but i myself am open to the fact that more people break edge than they don't so it wouldn't be an entirely unsafe bet. And further more regardless of how sure i am now that i am straightedge, i can't tally up my future reactions 100% so there is always a chance you would be right. But just to reiterate, its not my wish, i have no preference for if you take medicine or not, i just think you will at somepoint. Part of that reason is the complete inability to give a decent and cohesive stand up basis for your reasoning and i also factor in that you already have an illness and that you aren't superman.


I'm not saying agree with me, but don't add your little ignorant things here and there....its' childish.

Well its simply not childish you just reacted to it in what could be considered a childish manner, you immediately took offence to my beliefs and told me i shouldn't post them instead of asking why i believe it. For a person looking to debate it seems quite odd, but perhaps instead of this reaction you could explain why my belief that you will take medicine in the future is ignorant and childish...after adressing the points in the post previous.

Or is this an easy out by saying you no longer want to discuss it so you don't have to address those points in the previous points?

JoeyX
08-02-2009, 05:07 PM
When asked for examples i gave them, asking for examples was not needed however as they were already written in previous posts. Perhaps you should address the examples and explain why you think they are not contradictions?



But i do bet that you will take medicine at somepoint in the future, its not my wish for you to do so its just something i feel is highly likely. If you want to take that to mean that i am ignorant and arrogant then i have to ask why? If you are unable to accept that i think that without being respectful in replying then i suggest not replying and not trying to debate without anything of substance. What i said isn't mean and if you were to say that you bet i will break edge i wouldn't be offended at all, i might ask what makes you think that but i myself am open to the fact that more people break edge than they don't so it wouldn't be an entirely unsafe bet. And further more regardless of how sure i am now that i am straightedge, i can't tally up my future reactions 100% so there is always a chance you would be right. But just to reiterate, its not my wish, i have no preference for if you take medicine or not, i just think you will at somepoint. Part of that reason is the complete inability to give a decent and cohesive stand up basis for your reasoning and i also factor in that you already have an illness and that you aren't superman.



Well its simply not childish you just reacted to it in what could be considered a childish manner, you immediately took offence to my beliefs and told me i shouldn't post them instead of asking why i believe it. For a person looking to debate it seems quite odd, but perhaps instead of this reaction you could explain why my belief that you will take medicine in the future is ignorant and childish...after adressing the points in the post previous.

Or is this an easy out by saying you no longer want to discuss it so you don't have to address those points in the previous points?

sure...I'll use this as my easy way out.

lo0m
08-04-2009, 01:19 AM
Then I'm confused, how can you say you have a medical condition that requires medicine?

cause "officialy" it requires.. i took it for years.. now i feel better but time to time it strikes me and normal person would propably take the medicine.. i dont


well then how was "fuck human race.. fuck new medicine.. the absence of medicine would cure the world, not the existence of it.. we are overpopulated for this planet and yet we are rude enough to kill other sentient beings for our own benefit." meant to be taken? What do you think would happen with the absence of medicine if not the deaths of millions?

this question is stupid.. What do you think would happen with the cure for everything if not the deaths of billions? and that was another one..


what kind of research?

not a research.. just some college experiments and some dissections.. but i have seen how the research is done and talked to the staff (ok, i was begging for help for most of the time :-) )


it's possible in some cases but not all. If there was a better way to do it, why wouldn't they be doing it? do you really think the scientific community as a whole has some kind of global conspiracy that feels compelled to only test on animals even if there is a better way out there? If testing on 300 infants could cure cancer, then absolutely I would. Out of the lives that have been lost in animal testing, how many lives, both human and animal have been saved by the research? Do you think more animals died that lives have been saved? And if so, why?
hey, come on, if you think that the scientific community is not deeply regulated by the budget (and that budget is calculated by people who maybe never saw an animal lab therefore they don't give a fuck about what's going on there) then you really don't know what you're talking about. The answer is (of course) money.. developing more precise cruelty-free scientific procedures needs a) time, b) money. if they would invest the time, they would have these procedures (or they would have been closer to the goal) then spending their time testing every cosmetic product... on animals of course..
ad infants: then you really see the difference between the two of us. i would never ask a question like: "Do you think more animals died that lives have been saved?" .. what the fuck is this? if nazis would find a cure for cancer based on their "research" on jews, would that justify their pain and death? i hate when people think that they are somehow superior to animals and that they have the right to determine what is "greater good". one brief glimpse at the human history tells me that they never knew...

xsecx
08-04-2009, 06:20 AM
this question is stupid.. What do you think would happen with the cure for everything if not the deaths of billions? and that was another one..

but yet, you don't actually clarify your statement and tell me what you meant. If you "fuck new medicine" what do you think would be the end result?



not a research.. just some college experiments and some dissections.. but i have seen how the research is done and talked to the staff (ok, i was begging for help for most of the time :-) )


oh ok, then your answer was misleading. You haven't actually done any research yourself or have first hand knowledge of how it's done.



hey, come on, if you think that the scientific community is not deeply regulated by the budget (and that budget is calculated by people who maybe never saw an animal lab therefore they don't give a fuck about what's going on there) then you really don't know what you're talking about. The answer is (of course) money.. developing more precise cruelty-free scientific procedures needs a) time, b) money. if they would invest the time, they would have these procedures (or they would have been closer to the goal) then spending their time testing every cosmetic product... on animals of course..
ad infants: then you really see the difference between the two of us. i would never ask a question like: "Do you think more animals died that lives have been saved?" .. what the fuck is this? if nazis would find a cure for cancer based on their "research" on jews, would that justify their pain and death? i hate when people think that they are somehow superior to animals and that they have the right to determine what is "greater good". one brief glimpse at the human history tells me that they never knew...

If you think budget isn't part of "a better way" then I have to wonder how much practical experience you have in living. If there's a better alternative, it will be used. That's simply good business. You make it sound like the level and amount of animal testing hasn't decreased over the years, when it has, and has done dramatically. I also don't really see why you keep bringing up consumer product animal testing since this entire conversation has been about medical testing. If you have a better way of testing medical related things on something other than animals, then please share.

And dude, seriously, nazi's? Do you really expect me to carry on any kind of conversation when you invoke godwin's law? You know what though? The nazi's weren't and I also don't consider animals equal with humans. When you can find an animal capable of carrying on a conversation then this point may make sense, but until then...

lo0m
08-04-2009, 07:31 AM
but yet, you don't actually clarify your statement and tell me what you meant. If you "fuck new medicine" what do you think would be the end result?

death.. but not increase of death in numbers compared to now.. just death.. part of life of all living beings



oh ok, then your answer was misleading. You haven't actually done any research yourself or have first hand knowledge of how it's done.
+
Also, how much work have you done in laboratories?

or your question was misleading.. and let me put it this way - do you have to be a politician to know if someone's politics is done badly? or do you have to be a professional bus driver to know that your bus driver is an asshole who can't drive? i know that, because i'm a driver myself.. oh wait, i can't judge him as i'd never drove a bus.. that's nonsense.. i was in touch with a lab and i have some information from high school and college about it, so what's the point of not doing it myself.. you don't have to try everything yourself to make a statement about it..


If you think budget isn't part of "a better way" then I have to wonder how much practical experience you have in living. If there's a better alternative, it will be used. That's simply good business. You make it sound like the level and amount of animal testing hasn't decreased over the years, when it has, and has done dramatically. I also don't really see why you keep bringing up consumer product animal testing since this entire conversation has been about medical testing. If you have a better way of testing medical related things on something other than animals, then please share.
you're twisting what i have stated. i didn't say that budget is an evil thing.. i said that science is controlled by budget (as everything) and animal testing is cheap and working procedure so why the hell would a manager put his limited money to developing new procedures?
also - medicine IS a consumer product...


And dude, seriously, nazi's? Do you really expect me to carry on any kind of conversation when you invoke godwin's law? You know what though? The nazi's weren't and I also don't consider animals equal with humans. When you can find an animal capable of carrying on a conversation then this point may make sense, but until then...
i don't give a fuck about some usenet analogies.. there are significant similarities.. if you don't see them.. well, then problem is not on my side...
what is a conversation? you mean exchanging information in the human context, by word? or are you able as a human to step outside that humancentric paradigm and agree with me that animals do communicate (both human and nonhuman) with each other?

no, i see you are not .. whatever, keep your opinion, i'll keep mine cause we'll never agree on this topic...

xsecx
08-04-2009, 08:49 AM
death.. but not increase of death in numbers compared to now.. just death.. part of life of all living beings

so diseases are static and don't change? New ones don't come along?



or your question was misleading.. and let me put it this way - do you have to be a politician to know if someone's politics is done badly? or do you have to be a professional bus driver to know that your bus driver is an asshole who can't drive? i know that, because i'm a driver myself.. oh wait, i can't judge him as i'd never drove a bus.. that's nonsense.. i was in touch with a lab and i have some information from high school and college about it, so what's the point of not doing it myself.. you don't have to try everything yourself to make a statement about it..

How was it misleading when we're talking about lab research? You have to be knowledgeable about a subject to be able to talk about to criticize it accurately. If you've never driven a bus, or anything larger than a car, are you really in a position to criticize from an informed perspective? I'd say no. Any one can be a critic, it just doesn't mean your opinion should be taken over someone who actually knows about the subject. The idea that you did some lab tests in school somehow makes you qualified to know and understand how complex animal based lab research is done is a stretch.



you're twisting what i have stated. i didn't say that budget is an evil thing.. i said that science is controlled by budget (as everything) and animal testing is cheap and working procedure so why the hell would a manager put his limited money to developing new procedures?
also - medicine IS a consumer product...

What kind of a job do you do? Just in general? Do you know the cost of animal testing? Do you know what the cost of something else would be? In my world, if there's a way to do something faster better cheaper in the long run, it makes sound business sense to change. You're completely dodging the point. Has animal testing decreased? Do you even understand the difference between consumer product testing and medical? Like it's great that you say that it's a consumer product, but that doesn't really explain why you keep talking about shit like shampoo when that's not what is being talked about at all.



i don't give a fuck about some usenet analogies.. there are significant similarities.. if you don't see them.. well, then problem is not on my side...


How are there significant similarities? Because the genocide of humans is somehow the same as animals being used as test subjects? Now if you wanted to talk about the shit that happened during the late 1800's and early 1900's to the handicapped and mentally disabled, you'd have a point. That would comparing apples to apples, but instead you take the ignorant route of going straight to the nazi's and some bullshit what if scenario.



what is a conversation? you mean exchanging information in the human context, by word? or are you able as a human to step outside that humancentric paradigm and agree with me that animals do communicate (both human and nonhuman) with each other?

no, i see you are not .. whatever, keep your opinion, i'll keep mine cause we'll never agree on this topic...

the exchange of complex thought. Animals do communicate with each other, however, it's not complex. They don't make tools, as a whole, don't raise their own food. Haven't created technology. I'd really like to know why you believe that animals and humans are equal.

lo0m
08-05-2009, 01:34 AM
because YOU ARE an animal.. what about moving yourself to Bible Belt? many people there will share your opinion on supremacy of mankind over nature i guess... also i was not talking about holocaust (i now youre reading carefully so you know it already), i was talking about scientific experiments on people (how much can a person live under water with XXX in blood, etc.) made by nazis.. and i won't even response to the disease thing, that one just made me laugh..

so, are you a bible preacher, politician, scientist or are you working in the middle east? you seem to debate about all of these things like it would be your job and you critize me for having an opinion on a subject that is not only really provoking my morals, but which i have also seen with my own eyes, have talked about that and have read about that for some time. would you do that if my opinion was also yours? i seriously doubt about it.

“I am not interested to know whether Vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn’t. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pains which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity towards it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further.” - Mark Twain said that and a hundred years after his death i share this opinion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eikrtueR8KE - i know this is a peta video but it shows those lower creatures suffer.. i don't want them suffer for my own benefit. you want to be healthy? go vegan, adopt a healthy lifestyle, do sports, do whatever you want with yourself to lower the risk. of course, something can strike you and you can die becuase of disease. but with taking a lot of medicine, you are weakening your own defense system, so the risk is higher in the end.. and that becomes a circle..

and dusty, did you ever have an animal companion? cat, dog, cow, whatever? cause all my cats (and also many other animals i've met in my life) are really distinct personalities, doing different things, thinking, communicating (and two of them really making good fun).. you can of course limit your viewpoint on world to yourself, but be aware of the fact that human knowledge about nature is still limited and we don't know why do pigeons find their home, how exactly whales communicate (even when we can send "food" and "play" signals that they understand) or why the hell are those stupid apes using tools to get their food...

mouseman004
08-05-2009, 05:47 AM
and dusty, did you ever have an animal companion? cat, dog, cow, whatever? cause all my cats (and also many other animals i've met in my life) are really distinct personalities, doing different things, thinking, communicating (and two of them really making good fun).. you can of course limit your viewpoint on world to yourself, but be aware of the fact that human knowledge about nature is still limited and we don't know why do pigeons find their home, how exactly whales communicate (even when we can send "food" and "play" signals that they understand) or why the hell are those stupid apes using tools to get their food...


How can you preach the equality of animals and humans, while at the same time having an animal in a role that is as demeaning as a house pet? Would you keep a child as a pet?

MrMcKeigue
08-05-2009, 07:50 AM
Even though I'm a complete hypocryte cause I still eat meat and all. But I do however believe it is not our choice, our right, or our responsibility, to cure, change the color, help, or not help an animal. I believe what is right is to let nature take its' course. That is why I considered becoming vegan, because I believe killing animals is wrong, and is unnatural. Now if you go outside hunting in a loincloth, and hunt an animal down with your bare-hands, then sure that is pretty natural in itself, because you're doing what any other animal does...but trying to "cure" an animal, or "kill in massive #'s" is ridiculous, unnatural, and completely wrong. Let nature take its' course, its is not our job or right, to feel the "need" to cure an animal.

Just because you helped an animal, and/or made it more cute, does not justify the fact that you are doing something to the animal that it did nor did not ask for, which in my eyes means, not our responsibility. Everybody talks about animals being free, well whether we are curing them, or eating them, they are not free. I ask - where do you draw the line between what is nature and what is human? You call a human taking down an animal with his/her bare hands "natural," but where does it become something else? If I sharpened a stick or wielded a club, would it no longer be natural? If an orangutan defended its territory by beating another animal senseless with some weapon, would that not be "natural?" Is the utilization of one's intelligence not seen as a thing of nature?

xsecx
08-05-2009, 08:26 AM
because YOU ARE an animal.. what about moving yourself to Bible Belt? many people there will share your opinion on supremacy of mankind over nature i guess... also i was not talking about holocaust (i now youre reading carefully so you know it already), i was talking about scientific experiments on people (how much can a person live under water with XXX in blood, etc.) made by nazis.. and i won't even response to the disease thing, that one just made me laugh..


Why would I have to move there when the vast majority of humanity believes they aren't equals with animals? if you mean torturing people to see at what point they die and how much pain they can subject them to as scientific experiments, then sure. But there really wasn't any specific research done to solve any problem. It was just torture that called itself research.

and the disease thing made you laugh? Really? Why? I mean, just this week a new strain of HIV was discovered, so I don't see why you think it's funny or why you think that the amount of people that would die wouldn't increase if all medical testing stopped today. I do think you put your foot in your mouth and then realized it and that's what made you laugh.




so, are you a bible preacher, politician, scientist or are you working in the middle east? you seem to debate about all of these things like it would be your job and you critize me for having an opinion on a subject that is not only really provoking my morals, but which i have also seen with my own eyes, have talked about that and have read about that for some time. would you do that if my opinion was also yours? i seriously doubt about it.


I criticize you for having an argument based on emotion not facts. If you actually look back at any of the subjects I've talked about I point to people who actually are experts on the subject as to why I have the opinion that I do. You may feel strongly about something from a moral reason, but that doesn't somehow make you an expert on the subject. I mean shit, your opinion here is that animal testing should be stopped and that there should be no more medical research. How exactly is that based on anything but emotion?




“I am not interested to know whether Vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn’t. To know that the results are profitable to the race would not remove my hostility to it. The pains which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity towards it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further.” - Mark Twain said that and a hundred years after his death i share this opinion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eikrtueR8KE - i know this is a peta video but it shows those lower creatures suffer.. i don't want them suffer for my own benefit. you want to be healthy? go vegan, adopt a healthy lifestyle, do sports, do whatever you want with yourself to lower the risk. of course, something can strike you and you can die becuase of disease. but with taking a lot of medicine, you are weakening your own defense system, so the risk is higher in the end.. and that becomes a circle..



The problem with things like peta videos are that they are emotionally based and provide no backup to their claims. They don't cite any source. They don't give anyones credentials. If you want to change peoples minds on the subject, give me facts. Show me people who are credible talking about alternatives to animal testing. Don't show me a video talking about how animals suffer because that's just there to elicit an emotional response because I could just as easily shoot a video with a bunch of people dying in hospital beds and have them talk about how much pain their in because animal testing isn't being done to treat their illness. I also don't think you understand that taking medicine doesn't really weaken the immune system. The only thing that has been shown to do that is anti biotics, so I'm not really sure why you think that.



and dusty, did you ever have an animal companion? cat, dog, cow, whatever? cause all my cats (and also many other animals i've met in my life) are really distinct personalities, doing different things, thinking, communicating (and two of them really making good fun).. you can of course limit your viewpoint on world to yourself, but be aware of the fact that human knowledge about nature is still limited and we don't know why do pigeons find their home, how exactly whales communicate (even when we can send "food" and "play" signals that they understand) or why the hell are those stupid apes using tools to get their food...

How does any of this mean that humans and animals are equal? Does this extend to insects as well? What other life do you believe is equal or is some life more equal than others?

lo0m
08-06-2009, 01:45 AM
How can you preach the equality of animals and humans, while at the same time having an animal in a role that is as demeaning as a house pet? Would you keep a child as a pet?

that's because they're not house pets.. most of them just went to us.. they are free to go, as are the deers that like to settle in our garden.. our fence on two sides is somehow detroyed and all the cats regularly make trips around.. one even for a year... so i take as equal.. off course i'm telling them not to sit on my laptop (but honestly i sometimes pretend i'm not looking) as i would tell any human to stop doing actions with my stuff that pisses me off..
so how exactly from your well informed view is this demeaning??

lo0m
08-06-2009, 03:10 AM
Why would I have to move there when the vast majority of humanity believes they aren't equals with animals? if you mean torturing people to see at what point they die and how much pain they can subject them to as scientific experiments, then sure. But there really wasn't any specific research done to solve any problem. It was just torture that called itself research.
it's the same.. they've learned something from it (i saw these researchs as source in various academic work) about human physiology.. so i mean torturing animals to see at what point they die.. imagine you have 10 dogs and you infect them with some disease you think you have cure for.. you didn't? well, better luck next time with another 10 dogs, mice, apes or just any lower being.. that is stupid, don't you see that?


and the disease thing made you laugh? Really? Why? I mean, just this week a new strain of HIV was discovered, so I don't see why you think it's funny or why you think that the amount of people that would die wouldn't increase if all medical testing stopped today. I do think you put your foot in your mouth and then realized it and that's what made you laugh.

really? well, you can think that.. i was laughing because i believe medicine corporations are acting very differently that one would suppose.. they all have to make money to pay 100000s wages after all...but that is really a different debate..



I criticize you for having an argument based on emotion not facts. If you actually look back at any of the subjects I've talked about I point to people who actually are experts on the subject as to why I have the opinion that I do. You may feel strongly about something from a moral reason, but that doesn't somehow make you an expert on the subject. I mean shit, your opinion here is that animal testing should be stopped and that there should be no more medical research. How exactly is that based on anything but emotion?

facts? research is pain, prison, death.. even if you feel somehow superior to those creatures you can't deny that not a single of those animals is happy.. that is the only fact you should need.. cause if you don't rely also on emotions and morals, you will end up in a research comparable to the nazi research even for you. i can imagine very unmoral research procedures that would be beneficial for mankind...



The problem with things like peta videos are that they are emotionally based and provide no backup to their claims. They don't cite any source. They don't give anyones credentials. If you want to change peoples minds on the subject, give me facts. Show me people who are credible talking about alternatives to animal testing. Don't show me a video talking about how animals suffer because that's just there to elicit an emotional response because I could just as easily shoot a video with a bunch of people dying in hospital beds and have them talk about how much pain their in because animal testing isn't being done to treat their illness. I also don't think you understand that taking medicine doesn't really weaken the immune system. The only thing that has been shown to do that is anti biotics, so I'm not really sure why you think that.


antibiotics are one example.. but viruses also do adapt to cures and come back regenerated and more powerful against the already used vaccine...

how many new diseases other animals have (who don't take medicine that much?) how many new diseseas humans have over the last hundred years they're taking medicine?

you want facts?
few years ago making a pregnancy test would require to kill a rabbit, now its done plainly by chemical reaction.. you just have to put money and time in research...
you need to study a kidney? well, we can "grow" kidney in lab... guts? skin? almost anything you say..
we have synthetic skin that can be used...
we have dissected millions of animals, have computers that can simulate the whole ecosystem to some point and we can't predict what a substance will cause to human? we have disease models even available on the internet.. we can use bakterias to simulate genetic changes that a substance makes..
and if we don't have an alternative to test new cure differently? then we should not do it... if we started the wrong way and made our way for the health of mankind simpler through torture of sentient beings than we should go back to the beginning and try it in different way.. learn more, try harder.. but yeah, i agree that it's not the way people think...
also, do you think that pharmaceutical corporations don't know that other animals are not human? look at Pfizer testing on humans in Nigeria or GSK in Argentina..
but as i stated.. the morals should be the no 1 question regarding death of animal or human. you disagree? well, im completely aware that my viewpoint is a viewpoint of minority and can be labeled as fanatism or fundamentalism.. whatever, i don't care



How does any of this mean that humans and animals are equal? Does this extend to insects as well? What other life do you believe is equal or is some life more equal than others?

how does it not is the question.. what makes you fell superior is the right question? human agression, ignorance to nature or humans more or less unable to live in pure natural habitat? we still don't know much about how animals think.. also, we are using our (from nature perspective) very limited viewpoint

xsecx
08-06-2009, 07:33 AM
it's the same.. they've learned something from it (i saw these researchs as source in various academic work) about human physiology.. so i mean torturing animals to see at what point they die.. imagine you have 10 dogs and you infect them with some disease you think you have cure for.. you didn't? well, better luck next time with another 10 dogs, mice, apes or just any lower being.. that is stupid, don't you see that?

saying it's the same doesn't make it so. They learned at what point they could push the human body during torture without killing it. That's not the same as setting out with a problem to solve and experimenting to solve it. In the first example there was no problem to solve.



really? well, you can think that.. i was laughing because i believe medicine corporations are acting very differently that one would suppose.. they all have to make money to pay 100000s wages after all...but that is really a different debate..

Considering most of the research is done by either government labs or university labs and not corporations I don't really know why that would make you laugh. It also doesn't really explain how things have changed through out history long before the current process was in place, so I'm still at a loss as to why you think the statement was so ridiculous that it caused you to laugh and not answer it.



facts? research is pain, prison, death.. even if you feel somehow superior to those creatures you can't deny that not a single of those animals is happy.. that is the only fact you should need.. cause if you don't rely also on emotions and morals, you will end up in a research comparable to the nazi research even for you. i can imagine very unmoral research procedures that would be beneficial for mankind...


Yes but you're assuming that I should care that they're not happy. I don't. Most people don't. And to most people their suffering is justified given the end results. Until you can convince people that their suffering outweighs the benefit there's no reason to stop and simply saying, "but they're suffering" isn't enough, because from the human point of view, the people who are in need of the results of that research are suffering too and human suffering is more important than animal suffering.




antibiotics are one example.. but viruses also do adapt to cures and come back regenerated and more powerful against the already used vaccine...

how many new diseases other animals have (who don't take medicine that much?) how many new diseseas humans have over the last hundred years they're taking medicine?


Viruses mutate and change on their own just like every other organism. As far as I'm aware there is no research that suggests that vaccinations are the cause of mutation. It's not a matter that they come back more powerful, they come back changed into a different strain that a vaccination hasn't been created for. You also falsely somehow think that human diseases and animal diseases are different and distinct, that there's some kind of bright line between the two and that's just not always the case.



you want facts?
few years ago making a pregnancy test would require to kill a rabbit, now its done plainly by chemical reaction.. you just have to put money and time in research...
you need to study a kidney? well, we can "grow" kidney in lab... guts? skin? almost anything you say..
we have synthetic skin that can be used...
we have dissected millions of animals, have computers that can simulate the whole ecosystem to some point and we can't predict what a substance will cause to human? we have disease models even available on the internet.. we can use bakterias to simulate genetic changes that a substance makes..
and if we don't have an alternative to test new cure differently? then we should not do it... if we started the wrong way and made our way for the health of mankind simpler through torture of sentient beings than we should go back to the beginning and try it in different way.. learn more, try harder.. but yeah, i agree that it's not the way people think...
also, do you think that pharmaceutical corporations don't know that other animals are not human? look at Pfizer testing on humans in Nigeria or GSK in Argentina..
but as i stated.. the morals should be the no 1 question regarding death of animal or human. you disagree? well, im completely aware that my viewpoint is a viewpoint of minority and can be labeled as fanatism or fundamentalism.. whatever, i don't care

So there are examples where if it didn't make sense to test on animals it wasn't done anymore. So where it still does make sense, it just shouldn't be done and everyone and everything infected with whatever the research is meant to help should just die. That somehow is more compassionate to you? So progress should just be stopped all together if there's no alternative to animal testing? I fail to understand your moral argument when you're failing to take into account or care about the entire picture.



how does it not is the question.. what makes you fell superior is the right question? human agression, ignorance to nature or humans more or less unable to live in pure natural habitat? we still don't know much about how animals think.. also, we are using our (from nature perspective) very limited viewpoint

because there isn't a animal capable of doing the things that humans have? This idea of blanket equality isn't practical and simply doesn't make sense. You're making the statement so I'd really like to know the answer. If it's simply because we're both alive on earth, then that's not really doing anything to address how things are equal. Or why animals are equal but non animals are not.

lo0m
08-06-2009, 07:53 AM
i finally lost my interest in this debate.. you are an animal, that's why we're all equal.. you share 99% of genetic information with a mice and yet you feel superior.. that's your limitation...
"Yes but you're assuming that I should care that they're not happy. I don't." and that's why i lost my interest..

xsecx
08-06-2009, 08:48 AM
i finally lost my interest in this debate.. you are an animal, that's why we're all equal.. you share 99% of genetic information with a mice and yet you feel superior.. that's your limitation...
"Yes but you're assuming that I should care that they're not happy. I don't." and that's why i lost my interest..

yes, but not all animals are equal. What are you using to determine equality? I feel superior to a mouse because I, and the rest of humanity are. Mice aren't capable of much. Your inability to see/accept that is your denial of reality, not my limitation.

Also, how exactly do you except to change anyone's mind if you're incapable of carrying on a conversation with someone who doesn't share your opinion. Or do you not care about changing peoples minds?

JoeyX
08-06-2009, 02:30 PM
yes, but not all animals are equal. What are you using to determine equality? I feel superior to a mouse because I, and the rest of humanity are. Mice aren't capable of much. Your inability to see/accept that is your denial of reality, not my limitation.

Also, how exactly do you except to change anyone's mind if you're incapable of carrying on a conversation with someone who doesn't share your opinion. Or do you not care about changing peoples minds?

This sounds completely "meat-headed". A mouse isn't superior because they aren't capable of much? So lets take hardcore for an instance, the biggest baddest dude at the show is the only one who matters because he is superior in size, and can do more hurt to everybody else? Thats fucking close-minded, and lame dude. In all honesty, because a mouse doesn't have a "purpose" basically, or much there of as your saying, he doesn't matter? So then a mentally challenged person shouldn't matter to you either then, because they aren't capable of much(not coming at them, just using as an example of sorts), right?

You say carrying a conversation and changing peoples minds, but I have yet to see you change your mind on any opinion on this board, and within this debate, you sure are showing more and more close-minded-ness of anybody. Especially with the meathead mentality YOU are portraying by saying because something doesn/CAN'T contribute as much as a human can, or isn't as smart as a normal human, they don't matter, or you shouldn't care about them and/or their suffering?

If you don't care about things like that then you shouldn't care about things like:

Mentally Challenged People

Children, at least until they are older and capable of being superior to some point.

if anyone wants to add to this list, be my guest.



You say I say some contradicting things, or whatever...but I'd rather be contradicting, then this close-minded of a person. Sorry, just the way I feel dude, not trying to be disrespectful, because I usually like talking/debating with you, but this is just more ridiculous then ever.

xsecx
08-06-2009, 02:48 PM
This sounds completely "meat-headed". A mouse isn't superior because they aren't capable of much? So lets take hardcore for an instance, the biggest baddest dude at the show is the only one who matters because he is superior in size, and can do more hurt to everybody else? Thats fucking close-minded, and lame dude. In all honesty, because a mouse doesn't have a "purpose" basically, or much there of as your saying, he doesn't matter? So then a mentally challenged person shouldn't matter to you either then, because they aren't capable of much(not coming at them, just using as an example of sorts), right?


What do you think equal is? How do you define something as equal? And yes, I don't think someone who is mentally challenged is equal to someone who isn't because they aren't.



You say carrying a conversation and changing peoples minds, but I have yet to see you change your mind on any opinion on this board, and within this debate, you sure are showing more and more close-minded-ness of anybody. Especially with the meathead mentality YOU are portraying by saying because something doesn/CAN'T contribute as much as a human can, or isn't as smart as a normal human, they don't matter, or you shouldn't care about them and/or their suffering?


Considering the only thing people, including yourself, have talked about are emotions, why would how you feel about something change my opinion on a subject? How is that being meat headed? I don't base my opinions on emotions. I don't hold on to beliefs because of how I feel about a subject, so if someone can show my something that makes me rethink things, then I'll change my mind on it. But until someone can show how/why animal testing is unnecessary, I don't see why I should.



If you don't care about things like that then you shouldn't care about things like:

Mentally Challenged People

Children, at least until they are older and capable of being superior to some point.

if anyone wants to add to this list, be my guest.


So because I don't care about the suffering of animals that are being used for animal testing for the benefits for humans and animals I somehow shouldn't care about anything else suffering?




You say I say some contradicting things, or whatever...but I'd rather be contradicting, then this close-minded of a person. Sorry, just the way I feel dude, not trying to be disrespectful, because I usually like talking/debating with you, but this is just more ridiculous then ever.

I'd like to know how I'm closed minded. I've pointed to things to you that completely contradict your emotional responses that as far as I can tell aren't based on anything and I doubt you've even read them. I don't see people saying "you should feel this way because I said so" is a valid point. You want me to change my mind, come up with a better argument then have been presented here. that doesn't make me closed minded, it means that you, griffo and loom haven't really presented anything but an emotional argument.

JoeyX
08-06-2009, 05:14 PM
What do you think equal is? How do you define something as equal? And yes, I don't think someone who is mentally challenged is equal to someone who isn't because they aren't.


[
Considering the only thing people, including yourself, have talked about are emotions, why would how you feel about something change my opinion on a subject? How is that being meat headed? I don't base my opinions on emotions. I don't hold on to beliefs because of how I feel about a subject, so if someone can show my something that makes me rethink things, then I'll change my mind on it. But until someone can show how/why animal testing is unnecessary, I don't see why I should.



So because I don't care about the suffering of animals that are being used for animal testing for the benefits for humans and animals I somehow shouldn't care about anything else suffering?



I'd like to know how I'm closed minded. I've pointed to things to you that completely contradict your emotional responses that as far as I can tell aren't based on anything and I doubt you've even read them. I don't see people saying "you should feel this way because I said so" is a valid point. You want me to change my mind, come up with a better argument then have been presented here. that doesn't make me closed minded, it means that you, griffo and loom haven't really presented anything but an emotional argument.

So first off, by saying that mentally challenged people aren't equal, you are saying it is ok to test on mentally challenged people? I mean, why is it any different to you? It's an animal who is not of same superiority as you. So why not,...right?

So what you are saying also, is that if something is fact, it makes it ok? Just because something is a fact, doesn't mean you can't have emotional value to it? My grandfather is dead, thats a fact, and that FACT hurts me emotionally. Just because you base things on facts, doesn't mean emotion can't be involved and/or change your opinion on it. Just because it is a FACT that it DOES help the human race by testing on animals, in your heart doesn't that make it feel wrong, and something we shouldn't do because an animal is alive just like us and has physical and emotional feelings, and knows for a FACT that when we test on them, it hurts/kills them.

If you don't care about the suffering of animals, which is SOMETHING YOU ARE, it is ignornant to care about anything else of the same value/position. In your eyes a mentally challenged person(now this is what I'm getting from what you say, not your exact words) is the same as mice, not equal, not of the same superiority, so why not test on them? You can't just care for one and not the other, otherwise it becomes ignorance. We are all animals, maybe of different kinds, but we are still animals.

Also, how emotional arguement not valid? Just because its not a fact based ideal, doesn't mean it shouldn't be a valid arguement. Maybe if you ever pictured yourself torturing animals, you'll see the feeling of the wrongness in it. Just because it betters our health, doesn't make it right. I want you to go to one of these medical labs, and watch them do these things to these animals, better yet, if you a dog/cat or animal at home, take them, and let them do medical research on that animal for the benefit of our health. Maybe you'll get emotionally involved then. I'm not saying any of this has happened to me, but I look at it from that standpoint. I wouldn't want to be tested on, I wouldn't want someones pet to be tested on.

You talk about facts. Lets take this somewhere else. You talk about fact based things, and base your opinion on whatever the fact seems to be. Well here is a good fact for you, WAR works. War has solved problems since day 1, fighting, killing, bombing, enslaving, it all has worked, and BENEFITED someone. Does that make ANY of it right? NO! Not all facts are right, just because they have worked for someone, and helped someone. WAR and the death of thousands, solves answers. Does that make it right and ok?

xsecx
08-06-2009, 10:30 PM
So first off, by saying that mentally challenged people aren't equal, you are saying it is ok to test on mentally challenged people? I mean, why is it any different to you? It's an animal who is not of same superiority as you. So why not,...right?


where did I say or even insinuate that? Where did I say that human testing was the same as animal testing or that I believed that the mentally challenged should be tested on? I know this is a hard concept for you to get, but saying that someone isn't equal doesn't then mean that they somehow get lumped into the same group as animals. You didn't answer the question the first time so I'll ask it again. How do you define equal? How is someone that is mentally challenged equal to someone who isn't and how are any of them equal to an animal, any animal?



So what you are saying also, is that if something is fact, it makes it ok? Just because something is a fact, doesn't mean you can't have emotional value to it? My grandfather is dead, thats a fact, and that FACT hurts me emotionally. Just because you base things on facts, doesn't mean emotion can't be involved and/or change your opinion on it. Just because it is a FACT that it DOES help the human race by testing on animals, in your heart doesn't that make it feel wrong, and something we shouldn't do because an animal is alive just like us and has physical and emotional feelings, and knows for a FACT that when we test on them, it hurts/kills them.


I just told you that in my heart I believe it's the right thing to do because the benefit greatly outweighs the suffering, your emotions however blind you from accepting that fact. Simple black and white, the number of lives saved by animal testing greatly outweigh those lost to it.



If you don't care about the suffering of animals, which is SOMETHING YOU ARE, it is ignornant to care about anything else of the same value/position. In your eyes a mentally challenged person(now this is what I'm getting from what you say, not your exact words) is the same as mice, not equal, not of the same superiority, so why not test on them? You can't just care for one and not the other, otherwise it becomes ignorance. We are all animals, maybe of different kinds, but we are still animals.


I don't think you understand the word ignorant because you keep misusing it. I also find the conversation at this point, since you still eat meat pretty damn hilarious. I don't think my food is equal to me, that's why it's food. People aren't food. I also don't think that people should be tested on because it's not necessary and those times when it is, volunteers are possible to find without having to use anyone against their will. I think that you believing that the mentally challenged and mice are the same is incredibly insulting to people with disabilities. You're adding value judgments to my words that aren't there and I really suggest you look up the word equal and the word ignorant because I don't think you understand either.



Also, how emotional arguement not valid? Just because its not a fact based ideal, doesn't mean it shouldn't be a valid arguement. Maybe if you ever pictured yourself torturing animals, you'll see the feeling of the wrongness in it. Just because it betters our health, doesn't make it right. I want you to go to one of these medical labs, and watch them do these things to these animals, better yet, if you a dog/cat or animal at home, take them, and let them do medical research on that animal for the benefit of our health. Maybe you'll get emotionally involved then. I'm not saying any of this has happened to me, but I look at it from that standpoint. I wouldn't want to be tested on, I wouldn't want someones pet to be tested on.

Because if it was valid there would be facts to support it. In this case there aren't. If there were we'd be having a completely different discussion instead of "why is this wrong? Because I FEEL it's wrong. but why? Because I FEEL it is" There's no value there. And just so you're aware, I've been around farm animals my entire life and have taken some from the beginning to the end. The beliefs that I hold aren't based on ignorance. I have a complete understanding of what happens in slaughterhouses and in medical laboratories and have for a long time and I am completely fine with it. This is the problem with this kind of conversation, you can't comprehend that someone can't feel the same way you do and just by telling me "just think about it and you will" won't work because you're assuming, incorrectly that I never have. If it came down to the life of my wife or my pet, guess who'd win?



You talk about facts. Lets take this somewhere else. You talk about fact based things, and base your opinion on whatever the fact seems to be. Well here is a good fact for you, WAR works. War has solved problems since day 1, fighting, killing, bombing, enslaving, it all has worked, and BENEFITED someone. Does that make ANY of it right? NO! Not all facts are right, just because they have worked for someone, and helped someone. WAR and the death of thousands, solves answers. Does that make it right and ok?

To discuss this you'd need to narrow it down a bit since war is kind of a broad topic. Also as an aside, you making this statement as someone who carries a firearm is kind of hypocritical. Were there wars that were avoidable? absolutely, but I'd also say that there were some that weren't and yes I believe were completely justified and needed to happen. I'm just curious, if you value life so much, why do you carry a firearm? Why are you prepared to take a life out of anger but somehow believe that it's wrong to take one out of compassion to save the lives of many?

xGriffox
08-06-2009, 10:37 PM
Dusty, in your opinion is animal testing a necessary and effective practice in the modern day?

lo0m
08-07-2009, 12:46 AM
hey, dusty, you seriously have to draw some kind of pyramid for us. something that will teach us who is superior to who based on.. hey, what is this opinion based on?

human is born, he learns, he plays, he grows up, finds a partner or more thru his life span, has children (propably), raises the children and at some point he dies.

every animal has similar life (or would have if some idiot wouldn't waste it).. we all struggle to survive, we're in this together.. there's no difference as this struggle alone is a hard thing to accomplish

now i would maybe agree about human superiority to animals if we could give that life that you so easily agree to be taken.. and i don't mean by producing crippled copies brought to the world by raping... can you give that? no? well, thats a fact--

xsecx
08-07-2009, 06:16 AM
Dusty, in your opinion is animal testing a necessary and effective practice in the modern day?

I believe that I, and others in this thread that that is the case. When you've been asked about alternatives, you ignored it and this is your first response since then, so I'm kind of curious as to why?

xsecx
08-07-2009, 06:23 AM
hey, dusty, you seriously have to draw some kind of pyramid for us. something that will teach us who is superior to who based on.. hey, what is this opinion based on?

human is born, he learns, he plays, he grows up, finds a partner or more thru his life span, has children (propably), raises the children and at some point he dies.

every animal has similar life (or would have if some idiot wouldn't waste it).. we all struggle to survive, we're in this together.. there's no difference as this struggle alone is a hard thing to accomplish

now i would maybe agree about human superiority to animals if we could give that life that you so easily agree to be taken.. and i don't mean by producing crippled copies brought to the world by raping... can you give that? no? well, thats a fact--

So simply because an animal has the same basic life steps that somehow means equality? that even within the animal world that there are leaders and followers? Are you going to try and tell me that within pack animals that they are all equal? This is an emotional response that isn't based on anything that makes any sense. There are hierarchy's in this world and there always will be and humans have subjugated and domesticated animals. Even you have, even by simply having pets, a post you ignored, have created a hierarchy. You're not equal to your cat. Your cat doesn't provide you food and water and shelter, does it?

lo0m
08-07-2009, 07:00 AM
So simply because an animal has the same basic life steps that somehow means equality? that even within the animal world that there are leaders and followers? Are you going to try and tell me that within pack animals that they are all equal? This is an emotional response that isn't based on anything that makes any sense. There are hierarchy's in this world and there always will be and humans have subjugated and domesticated animals. Even you have, even by simply having pets, a post you ignored, have created a hierarchy. You're not equal to your cat. Your cat doesn't provide you food and water and shelter, does it?

wow.. first, i have answered the post that said i'm demeaning the cats that live here.. maybe you ignored the response...
second, you can do better.. we are talking two days about species.. about "hierarchy" among these species and you come up with an example that is based on hierarchy among a small pack, ie. social hierarchy in local group of animals of the same specie.. what the hell? you apparently think i'm an idiot..
my cats don't provide me food, nor shelter, nor water (i don't provide them that either most of the time btw - they have lot of food and a creek outside.. they also like to sleep there when its warm).. that's right.. they provide me with friendship, endless compassion and love just to name a few.. and i won't even put those things to equation...
it always makes me sad to see a person with clever mind and cold heart like you are and i know that this debate could be neverending as we see the world completely different i guess.. but as i stated (and had to return after a while :-) ) i lost my interest..

JoeyX
08-07-2009, 07:15 AM
where did I say or even insinuate that? Where did I say that human testing was the same as animal testing or that I believed that the mentally challenged should be tested on? I know this is a hard concept for you to get, but saying that someone isn't equal doesn't then mean that they somehow get lumped into the same group as animals. You didn't answer the question the first time so I'll ask it again. How do you define equal? How is someone that is mentally challenged equal to someone who isn't and how are any of them equal to an animal, any animal?



I just told you that in my heart I believe it's the right thing to do because the benefit greatly outweighs the suffering, your emotions however blind you from accepting that fact. Simple black and white, the number of lives saved by animal testing greatly outweigh those lost to it.



I don't think you understand the word ignorant because you keep misusing it. I also find the conversation at this point, since you still eat meat pretty damn hilarious. I don't think my food is equal to me, that's why it's food. People aren't food. I also don't think that people should be tested on because it's not necessary and those times when it is, volunteers are possible to find without having to use anyone against their will. I think that you believing that the mentally challenged and mice are the same is incredibly insulting to people with disabilities. You're adding value judgments to my words that aren't there and I really suggest you look up the word equal and the word ignorant because I don't think you understand either.


Because if it was valid there would be facts to support it. In this case there aren't. If there were we'd be having a completely different discussion instead of "why is this wrong? Because I FEEL it's wrong. but why? Because I FEEL it is" There's no value there. And just so you're aware, I've been around farm animals my entire life and have taken some from the beginning to the end. The beliefs that I hold aren't based on ignorance. I have a complete understanding of what happens in slaughterhouses and in medical laboratories and have for a long time and I am completely fine with it. This is the problem with this kind of conversation, you can't comprehend that someone can't feel the same way you do and just by telling me "just think about it and you will" won't work because you're assuming, incorrectly that I never have. If it came down to the life of my wife or my pet, guess who'd win?



To discuss this you'd need to narrow it down a bit since war is kind of a broad topic. Also as an aside, you making this statement as someone who carries a firearm is kind of hypocritical. Were there wars that were avoidable? absolutely, but I'd also say that there were some that weren't and yes I believe were completely justified and needed to happen. I'm just curious, if you value life so much, why do you carry a firearm? Why are you prepared to take a life out of anger but somehow believe that it's wrong to take one out of compassion to save the lives of many?

I'm not saying you said that, I'm saying it seems by the way you talk that its the same. I define equal on my emotions, I define equal also on the fact that we are BOTH animals, to me that makes us equal, just because we are smarter than the rest doesn't make us any better, we should use our intelligence to not need to use animals for anything, and not in a sense be barbaric and use animals for our own liking.

You say people aren't food, but we are food. A lion would eat our asses just as easily as we eat steak or anything else. Go out into the wild, into their territory and they'll eat the shit out of you like a juicy meal. Now you might say, then why is it wrong for us to eat them? Because we are intelligent, we can find ways to not hurt an animal when not needed. We can eat things that don't require the hurt/killing of an animal.

I still find it hilarious that I eat meat and have such great beliefs on the welfare of animals myself. I know I'm a hypocrite, I'm trying to change my life in that aspect. It is not an easy thing to do, and it sucks, but I'm trying. I was raised in a family full of hunters, and meat eaters, so being vegan isn't something easy for me to accomplish, but I know in my heart I will do it, and become vegan. So hate me now, but I'm trying to give up that shit all together. Also, I'm getting a degree in Culinary Arts, which also proposes problems with being vegan, which means I will become a vegan chef, which isn't a problem, but right now unfortunately I'm still in school using non-vegan ingredients, not by choice.

And I'm not the one who thinks Mentally Challenged people and Mice are comparable or are the same by any means, I'm saying thats what YOU seem to feel. Admittedly or knowingly, but the way you talk, that is what YOU seem to portray, not me. I don't feel they are the same, I think Mentally Challenged people are just as equal as I'am in everyway. Yes, they may think slower, or do daily things different because they have to, but in the end, they are a human/animal just like me, so their say is just as important as mine. Their views, their emotions, and everything about them is the same of importance to me, as my own opinion is. Whether or not I agree with them, is one thing, but I value their opinion and life just as much as mine. You seem to think different.

Answer me this, which I feel you have yet to answer also. If there was a being, an animal, that was discovered, however it got here, whatever, that being of no importance...however! lol. Say that animal was BEYOND our intelligence, 50 times the size we are, and plucked us off the ground as we do animals, trapped us in their traps, however.....and used human species for their testings, for their own gain,....how would you feel about that? Would you be pissed? Would you care? Would you say, "its ok because they are more intelligent than us, and their medical knowledge gain outweighs our pain and suffering".

And about war, why do I need to narrow it down. It is a fact, that WAR as a whole, all wars, work! They have all proven so, no matter who won, it has proven to work. War solves problems. No matter who it works for, war works for one party or the other. So does that make war ok?

And how in the hell does that make me a hyprocrite because I carry a gun. I don't go around using this gun on people, I don't pull it out, and I don't believe my choice is WAR when I come in conflict with anybody, if thats what you seem to be presuming. I would use a gun as my LAST choice of means in a conflict, if that would even be needed as a choice of means. WAR is not used as a last choice of means, by any means, we both know that. If you want, I can find you many many wars, where other options could have been used, but weren't. I use a gun as a means of protection, not like war, where they use guns as a means of getting answers and killing for gain. I'm not gaining anything out of life by having a gun, and protecting myself with it. War gains power, I don't want power. I just want my life. War is used for money, votes, change in views, change in whatever. War has been used for protection, yes I agree, but that is not the usual motive.

lo0m
08-07-2009, 07:29 AM
I still find it hilarious that I eat meat and have such great beliefs on the welfare of animals myself. I know I'm a hypocrite, I'm trying to change my life in that aspect. It is not an easy thing to do, and it sucks, but I'm trying. I was raised in a family full of hunters, and meat eaters, so being vegan isn't something easy for me to accomplish, but I know in my heart I will do it, and become vegan. So hate me now, but I'm trying to give up that shit all together. Also, I'm getting a degree in Culinary Arts, which also proposes problems with being vegan, which means I will become a vegan chef, which isn't a problem, but right now unfortunately I'm still in school using non-vegan ingredients, not by choice.


don't play that game... you'll propably save hundreds of lives until the day you'll die simply by changing your eating habits.. and at least you realize where the problem lies...

JoeyX
08-07-2009, 07:48 AM
don't play that game... you'll propably save hundreds of lives until the day you'll die simply by changing your eating habits.. and at least you realize where the problem lies...

Thank you for understanding. :)

xsecx
08-07-2009, 08:43 AM
wow.. first, i have answered the post that said i'm demeaning the cats that live here.. maybe you ignored the response...
second, you can do better.. we are talking two days about species.. about "hierarchy" among these species and you come up with an example that is based on hierarchy among a small pack, ie. social hierarchy in local group of animals of the same specie.. what the hell? you apparently think i'm an idiot..


Yes, I missed the post. I apologize.

You need to keep in mind that you're actually piling on to a conversation that I'm having with Joey, so unless you quote exactly what I've said you're talking about it's kind of hard to figure out what I've said you're actually referencing. If you're going to talk about the supremacy between animals and humans, then how exactly is in inapproriate to point that that the equality you keep focusing on doesn't even exist in nature, let alone within the same species?



my cats don't provide me food, nor shelter, nor water (i don't provide them that either most of the time btw - they have lot of food and a creek outside.. they also like to sleep there when its warm).. that's right.. they provide me with friendship, endless compassion and love just to name a few.. and i won't even put those things to equation...
it always makes me sad to see a person with clever mind and cold heart like you are and i know that this debate could be neverending as we see the world completely different i guess.. but as i stated (and had to return after a while :-) ) i lost my interest..
Then you accept that the relationship you have with your animals isn't equal. That the interaction you have with them isn't one of equals.

I also think it's funny that I have a cold heart when you're the one that wants people to die. I have compassion, it's just that I am more compassionate towards humans than I am to animals.

xsecx
08-07-2009, 09:11 AM
I'm not saying you said that, I'm saying it seems by the way you talk that its the same. I define equal on my emotions, I define equal also on the fact that we are BOTH animals, to me that makes us equal, just because we are smarter than the rest doesn't make us any better, we should use our intelligence to not need to use animals for anything, and not in a sense be barbaric and use animals for our own liking.


if we're smarter than we're not equal. that's entirely the point. You should spend more time with critical thought and less time focusing on your emotions.



You say people aren't food, but we are food. A lion would eat our asses just as easily as we eat steak or anything else. Go out into the wild, into their territory and they'll eat the shit out of you like a juicy meal. Now you might say, then why is it wrong for us to eat them? Because we are intelligent, we can find ways to not hurt an animal when not needed. We can eat things that don't require the hurt/killing of an animal.


I don't eat people. Most people don't eat people. Therefore they're not a food source. Therefore they, on that level alone aren't equal to animals. People aren't a primary food source for any animal. I don't really know why this is a hard concept for you to get. We're clearly on the top of the food chain, and for a reason.



And I'm not the one who thinks Mentally Challenged people and Mice are comparable or are the same by any means, I'm saying thats what YOU seem to feel. Admittedly or knowingly, but the way you talk, that is what YOU seem to portray, not me. I don't feel they are the same, I think Mentally Challenged people are just as equal as I'am in everyway. Yes, they may think slower, or do daily things different because they have to, but in the end, they are a human/animal just like me, so their say is just as important as mine. Their views, their emotions, and everything about them is the same of importance to me, as my own opinion is. Whether or not I agree with them, is one thing, but I value their opinion and life just as much as mine. You seem to think different.


It seems that way to you, because that's how you want it to be, not based on anything I've said.

I was really hoping I wouldn't have to do this, but it seems like you really don't have a concept of what equal is so I'll have to point to a definition.

* Main Entry: 1equal
* Pronunciation: \ˈē-kwəl\
* Function: adjective
* Etymology: Middle English, from Latin aequalis, from aequus level, equal
* Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent b : like in quality, nature, or status c : like for each member of a group, class, or society <provide equal employment opportunities>
2 : regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : impartial
3 : free from extremes: as a : tranquil in mind or mood b : not showing variation in appearance, structure, or proportion
4 a : capable of meeting the requirements of a situation or a task b : suitable <bored with work not equal to his abilities>

In that definition, no you are not equal with a mentally challenged person. Do I have compassion for that person? Of course. Do I value that persons life over that of an animal, absolutely. One thing that should be brought up however is that even though people are human, we aren't all equal. Everyone's voice doesn't carry the same weight. We are a hierarchical society, and are so for a reason. Not everyone is capable of doing the same job, making the same decisions, talented in the same way.



Answer me this, which I feel you have yet to answer also. If there was a being, an animal, that was discovered, however it got here, whatever, that being of no importance...however! lol. Say that animal was BEYOND our intelligence, 50 times the size we are, and plucked us off the ground as we do animals, trapped us in their traps, however.....and used human species for their testings, for their own gain,....how would you feel about that? Would you be pissed? Would you care? Would you say, "its ok because they are more intelligent than us, and their medical knowledge gain outweighs our pain and suffering".


Considering this is the first time you've asked the question, I don't see how I could have. In the situation you just came up with, sure I'd be pissed, but I'd also not be able to do anything about it and I'd also be comfortable in knowing that I'd potentially be saving the lives of many many others. The fact that you seem to be missing is that I value human life over animal life, so that if a relatively small number of animals have to die so that humans and other animals can live, then I'm ok with that. What you're talking is actually to prolong the pain and suffering of animals. I mean shit, you were the one that said that animals shouldn't be interfered with at all. How can you really talk about the pain and suffering of animals when you really don't care about it?



And about war, why do I need to narrow it down. It is a fact, that WAR as a whole, all wars, work! They have all proven so, no matter who won, it has proven to work. War solves problems. No matter who it works for, war works for one party or the other. So does that make war ok?

because it's using a generic term to describe specific things, each with separate and distinct situations that have to be taken into account when talking about it. In some situations, yes war is ok, in some it isn't. I really don't see what you're trying to get at with this example though.



And how in the hell does that make me a hyprocrite because I carry a gun. I don't go around using this gun on people, I don't pull it out, and I don't believe my choice is WAR when I come in conflict with anybody, if thats what you seem to be presuming. I would use a gun as my LAST choice of means in a conflict, if that would even be needed as a choice of means. WAR is not used as a last choice of means, by any means, we both know that. If you want, I can find you many many wars, where other options could have been used, but weren't. I use a gun as a means of protection, not like war, where they use guns as a means of getting answers and killing for gain. I'm not gaining anything out of life by having a gun, and protecting myself with it. War gains power, I don't want power. I just want my life. War is used for money, votes, change in views, change in whatever. War has been used for protection, yes I agree, but that is not the usual motive.

Because you're talking about everyone being equal and life being precious and valuable. Because you think taking a life to protect yours is justifiable, but taking a life to cure others isn't. I think it's funny that you'll carry a gun to protect yourself, but won't take medication or follow doctors orders to save your own life. You're willing to take a life to protect yours, yet you talk about the taking of life to save others is somehow wrong. That's how you're a hypocrite.

xGriffox
08-07-2009, 12:43 PM
I believe that I, and others in this thread that that is the case. When you've been asked about alternatives, you ignored it and this is your first response since then, so I'm kind of curious as to why?
In vitro testing and computer models have been making headway in the realm of pre-human testing of compounds. I didn't answer previously because I have been busy and frankly forgot that the question was posed.

Is animal testing outside of the realm of medicine at the level it is done now (for cosmetics, household products that have been around for ages, and the likes) really necessary in your opinion?

xsecx
08-07-2009, 01:17 PM
In vitro testing and computer models have been making headway in the realm of pre-human testing of compounds. I didn't answer previously because I have been busy and frankly forgot that the question was posed.


Absolutely and hopefully there will be a point in time where it's not necessary but right now I believe based on what I've read that it is.



Is animal testing outside of the realm of medicine at the level it is done now (for cosmetics, household products that have been around for ages, and the likes) really necessary in your opinion?

not at all.

xGriffox
08-07-2009, 01:32 PM
Absolutely and hopefully there will be a point in time where it's not necessary but right now I believe based on what I've read that it is.



not at all.


well then, it seems we basically agree. To outright deny the advancements made in medicine by animal testing in the past is illogical but the push needs to be made for an advancement beyond such a method in the present. The only problem I really see is that animal testing is a very lucrative endeavor for those companies and institutions involved with it; huge grants are given to universities in it's name (only small percentages of which actually have to go to any testing at all). It will be a long fight to get people to push beyond this oftentimes cruel methodology.

xsecx
08-07-2009, 01:37 PM
well then, it seems we basically agree. To outright deny the advancements made in medicine by animal testing in the past is illogical but the push needs to be made for an advancement beyond such a method in the present. The only problem I really see is that animal testing is a very lucrative endeavor for those companies and institutions involved with it; huge grants are given to universities in it's name (only small percentages of which actually have to go to any testing at all). It will be a long fight to get people to push beyond this oftentimes cruel methodology.

yeah at the end of the day, it's about money. If people are able to make more money another way, they'll do it. A very small percentage of folks involved in animal testing today do it because they want to kill animals in the name of science. They're doing it because that's what they can use and if there's a better alternative, which in the long run will be cheaper, it's what people will use.

JoeyX
08-08-2009, 11:37 AM
Because you're talking about everyone being equal and life being precious and valuable. Because you think taking a life to protect yours is justifiable, but taking a life to cure others isn't. I think it's funny that you'll carry a gun to protect yourself, but won't take medication or follow doctors orders to save your own life. You're willing to take a life to protect yours, yet you talk about the taking of life to save others is somehow wrong. That's how you're a hypocrite.

I don't consider myself a hypocrite because I choose not to take medicine because I choose to take care of myself, and not use modern medicine to help me, to me medicine is a crutch in a sense, its using something else to help me. I help myself. So I guess using a gun would be a hypocritical because that would also be a kind of crutch, but in the end, there are people out there 10 times bigger then me, and people who run in packs of 20 or more, and could jump me, so I choose to use a crutch where I feel its going to possibly help me if needed, rather than using a crutch like medicine, which I haven't been using for years now, and am still pretty healthy.

JoeyX
08-08-2009, 11:40 AM
I feel this arguement isn't going to anywhere, it hasn't since the start, lets just end this on a...

agree to disagree.

JoeyX
08-08-2009, 11:48 AM
"it always makes me sad to see a person with clever mind and cold heart like you are"


I couldn't of said it any better. You seem like a very intelligent person, which further says to me, such people as scientists in this world, who are so intelligent, and able to find cures, medicines, treatments, etc.,.... Why is it that they can't just find something else to test on besides a living species, if that alternative hasn't already been found.

xsecx
08-08-2009, 12:52 PM
I don't consider myself a hypocrite because I choose not to take medicine because I choose to take care of myself, and not use modern medicine to help me, to me medicine is a crutch in a sense, its using something else to help me. I help myself. So I guess using a gun would be a hypocritical because that would also be a kind of crutch, but in the end, there are people out there 10 times bigger then me, and people who run in packs of 20 or more, and could jump me, so I choose to use a crutch where I feel its going to possibly help me if needed, rather than using a crutch like medicine, which I haven't been using for years now, and am still pretty healthy.

you completely missed the point. you could take care of yourself all you want, but it won't matter with sleep apnea. There are medical conditions that you can't simply cure yourself with diet and exercise. The actual point is that you're a hypocrite because you're willing to take a life violently to protect yourself is fine but think that taking a life for research that would save many more people than yourself isn't.

xsecx
08-08-2009, 12:54 PM
"it always makes me sad to see a person with clever mind and cold heart like you are"


I couldn't of said it any better. You seem like a very intelligent person, which further says to me, such people as scientists in this world, who are so intelligent, and able to find cures, medicines, treatments, etc.,.... Why is it that they can't just find something else to test on besides a living species, if that alternative hasn't already been found.


This is why you're out of your depth. Have you actually done any research at all about this subject? What makes you think that it isn't being worked on?

JoeyX
08-08-2009, 01:18 PM
you completely missed the point. you could take care of yourself all you want, but it won't matter with sleep apnea. There are medical conditions that you can't simply cure yourself with diet and exercise. The actual point is that you're a hypocrite because you're willing to take a life violently to protect yourself is fine but think that taking a life for research that would save many more people than yourself isn't.

Yes I will take the life of something trying to take mine. But I don't agree with taking a life that isn't doing anything wrong. I would take a human animal or any other animals life if it was endangering mine, but I'm not going to endanger anybody human or not human if its not hurting me, or just to test on it. It's the point of, I stick with my opinion that it is not our RIGHT to hurt/kill an animal for our own benefit. Maybe I should revise and say it is not RIGHT to hurt/kill an animal/human for our own benefit, unless it is trying to hurt/kill me.

JoeyX
08-08-2009, 01:20 PM
I'm also not really saying that NOT taking medicine,etc. is going to necessarily cure my health problems, I just simply choose not to take medicine, because I don't feel right having something in my body "fixing me" that I can't control.

xsecx
08-08-2009, 01:32 PM
Yes I will take the life of something trying to take mine. But I don't agree with taking a life that isn't doing anything wrong. I would take a human animal or any other animals life if it was endangering mine, but I'm not going to endanger anybody human or not human if its not hurting me, or just to test on it. It's the point of, I stick with my opinion that it is not our RIGHT to hurt/kill an animal for our own benefit. Maybe I should revise and say it is not RIGHT to hurt/kill an animal/human for our own benefit, unless it is trying to hurt/kill me.

so you don't think that all life is equal and that you have a right to kill if it suits you.

JoeyX
08-08-2009, 02:31 PM
so you don't think that all life is equal and that you have a right to kill if it suits you.

Where did I say all life isn't equal? I think all life is equal, and I believe any animal, human or not, has the right to kill/defend itself, to whatever is trying to harm/kill.

All animals have the right to defend itself, even if that means death of the attacker.


Now I'm not talking about justice, and revenge or things of that nature, thats a different discussion. I'm talking about animals and humans killing/defending itself simply because they are being attacked.

xsecx
08-08-2009, 02:49 PM
Where did I say all life isn't equal? I think all life is equal, and I believe any animal, human or not, has the right to kill/defend itself, to whatever is trying to harm/kill.

All animals have the right to defend itself, even if that means death of the attacker.


Now I'm not talking about justice, and revenge or things of that nature, thats a different discussion. I'm talking about animals and humans killing/defending itself simply because they are being attacked.

So animals have a right to do what it takes to preserve their own life, right? Even if it means something else has to die for that to happen.

JoeyX
08-08-2009, 03:03 PM
So animals have a right to do what it takes to preserve their own life, right? Even if it means something else has to die for that to happen.

See, I know what you are getting at. You are trying to say animals to whatever it is they have to, to live....parallelling that we use animal testing and doing whatever we have to, to preserve our own lives.

I don't believe an animal human or not, has the right to hurt/kill another animal for its' own gain, for its' health benefit. I believe an animal, human or not, DOES HAVE THE RIGHT to kill/hurt another animal/attacker if it is being ATTACKED or harmed by the attacker.

An animal, human or not, does not have the right to kill for the benefit of "testing" and helping its' own kind. I take it as a "ask for it or not" kind of thing. If an animal is trying to attack me, then it is asking for trouble, which is my right to kill it. But if the animal is doing nothing more than just living life, and doing nothing wrong, why should it die for our benefit? It didn't harm me, so why should I pluck it out of nature and use it for my benefit? That's just wrong to me.

xsecx
08-08-2009, 04:08 PM
See, I know what you are getting at. You are trying to say animals to whatever it is they have to, to live....parallelling that we use animal testing and doing whatever we have to, to preserve our own lives.

I don't believe an animal human or not, has the right to hurt/kill another animal for its' own gain, for its' health benefit. I believe an animal, human or not, DOES HAVE THE RIGHT to kill/hurt another animal/attacker if it is being ATTACKED or harmed by the attacker.

An animal, human or not, does not have the right to kill for the benefit of "testing" and helping its' own kind. I take it as a "ask for it or not" kind of thing. If an animal is trying to attack me, then it is asking for trouble, which is my right to kill it. But if the animal is doing nothing more than just living life, and doing nothing wrong, why should it die for our benefit? It didn't harm me, so why should I pluck it out of nature and use it for my benefit? That's just wrong to me.

the fact that you keep ignoring is that animal testing also benefits animals. It's not purely for human benefit. I also think it's weird that you separate things based on threat. That it's ok to kill something that's threatening you, but if that threat is medical humanity should just accept it and die. how does that make any kind of sense? It'll be interesting to see how you feel about this subject if someone in your family has something terminal that research was currently being done on. Also, killing something, regardless of the reason is for your own gain. If you really believed that everything was equal, you'd just accept your fate, because clearly you deserve whatever it is attacking you.

JoeyX
08-08-2009, 06:07 PM
the fact that you keep ignoring is that animal testing also benefits animals. It's not purely for human benefit. I also think it's weird that you separate things based on threat. That it's ok to kill something that's threatening you, but if that threat is medical humanity should just accept it and die. how does that make any kind of sense? It'll be interesting to see how you feel about this subject if someone in your family has something terminal that research was currently being done on. Also, killing something, regardless of the reason is for your own gain. If you really believed that everything was equal, you'd just accept your fate, because clearly you deserve whatever it is attacking you.

See, you are assuming things that aren't true. I'm not necessarily saying "accept it and die", I think medicine is a great thing, I just choose myself not to use it. That's a personal preference, however I think it is great there is medicine for my mother when she needs it. I just personally do not like using medicine. My mother has MS(Multiple Sclerosis) and there is no cure, but only medicine to slow the process. So I'm glad their is medicine for that, but I still don't think that animals should be tested on for the benefit of a cure of MS. I just don't think another life should die/harmed for a cure.

Also, I know testing on animals also can help animals. But I don't think that justifies the basis of "thats why it should be done". Testing on humans can benefit humans and animals, but we don't do it. We use an animal, because we are more barbaric, we value our own lives more than we value an animals life. I value animals just as much as I value a humans.

How would I deserve what is ever attacking me? If I'm walking down the street, and get jumped for no other reason because I'm either in the wrong neighborhood or they felt like jumping people for fun(which happens alot in Philly), I deserve that? If you get into things like "karma" and "fate" I don't believe in such things like that. I don't believe that if you do something bad, it will come back on you someday. I'm sorry, but theories like that I just don't fly with me. I don't think things happen for a reason, like alot of people say. Things like rape, and the murder of children, and things like that, do not have any kind of justifiable reason for it happening in my eyes. Things like that are wrong, and should never happen.

xsecx
08-08-2009, 07:48 PM
See, you are assuming things that aren't true. I'm not necessarily saying "accept it and die", I think medicine is a great thing, I just choose myself not to use it. That's a personal preference, however I think it is great there is medicine for my mother when she needs it. I just personally do not like using medicine. My mother has MS(Multiple Sclerosis) and there is no cure, but only medicine to slow the process. So I'm glad their is medicine for that, but I still don't think that animals should be tested on for the benefit of a cure of MS. I just don't think another life should die/harmed for a cure.


Then do you encourage your mother to not take medicine? Do you think people should stop looking for a cure for MS since right now it most likely involves animal testing? If you're saying that all testing should be stopped immediately you are saying that people should just accept what is had right now. Do you tell your mom that her suffering doesn't matter and that she doesn't deserve a cure because it may cost the lives of some animals?



Also, I know testing on animals also can help animals. But I don't think that justifies the basis of "thats why it should be done". Testing on humans can benefit humans and animals, but we don't do it. We use an animal, because we are more barbaric, we value our own lives more than we value an animals life. I value animals just as much as I value a humans.


You do realize that there are human trials too right? And that on occasion people die in those trials. And dude, call a spade a spade, right now you don't value animals that much, because you're still eating meat. Right now when you say shit like this it just comes off that you're really naive and don't really know how this works.



How would I deserve what is ever attacking me? If I'm walking down the street, and get jumped for no other reason because I'm either in the wrong neighborhood or they felt like jumping people for fun(which happens alot in Philly), I deserve that? If you get into things like "karma" and "fate" I don't believe in such things like that. I don't believe that if you do something bad, it will come back on you someday. I'm sorry, but theories like that I just don't fly with me. I don't think things happen for a reason, like alot of people say. Things like rape, and the murder of children, and things like that, do not have any kind of justifiable reason for it happening in my eyes. Things like that are wrong, and should never happen.

Didn't you go on and on about lions and bears eating people? If that happens, clearly you deserve it, right? If humans are just another animal, then you being in someone's neighborhood is as good a reason as any. I mean, humans are just animals so why aren't you holding humans to same standard as you do a bear?

JoeyX
08-09-2009, 01:13 AM
Then do you encourage your mother to not take medicine? Do you think people should stop looking for a cure for MS since right now it most likely involves animal testing? If you're saying that all testing should be stopped immediately you are saying that people should just accept what is had right now. Do you tell your mom that her suffering doesn't matter and that she doesn't deserve a cure because it may cost the lives of some animals?



You do realize that there are human trials too right? And that on occasion people die in those trials. And dude, call a spade a spade, right now you don't value animals that much, because you're still eating meat. Right now when you say shit like this it just comes off that you're really naive and don't really know how this works.



Didn't you go on and on about lions and bears eating people? If that happens, clearly you deserve it, right? If humans are just another animal, then you being in someone's neighborhood is as good a reason as any. I mean, humans are just animals so why aren't you holding humans to same standard as you do a bear?

No I do not encourage my mother to not take medicine. I said I'm glad she takes medicine. I think some of these questions you already know the answer to, and only asking out of spite. I'm also not saying all testing should be stopped, I'm saying all testing on animals should be stopped, an we should find another way to test things, simple as that. I do not tell my mother that her suffering doesn't matter, because obviously it does matter to me. But that doesn't justify hurting animals, because of my grief and her pain. I should put another being in pain, for the personal benefit of our my kind? I mean yeah I base a lot of my opinions and beliefs on my "feelings", but even so my feelings don't completely justify hurting animals either. I don't think there is any justifiable reason to hurt an animal, unless it is physically coming at you to harm you, even in that case, try and just get away. Also, its not that she doesn't "deserve" a cure, its just not right to kill an animal for our benefit.

Yes I know there are human trials, but obviously not as much as animals, because we value our lives more than an animals, which shouldn't be done.

First off, me being in a persons neighborhood isn't a reason to harm me. We are more intelligent than other animals, so neighborhoods to us isn't a reason to hurt us. An animal will hurt you in its' own territory because it feels that you are coming in its' territory to harm it, so it will attack obviously. They're not just gonna go, "oh that human won't hurt me", they don't know that. All they know is survival and do whatever possible to be safe and eat. We are more intelligent, so I don't believe they are comparable. Every situation is different, does that make the equality less or more?....no. But every situation is different, every animal....human, bear, mice, etc. are all different, but in my eyes still equal. So every situation is different, so things needed to be treated differently, as long as the welfare and care for each animal is given, and not care about one animal more than another. But basing on intelligence, situations can be different.

xsecx
08-09-2009, 08:52 AM
No I do not encourage my mother to not take medicine. I said I'm glad she takes medicine. I think some of these questions you already know the answer to, and only asking out of spite. I'm also not saying all testing should be stopped, I'm saying all testing on animals should be stopped, an we should find another way to test things, simple as that. I do not tell my mother that her suffering doesn't matter, because obviously it does matter to me. But that doesn't justify hurting animals, because of my grief and her pain. I should put another being in pain, for the personal benefit of our my kind? I mean yeah I base a lot of my opinions and beliefs on my "feelings", but even so my feelings don't completely justify hurting animals either. I don't think there is any justifiable reason to hurt an animal, unless it is physically coming at you to harm you, even in that case, try and just get away. Also, its not that she doesn't "deserve" a cure, its just not right to kill an animal for our benefit.


Why not? Since the medince she's taking now is responsible for taking animal lives, why wouldn't you encourage her not to take it? Or to refuse to take any new medicine to since that would have been tested on animals as well? If testing can only be done on animals today, then, yes you are saying that it should be stopped. Your mother's taking medicine is directly leading to the death of animals, so why wouldn't you encourage her to stop taking it?




Yes I know there are human trials, but obviously not as much as animals, because we value our lives more than an animals, which shouldn't be done.


Then you should encourage your mother to take the place of animals in testing. Would you do that?



First off, me being in a persons neighborhood isn't a reason to harm me. We are more intelligent than other animals, so neighborhoods to us isn't a reason to hurt us. An animal will hurt you in its' own territory because it feels that you are coming in its' territory to harm it, so it will attack obviously. They're not just gonna go, "oh that human won't hurt me", they don't know that. All they know is survival and do whatever possible to be safe and eat. We are more intelligent, so I don't believe they are comparable. Every situation is different, does that make the equality less or more?....no. But every situation is different, every animal....human, bear, mice, etc. are all different, but in my eyes still equal. So every situation is different, so things needed to be treated differently, as long as the welfare and care for each animal is given, and not care about one animal more than another. But basing on intelligence, situations can be different.

So wait, now animals aren't equal? That humans are capable of something that animals aren't? At this point I seriously have to wonder if you even understand that words that you say. You list reasons why humans and animals aren't equal and then try and say that things that are different are equal. If you're going to use the equal statement, at least know what you're saying. if things are equal then they're all judged by the same criteria. If something is right for an animal to do, then it should be completely ok for the other to do. Just so we're clear, you're saying that it's ok for animals to kill for benefit but it's not ok for humans to?

JoeyX
08-09-2009, 09:53 PM
Why not? Since the medince she's taking now is responsible for taking animal lives, why wouldn't you encourage her not to take it? Or to refuse to take any new medicine to since that would have been tested on animals as well? If testing can only be done on animals today, then, yes you are saying that it should be stopped. Your mother's taking medicine is directly leading to the death of animals, so why wouldn't you encourage her to stop taking it?




Then you should encourage your mother to take the place of animals in testing. Would you do that?



So wait, now animals aren't equal? That humans are capable of something that animals aren't? At this point I seriously have to wonder if you even understand that words that you say. You list reasons why humans and animals aren't equal and then try and say that things that are different are equal. If you're going to use the equal statement, at least know what you're saying. if things are equal then they're all judged by the same criteria. If something is right for an animal to do, then it should be completely ok for the other to do. Just so we're clear, you're saying that it's ok for animals to kill for benefit but it's not ok for humans to?

I don't encourage her, or not encourage her to take it. That is her own choice. That is why I myself choose to not take medicine, because that is my choice. I hope their would be a medicine she could someday take that isn't tested on animals, but obviously that isn't the case. I'm not going to tell her to stop, but I'm also not going to encourage her to take medicine, if she feels she needs/wants it, then so be it, and the choice is hers.

No I would not replace my mother, because that is not my choice to make. You make it seem like I control her, she has a mind of her own. She can volunteer herself if she would like, just as anybody could.

Things that are different CAN be equal. Black, white, chinese, etc., all different, but all equal. Just because things like animals and humans are at different levels of intelligence, doesn't make them any less/more equal than the other. You should open up a little more, and stop basing everything in your life by black and white facts, and open your mind up a little bit.

Where did I say its ok for animals to kill for benefit? I'm saying a human AND animal are equally given the RIGHT to defend itself. Not test on each other, because one is more intelligent, and wants to make a cure for their own kind.

I'm seriously bored with repeating myself, you know the answers to these questions you ask.

How about, lets just agree to disagree. I'm a hypocrite anyways, because I have beliefs, but cannot completely live by them because of my current situations, blahblahblah my excuses.

Can we move on from this subject now?

xsecx
08-09-2009, 10:15 PM
I don't encourage her, or not encourage her to take it. That is her own choice. That is why I myself choose to not take medicine, because that is my choice. I hope their would be a medicine she could someday take that isn't tested on animals, but obviously that isn't the case. I'm not going to tell her to stop, but I'm also not going to encourage her to take medicine, if she feels she needs/wants it, then so be it, and the choice is hers.


If you truly believe that you're right, why wouldn't you?



No I would not replace my mother, because that is not my choice to make. You make it seem like I control her, she has a mind of her own. She can volunteer herself if she would like, just as anybody could.


No, I make it seem like as a child, you could influence your mother. Why wouldn't you encourage her to take the place of animals in testing? Would you be ok with it if your mother died in testing?



Things that are different CAN be equal. Black, white, chinese, etc., all different, but all equal. Just because things like animals and humans are at different levels of intelligence, doesn't make them any less/more equal than the other. You should open up a little more, and stop basing everything in your life by black and white facts, and open your mind up a little bit.


If they're different, by definition, they're not equal. If something has different levels of intelligence, they're not equal. I honestly have to wonder why you can't accept this.




Where did I say its ok for animals to kill for benefit? I'm saying a human AND animal are equally given the RIGHT to defend itself. Not test on each other, because one is more intelligent, and wants to make a cure for their own kind.


defense of oneself is for their own benefit. If it's ok for an animal to kill based on territory, then in your world it should be ok for a human to do the same. I also don't understand why you can't accept the idea the defending oneself can and does extend beyond violence.



I'm seriously bored with repeating myself, you know the answers to these questions you ask.

How about, lets just agree to disagree. I'm a hypocrite anyways, because I have beliefs, but cannot completely live by them because of my current situations, blahblahblah my excuses.

Can we move on from this subject now?

no one's making you respond. I'm just hoping at some point you'll actually go and think about this. Do some research and base your opinion on that rather than having a bunch of beliefs that don't make sense and contradict each other.

lo0m
08-10-2009, 04:42 AM
dusty.. even if all animals were not equal to us (which is in the strict sense an oxymoron).. what makes you think that you have the right to choose the lifepath of someone else?.. you're the fact man, so i want the facts.. as it seems that there is an emotional argument involved..

xsecx
08-10-2009, 06:01 AM
dusty.. even if all animals were not equal to us (which is in the strict sense an oxymoron).. what makes you think that you have the right to choose the lifepath of someone else?.. you're the fact man, so i want the facts.. as it seems that there is an emotional argument involved..

you lost interest though? I mean, if you're not really interested in carrying on the conversation, why should I bother responding when all you're going to do is t throw your hands up again and walk away?

lo0m
08-10-2009, 06:36 AM
you lost interest though? I mean, if you're not really interested in carrying on the conversation, why should I bother responding when all you're going to do is t throw your hands up again and walk away?

well, no response is also a response i guess...

xsecx
08-10-2009, 06:52 AM
well, no response is also a response i guess...

oh I'm completely prepared to give you an actual response, I'm just wondering if it's worth it, given your unwillingness to actually have a dialog. If you actually want to answer this, then you'll get a real answer, otherwise I'll just delete your comments and my responses.

lo0m
08-10-2009, 06:56 AM
oh I'm completely prepared to give you an actual response, I'm just wondering if it's worth it, given your unwillingness to actually have a dialog. If you actually want to answer this, then you'll get a real answer, otherwise I'll just delete your comments and my responses.

ok, i'm interested, respond..

xsecx
08-10-2009, 10:04 AM
ok, i'm interested, respond..

and you've clearly demonstrated that by going back and addressing the statements already made....


What gives you the right to do anything? It's both legal and an accepted practice. What gives you the right to tell me it's wrong? Individual morality doesn't really come into play when talking about right and wrong in society, so you're forced to accept it within that society. If you think it's wrong, your only real avenue is to get it outlawed otherwise you're saying it's wrong because you said so and your voice doesn't really outweigh the voices of others. Like for instance drugs and alcohol. I think it's wrong for them to be consumed, but it doesn't really matter that much since it's both legal and accepted that they're used. It doesn't give me the right to stop someone from drinking though.

Also, how is saying that humans and other animals aren't equal an oxymoron?

mouseman004
08-10-2009, 01:09 PM
dusty.. even if all animals were not equal to us (which is in the strict sense an oxymoron).. what makes you think that you have the right to choose the lifepath of someone else?.. you're the fact man, so i want the facts.. as it seems that there is an emotional argument involved..

Even if you look at the wild, certain species of animals dominate other species of animals. Are you going to argue that it is wrong for a wolf to eat a deer? Is it wrong for a bear to eat a fish? Not all life is equal. In nature, dominant species use weaker species to advance their life (mostly through eating), so why is wrong for human, being the most dominant species on earth, to use animals to advance their lives (be it through eating, or animal testing for medicine, etc)?

JoeyX
08-10-2009, 02:58 PM
We are more intelligent than most animals. So how about instead of acting barbaric, or acting like we have little intelligence, lets use our intelligence, and not hurt another being, no matter the equality rate, no matter what is right or wrong, why don't we just use our intelligence and be "good" people, and spare the lives of animals in every way, and figure out ways to live without harming anything. How about that?....wait, that will never happen. We are lazy, we don't care, and we want money...the fastest, most effiecient way,.....GOD(or whatever weird being, that so called loves us and is "real", above us) BLESS THIS WORLD!

notice my sarcasm?

straightXed
08-10-2009, 03:16 PM
We are more intelligent than most animals. So how about instead of acting barbaric, or acting like we have little intelligence, lets use our intelligence, and not hurt another being, no matter the equality rate, no matter what is right or wrong, why don't we just use our intelligence and be "good" people, and spare the lives of animals in every way, and figure out ways to live without harming anything. How about that?....wait, that will never happen. We are lazy, we don't care, and we want money...the fastest, most effiecient way,.....GOD(or whatever weird being, that so called loves us and is "real", above us) BLESS THIS WORLD!

notice my sarcasm?

So you think people striving to overcome disease for man and animal is a barbaric act? You think its an act void of intelligence?

JoeyX
08-10-2009, 03:58 PM
So you think people striving to overcome disease for man and animal is a barbaric act? You think its an act void of intelligence?


I think its a more unintelligent, act of a quicker less caring thought out way of doing things. I'm not saying they don't put in many many many hours of research blahblahblah, but they do it, and always have the most efficient, quick, cheaper(money wise) way. That is way it is possible.

straightXed
08-10-2009, 04:16 PM
I think its a more unintelligent, act of a quicker less caring thought out way of doing things. I'm not saying they don't put in many many many hours of research blahblahblah, but they do it, and always have the most efficient, quick, cheaper(money wise) way. That is way it is possible.

So economy and efficiancy in making lives better is unintelligent? Finding ways to advance medicine as far as we can, to ultimately save lives and combat disease a lot quicker is unitelligent? Or are you not focussing to much on the end goal when you form your opinion? Is the end goal ultimately uncaring?

JoeyX
08-10-2009, 05:20 PM
So economy and efficiancy in making lives better is unintelligent? Finding ways to advance medicine as far as we can, to ultimately save lives and combat disease a lot quicker is unitelligent? Or are you not focussing to much on the end goal when you form your opinion? Is the end goal ultimately uncaring?

I didn't say it was unintelligent. Please read EVERY WORD I type. I said "more" unintelligent. Its not that it is an unintillegent way of doing things, its however LESS intelligent than another way that could possibly be done, or researched to be done.

lo0m
08-11-2009, 12:30 AM
Even if you look at the wild, certain species of animals dominate other species of animals. Are you going to argue that it is wrong for a wolf to eat a deer? Is it wrong for a bear to eat a fish? Not all life is equal. In nature, dominant species use weaker species to advance their life (mostly through eating), so why is wrong for human, being the most dominant species on earth, to use animals to advance their lives (be it through eating, or animal testing for medicine, etc)?

well, did you really try to understand how it's working in the wild? species are not dominating other species. wolf eats deers. if a carnivore or omnivore eats his prey i don't have a problem with that.. but you certainly won't find a wolf that would kill more than he needs.. and that does not mean that they are not equal... deers occupy some territory and wolfs occupy some territory and they live their lifes based on natural principles.. all their life insect (propably the lowest of creatures for you) is using them to advance their life.. they are host to parasites and when they die, small creatures will also use them.. so who is "dominant" (commanding, prevailing, controlling)? there is nothing wrong with how nature is working, as it keeps all life balanced (or would have, if human wouldn't destroy natural ecosystem on large part of the planet).. so natural way would be to eat an animal without cooking right there on a spot where you killed him with your hands if you were omnivore.. look around yourself.. do you see this happening? do you see a child who spotted a rabbit trying to hunt him and eat him? i doubt so...

lo0m
08-11-2009, 12:49 AM
and you've clearly demonstrated that by going back and addressing the statements already made....


What gives you the right to do anything? It's both legal and an accepted practice. What gives you the right to tell me it's wrong? Individual morality doesn't really come into play when talking about right and wrong in society, so you're forced to accept it within that society. If you think it's wrong, your only real avenue is to get it outlawed otherwise you're saying it's wrong because you said so and your voice doesn't really outweigh the voices of others. Like for instance drugs and alcohol. I think it's wrong for them to be consumed, but it doesn't really matter that much since it's both legal and accepted that they're used. It doesn't give me the right to stop someone from drinking though.

Also, how is saying that humans and other animals aren't equal an oxymoron?

well, i didn't want you to step outside of your paradigm, rather use it how you telling others to do.. forget morality (for now, i'll come back to it later)... you seem to like having everything supported by facts that prove you're right.. i just want to hear, what facts make you think you can take an animal an harm it or kill it for your (very uncertain) profit throught testing your own inventions on it...

"legal and practiced" - that has nothing to do with it.. oh wait, i'm wrong.. that's where individual morality takes place.. where would have been India, if Gandhi wouldn't use morality.. occupation of his peoples' territory was both legal and practiced.. segregation in US was both legal and practiced.. beating women was once legal and practiced.. it is fucking legal and practiced in some countries even now.. i'm not saying the facts don't have their weight.. they certainly do.. but all this changes (and that list could be very long) started with someone thinking or saying: "this is bad"...

oxymoron - that was more of a sarcasm, i'm aware of the fact that it's not strict saying (strict in the sense that it can be given a value .. 1 or 0.. at least because we two disagree)

lo0m
08-11-2009, 12:54 AM
So economy and efficiancy in making lives better is unintelligent? Finding ways to advance medicine as far as we can, to ultimately save lives and combat disease a lot quicker is unitelligent? Or are you not focussing to much on the end goal when you form your opinion? Is the end goal ultimately uncaring?

about 136 billion dollars in US alone a year.. 25 million animals dead... and more than 60% percent of the drugs that past the test on animals will harm or kill a human... yes, this "efficiancy and economy" is making testing unintelligent

JoeyX
08-11-2009, 01:18 AM
Also, why is everything to you focused on an "end result". If that is so, then criminals aren't doing anything bad either in your eyes. Robbers are getting money as the end result, but the middle part, ya know where they put a gun to someones face and demand money, that part doesn't matter, the end result does....and thats ok to you? Obviously this is a sarcastic viewpoint, but it proves my point, that just because in the end someone makes out, doesn't mean the whole middle point you have to do, to get to the end result, doesn't matter?

I just don't get why people could care less about hurting/killing another living being to gain health and life of your own, when the living being did NOTHING to provoke the testing/killing of itself. It didn't attack me, it didn't bother me, it wants nothing to do with me, so why should I go and hurt that animal for my benefit? ....This conversation is making it more and more clear to me, of why becoming vegan is right for me.

straightXed
08-11-2009, 07:51 AM
about 136 billion dollars in US alone a year.. 25 million animals dead... and more than 60% percent of the drugs that past the test on animals will harm or kill a human... yes, this "efficiancy and economy" is making testing unintelligent

So you suggest the more ecconomical, more efficiant, more effective, intelligent alternative of what exactly?

xsecx
08-11-2009, 08:20 AM
well, i didn't want you to step outside of your paradigm, rather use it how you telling others to do.. forget morality (for now, i'll come back to it later)... you seem to like having everything supported by facts that prove you're right.. i just want to hear, what facts make you think you can take an animal an harm it or kill it for your (very uncertain) profit throught testing your own inventions on it...


I just told you, you just didn't like the answer.



"legal and practiced" - that has nothing to do with it.. oh wait, i'm wrong.. that's where individual morality takes place.. where would have been India, if Gandhi wouldn't use morality.. occupation of his peoples' territory was both legal and practiced.. segregation in US was both legal and practiced.. beating women was once legal and practiced.. it is fucking legal and practiced in some countries even now.. i'm not saying the facts don't have their weight.. they certainly do.. but all this changes (and that list could be very long) started with someone thinking or saying: "this is bad"...


well no, it has everything to do with it. What gives you the right to do anything? The bad things in the world, if they're allowed in that place, the people doing them have the right. You may disagree with something like abortion, but that doesn't give you the right to stop someone from doing it. You think it's bad, most people think it's good, so what right do you have to stop it? How is your opinion more valid that someone elses? Why do you have the right to direct action, but the people you're acting against don't even though what you're doing is illegal and what they're doing is legal and accepted?

straightXed
08-11-2009, 08:24 AM
Also, why is everything to you focused on an "end result". If that is so, then criminals aren't doing anything bad either in your eyes. Robbers are getting money as the end result, but the middle part, ya know where they put a gun to someones face and demand money, that part doesn't matter, the end result does....and thats ok to you? Obviously this is a sarcastic viewpoint, but it proves my point, that just because in the end someone makes out, doesn't mean the whole middle point you have to do, to get to the end result, doesn't matter?

well what is the crimainals motivation and reason? You seem to miss that element of my post, why is that? Besides as a part of society i feel the law is applicable to all and even if you robbed a bank to pay for your ill mothers life saving opperation i would think it was wrong to break the law so you are way off with your analogy anyway. If the society i was part of were to agree upon it being illegal to test on animals then the analogy might have more chance of working but its a legal practice. And i never suggested the middle point didn't matter rather that i believe you should consider the end result and the motivation behind why the middle point occurs before writing it off as barbaric and unintelligent. Because even though loomy has posted that it costs some money and some animals die he too has ignored that the motivation behind it all is to save lives and heal conditions that effect us all, it has made massive advances that neither you or loomy should consistantly want any part of. Hence your renouncement of medicince (which, incidently, i still believe will not be a life long thing). I do still feel that, whilst you obviously are passionate about remaining consistant in that notion, you could be doing more and it makes it rather hard to accept any argument you make when the inconsistancy is right there. Aside from chatting on here, what do you do to support your passionate stance against medicine tested on animals? If i was in a position to take a new drug that had been tested on animals and would potentially help rid me and all man and animals of a life threatening disease, what would your advice to me be?


I just don't get why people could care less about hurting/killing another living being to gain health and life of your own, when the living being did NOTHING to provoke the testing/killing of itself. It didn't attack me, it didn't bother me, it wants nothing to do with me, so why should I go and hurt that animal for my benefit? ....This conversation is making it more and more clear to me, of why becoming vegan is right for me.

I think you mean couldn't care less not could care less but what makes you think it means they are caring less, and what makes you think its about just my own life? This is exactly what you did before, you didn't factor in why they test on animals, its in order to make progress in medicine for everyone, to combat disease that potentially effects everyone and is doing so at an astounding rate, i am not without compassion for any animal but i am able to accept the losses involved in medical testing in the hope we can ultimately save more and more lives year on year.

As well as you becoming vegan you make me think you should follow jainism or something with statements you have made.

xsecx
08-11-2009, 08:35 AM
about 136 billion dollars in US alone a year.. 25 million animals dead... and more than 60% percent of the drugs that past the test on animals will harm or kill a human... yes, this "efficiancy and economy" is making testing unintelligent

and how many lives were saved from those 25 million animal deaths? There have been 25 million deaths to HIV/AIDS alone. So how many lives do you think were extended due to animal testing? How many more people are alive today than wouldn't be, just from HIV/AIDS if testing hadn't been done?

JoeyX
08-11-2009, 02:29 PM
well what is the crimainals motivation and reason? You seem to miss that element of my post, why is that? Besides as a part of society i feel the law is applicable to all and even if you robbed a bank to pay for your ill mothers life saving opperation i would think it was wrong to break the law so you are way off with your analogy anyway. If the society i was part of were to agree upon it being illegal to test on animals then the analogy might have more chance of working but its a legal practice. And i never suggested the middle point didn't matter rather that i believe you should consider the end result and the motivation behind why the middle point occurs before writing it off as barbaric and unintelligent. Because even though loomy has posted that it costs some money and some animals die he too has ignored that the motivation behind it all is to save lives and heal conditions that effect us all, it has made massive advances that neither you or loomy should consistantly want any part of. Hence your renouncement of medicince (which, incidently, i still believe will not be a life long thing). I do still feel that, whilst you obviously are passionate about remaining consistant in that notion, you could be doing more and it makes it rather hard to accept any argument you make when the inconsistancy is right there. Aside from chatting on here, what do you do to support your passionate stance against medicine tested on animals? If i was in a position to take a new drug that had been tested on animals and would potentially help rid me and all man and animals of a life threatening disease, what would your advice to me be?



I think you mean couldn't care less not could care less but what makes you think it means they are caring less, and what makes you think its about just my own life? This is exactly what you did before, you didn't factor in why they test on animals, its in order to make progress in medicine for everyone, to combat disease that potentially effects everyone and is doing so at an astounding rate, i am not without compassion for any animal but i am able to accept the losses involved in medical testing in the hope we can ultimately save more and more lives year on year.

As well as you becoming vegan you make me think you should follow jainism or something with statements you have made.

l0om already proved your theory wrong that just because it is a legal practice it is ok. When in fact, he even showed not everything is ok, just because it is legal. Hitting your wife as he said, was once legal, so if it was legal, would that make it right? Exactly, no. The reason behind it doesn't matter in your eyes, only the end result you seem to care about. The fact that yes IT DOES help humans, I admit that fact, but does that make the process ok and justifiable,...no.

Obviously I do consider the end result. And I agree that they are trying to do good things for humans, but also an end result is the fact they are hurting/killing animals, obviously with little to no care to the animals.

Are you able to accept the losses of 1000's of humans, testing on humans that is, for the benefit of another species? Exactly, your emotions kick in, you say to help all, but why don't we test on ourselves, lets test your mother, my mother, all our families, and more, to help other animals.

If you were to take a new medicine tested on animals, that is your choice. I believe that choice is wrong, but that is your choice. I'm not saying rid every medicine that we have now that has been tested on animals, only for the reason of, it would be a waste to the sacrifice of the animals already been tested on for our own benefit, now even know I know that is wrong, but its better than getting rid of the medicines and saying we killed them for absolutely nothing. But I believe all further medicines should be human tested only, or some way of testing that doesn't involve hurting/killing/ or even simply testing on other animals at all.

straightXed
08-11-2009, 04:23 PM
l0om already proved your theory wrong that just because it is a legal practice it is ok. When in fact, he even showed not everything is ok, just because it is legal. Hitting your wife as he said, was once legal, so if it was legal, would that make it right? Exactly, no.


Ok loomy hasn't proved my theory wrong at all, you are trying to compare criminal activity with non criminal activity. I asked you questions about the motivation of the criminal...you ignored them. I would love to see what the argument for wife beating being legal versus animal testing being legal...it certainly seems like a really non comparative analogy.



The reason behind it doesn't matter in your eyes, only the end result you seem to care about.

You say the reason behind it doesn't matter in my eyes, when clearly it does, clearly i have been saying the reson we test on animals is of huge importance, that reason does also happen to be the end result so i really am unsure as to what issue you are raising there.



The fact that yes IT DOES help humans, I admit that fact, but does that make the process ok and justifiable,...no.

It helps animals too, its not just humans. And actually yes, it does justify the loss but i understand that you would rather we didn't use animals but allow more suffering of humans and animals on a greater scale until there is an alternative.




Obviously I do consider the end result. And I agree that they are trying to do good things for humans, but also an end result is the fact they are hurting/killing animals, obviously with little to no care to the animals.

Thats not true, its not just humans that benifit.


Are you able to accept the losses of 1000's of humans, testing on humans that is, for the benefit of another species? Exactly, your emotions kick in, you say to help all, but why don't we test on ourselves, lets test your mother, my mother, all our families, and more, to help other animals.

You realise you are saying this to someone who would happily eat an animal, would kill and skin an animal as a food source. What makes it hard for you to believe that i would not want an animal to be used to advance midicinal help? I'm not in contrast with my beliefs, i don't hate animals but i do see the positives in using them for food and for medicine. I would not suggest using my mother to test on now but i would happily donate her body after her death to medical science...there is a shortage cadavers for this use unfortunately. This is going back to you thinking animals are equal to humans when they just simply aren't, throughout the ages we have used animals to advance our race, as our food, our clothing, to begin and continue farming, as transport, law enforcment, as pets, as huge aids in medicine and so on. You disagree in all the advances that animals have played a part in and you disagree with humans using animals as sources that they can use. I wish you well in living in accordance with this but its really like saying you are in a comfortable postion now but want to disown all these advances and live like the race would have done if had had never used an animal for its own ends. But by the way, you would have made a better argument if you had suggested using humans sentanced to death instead of suggesting the use of my mother.


If you were to take a new medicine tested on animals, that is your choice. I believe that choice is wrong, but that is your choice.

So you would advise against the use of a breakthrough drugs that cure cancer or aids, you personally wouldn't take it and think those that do would be wrong to.



I'm not saying rid every medicine that we have now that has been tested on animals, only for the reason of, it would be a waste to the sacrifice of the animals already been tested on for our own benefit, now even know I know that is wrong, but its better than getting rid of the medicines and saying we killed them for absolutely nothing. But I believe all further medicines should be human tested only, or some way of testing that doesn't involve hurting/killing/ or even simply testing on other animals at all.



So say next week a cure for cancer is found through animal testing and in 10 years time you get cancer, do you not take the medicine or do you for go your stance of anti medicine and your stance that medicine should only be tested on humans? If you are happy to reconcile with the usage of animals in the past you should know that everything becomes the past. Where would you draw the line?

Your last sentance shows the emotion you hold here, you want testing without hurting...i think if this were possible we would all love that, it would be completely ideal but so unlikely right now. But don't be fooled into thinking just because i support the use of animals right now that i wouldn't want it to be synonamous with your idealic image. That is of course you focussing on what could perhaps be an end result of the "barbaric" nature of medicine, if you look at medicine through the ages old practices will always seem more barbaric, we have continued to advance and we may one day advance to a point you can feel comfortable with but obviously right now the harsh reality of how things are done is too much for you...i am sorry that you feel like that, it must be hard for you.

xsecx
08-11-2009, 04:24 PM
l0om already proved your theory wrong that just because it is a legal practice it is ok. When in fact, he even showed not everything is ok, just because it is legal. Hitting your wife as he said, was once legal, so if it was legal, would that make it right? Exactly, no. The reason behind it doesn't matter in your eyes, only the end result you seem to care about. The fact that yes IT DOES help humans, I admit that fact, but does that make the process ok and justifiable,...no.


he didn't prove anything. Just because you think something isn't ok doesn't really matter. You live in a society are an governed by their laws. Saying, I don't think it's ok, is just your opinion, that doesn't prove that it's wrong. It just proves that YOU think it's wrong. The fact that most people think it's ok and justifiable, means that it is. That's how right and wrong are determined within a society.

JoeyX
08-11-2009, 06:34 PM
he didn't prove anything. Just because you think something isn't ok doesn't really matter. You live in a society are an governed by their laws. Saying, I don't think it's ok, is just your opinion, that doesn't prove that it's wrong. It just proves that YOU think it's wrong. The fact that most people think it's ok and justifiable, means that it is. That's how right and wrong are determined within a society.

and just because you think something IS ok, doesn't really matter either.

I don't think the end result justifies an animal being hurt. That is my end opinion, the end.

xsecx
08-11-2009, 08:10 PM
and just because you think something IS ok, doesn't really matter either.

I don't think the end result justifies an animal being hurt. That is my end opinion, the end.

Yeah, but if it's accepted, it means that people have the right to do it, so in that sense, it actually does matter. The question was "what gives you the right", so how else to do you decide who has what rights?

JoeyX
08-11-2009, 08:24 PM
Yeah, but if it's accepted, it means that people have the right to do it, so in that sense, it actually does matter. The question was "what gives you the right", so how else to do you decide who has what rights?

You mean right and wrong as in the ability to do it. Yes they have the right in the legal sense, but do other than the law making it ok, it is still wrong. To me it is wrong that it is legal. It is legal to be a racist, does that make it right? We all have the right to do anything, we all have the right to be murderers if we want, does that make it "right", does that make it ok? Does that make it a good decision? No.

I'm going to say this very blatantly, I DO NOT CARE if it helps humans and/or animals, because for the millions dying for the cause of their help, have no reason to die. Simple as that, if you are so serious about sacrificing animals for testing, then why don't you sacrifice yourself for the cause too, be tested on for the health benefit for animals and humans, or would that be a problem? I mean it would be for a good cause right? Nooo, can't do that....lets just do it on animals, cause in the end it will help them. makes no sense to me.

xsecx
08-11-2009, 08:33 PM
You mean right and wrong as in the ability to do it. Yes they have the right in the legal sense, but do other than the law making it ok, it is still wrong. To me it is wrong that it is legal. It is legal to be a racist, does that make it right? We all have the right to do anything, we all have the right to be murderers if we want, does that make it "right", does that make it ok? Does that make it a good decision? No.


No, see that's the point you keep missing. it's wrong to YOU. You don't really have the ability to decide what's right or wrong for anyone else. The majority of people in this world think it's acceptable. You saying something is wrong doesn't make it so.

and no, you don't have the right to be a murder. This society believes it's wrong, so it's illegal. And actually, there are many cases where being racist is illegal.



I'm going to say this very blatantly, I DO NOT CARE if it helps humans and/or animals, because for the millions dying for the cause of their help, have no reason to die. Simple as that, if you are so serious about sacrificing animals for testing, then why don't you sacrifice yourself for the cause too, be tested on for the health benefit for animals and humans, or would that be a problem? I mean it would be for a good cause right? Nooo, can't do that....lets just do it on animals, cause in the end it will help them. makes no sense to me.

And you think you can call anyone else cold hearted? Why would/should a person who doesn't agree with your mindset want to sacrifice themselves when there's no reason to? I'd really like to understand why you wouldn't encourage your mother to take part in drug tests, even though it could be fatal? Would you take part, especially in early trials where it's very possible that you'll die?

JoeyX
08-11-2009, 08:42 PM
No, see that's the point you keep missing. it's wrong to YOU. You don't really have the ability to decide what's right or wrong for anyone else. The majority of people in this world think it's acceptable. You saying something is wrong doesn't make it so.

and no, you don't have the right to be a murder. This society believes it's wrong, so it's illegal. And actually, there are many cases where being racist is illegal.



And you think you can call anyone else cold hearted? Why would/should a person who doesn't agree with your mindset want to sacrifice themselves when there's no reason to? I'd really like to understand why you wouldn't encourage your mother to take part in drug tests, even though it could be fatal? Would you take part, especially in early trials where it's very possible that you'll die?

Yes it is wrong to me. Just as l0om said it is wrong to beat your wife, but that was once acceptable. All it takes is for someone to believe it is wrong to THEM(me), and to start making a difference by becoming vegan, becoming an activist, etc. Year after year, more and more people are becoming vegan, and in this world that is "health" crazy, it won't surprise me that within the next couple of centuries, vegan will be the normal lifestyle, and eating meat will be close to obsolete.

The only people that will still eat meat, it thick skulled, close minded people, who think "meat is the way to go, cause my granddaddy said so", and people who still think they are "superior" to other animals.

Do you agree the saying that "if every bee in the world was to vanish, man would have less than 5(or some odd)years left to live". Thats my point, I believe that, even if it is somewhat not completely true(fact wise), the ideal of it is, that we need other animals to live, and not by eating them or testing on them. We need animals for natural things in life, example: pollination, plants, air.

But I don't believe in fucking with them.

Just because something is a law, doesn't make it right. Otherwise you are stating that if you lived in the time period where it was LEGAL to beat your wife, you would've beaten your wife.

xsecx
08-11-2009, 08:54 PM
Yes it is wrong to me. Just as l0om said it is wrong to beat your wife, but that was once acceptable. All it takes is for someone to believe it is wrong to THEM(me), and to start making a difference by becoming vegan, becoming an activist, etc. Year after year, more and more people are becoming vegan, and in this world that is "health" crazy, it won't surprise me that within the next couple of centuries, vegan will be the normal lifestyle, and eating meat will be close to obsolete.

The only people that will still eat meat, it thick skulled, close minded people, who think "meat is the way to go, cause my granddaddy said so", and people who still think they are "superior" to other animals.



sure and then it will be right, but right now, that's now how the world is, so to try and discuss it like there's some kind of universal acceptance just simply isn't true. In the world you're living in, you have to come to terms with the fact that your belief that something is wrong, doesn't mean that it is. But this rant doesn't really have anything to do with what I said. If you you're going to talk about what gives someone the right to do something, then explain to me what you're using to decide that? I've explained why I think I have the right to do certain things, but you've seem to ignore the question and just gone on some weird emotional rant that doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.




Do you agree the saying that "if every bee in the world was to vanish, man would have less than 5(or some odd)years left to live". Thats my point, I believe that, even if it is somewhat not completely true(fact wise), the ideal of it is, that we need other animals to live, and not by eating them or testing on them. We need animals for natural things in life, example: pollination, plants, air.

But I don't believe in fucking with them.


Yes, but there's nothing natural about how bees are used to pollinate crops and certainly isn't vegan. Packing colonies up in trucks and driving them around the country is somehow natural to you? But uh, what does that have to do with what we're talking about?



Just because something is a law, doesn't make it right. Otherwise you are stating that if you lived in the time period where it was LEGAL to beat your wife, you would've beaten your wife.

Uh. the law is a representation of what a society believes. What do you think the law is? Things that are legal are right, things that are illegal are wrong. As are most things in life, they're fluid. Things that were right at one point in time doesn't mean they always will. how do you decide and then enforce what's right or wrong? Or does what you think simply overrides that of EVERYONE else because you THINK you're right?

JoeyX
08-11-2009, 09:03 PM
sure and then it will be right, but right now, that's now how the world is, so to try and discuss it like there's some kind of universal acceptance just simply isn't true. In the world you're living in, you have to come to terms with the fact that your belief that something is wrong, doesn't mean that it is. But this rant doesn't really have anything to do with what I said. If you you're going to talk about what gives someone the right to do something, then explain to me what you're using to decide that? I've explained why I think I have the right to do certain things, but you've seem to ignore the question and just gone on some weird emotional rant that doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.




Yes, but there's nothing natural about how bees are used to pollinate crops and certainly isn't vegan. Packing colonies up in trucks and driving them around the country is somehow natural to you? But uh, what does that have to do with what we're talking about?



Uh. the law is a representation of what a society believes. What do you think the law is? Things that are legal are right, things that are illegal are wrong. As are most things in life, they're fluid. Things that were right at one point in time doesn't mean they always will. how do you decide and then enforce what's right or wrong? Or does what you think simply overrides that of EVERYONE else because you THINK you're right?

So you decide everything in your life you believe, on the law? You don't go, well that law is fucked up and I don't think that is right? Ever. You always do what "society" thinks is right? I wouldn't think you do, because you are straight edge, it is the given right by LAW to drink, but you choose not, why? Because you think it is wrong,....right?

So yeah, my opinion does run off of my emotion, just as the emotion that hitting women is wrong. Its not a "fact" that hitting women is wrong, its an emotional feeling/thought that makes hitting women wrong.

I'm not talking about packing bees up and using them. I'm talking about the natural life of a bee and pollination. I think it is wrong to do anything with an animal, like I have said before.

I'm not saying its necessarily universally accepted, but more and more people everyday are accepting the EMOTIONAL feeling that it is wrong to test/kill animals like we do. Such as the emotional feeling came about with hitting women, and now it is illegal. Someone didn't just wake up one day, without any emotion and go "HITTING WOMEN IS WRONG"(now I do obviously think it is completely wrong), but what makes it wrong? the fact that a girl isn't a guy? the fact that a girl has breasts? what makes it any different than hitting a man? exactly, emotion. So yes, I do run a lot if not all of my opinions on my emotions.

JoeyX
08-11-2009, 09:08 PM
well what is the crimainals motivation and reason? You seem to miss that element of my post, why is that? Besides as a part of society i feel the law is applicable to all and even if you robbed a bank to pay for your ill mothers life saving opperation i would think it was wrong to break the law so you are way off with your analogy anyway. If the society i was part of were to agree upon it being illegal to test on animals then the analogy might have more chance of working but its a legal practice. And i never suggested the middle point didn't matter rather that i believe you should consider the end result and the motivation behind why the middle point occurs before writing it off as barbaric and unintelligent. Because even though loomy has posted that it costs some money and some animals die he too has ignored that the motivation behind it all is to save lives and heal conditions that effect us all, it has made massive advances that neither you or loomy should consistantly want any part of. Hence your renouncement of medicince (which, incidently, i still believe will not be a life long thing). I do still feel that, whilst you obviously are passionate about remaining consistant in that notion, you could be doing more and it makes it rather hard to accept any argument you make when the inconsistancy is right there. Aside from chatting on here, what do you do to support your passionate stance against medicine tested on animals? If i was in a position to take a new drug that had been tested on animals and would potentially help rid me and all man and animals of a life threatening disease, what would your advice to me be?



I think you mean couldn't care less not could care less but what makes you think it means they are caring less, and what makes you think its about just my own life? This is exactly what you did before, you didn't factor in why they test on animals, its in order to make progress in medicine for everyone, to combat disease that potentially effects everyone and is doing so at an astounding rate, i am not without compassion for any animal but i am able to accept the losses involved in medical testing in the hope we can ultimately save more and more lives year on year.

As well as you becoming vegan you make me think you should follow jainism or something with statements you have made.

aren't you vegan? isn't being vegan and agreeing that animal testing is ok or a right technique for testing, hypocritical?

xsecx
08-11-2009, 09:20 PM
So you decide everything in your life you believe, on the law? You don't go, well that law is fucked up and I don't think that is right? Ever. You always do what "society" thinks is right? I wouldn't think you do, because you are straight edge, it is the given right by LAW to drink, but you choose not, why? Because you think it is wrong,....right?


If I'm talking about what a person has the right to do, versus what I think is right, then yes it's based on the law, since that's why it's there. You don't seem to understand the difference. I don't have the right to stop someone drinking. I do however have the right to try and influence things so that at some point drinking isn't necessary. I don't have the RIGHT to enforce my personal morality on anyone else, that's what laws are for.




So yeah, my opinion does run off of my emotion, just as the emotion that hitting women is wrong. Its not a "fact" that hitting women is wrong, its an emotional feeling/thought that makes hitting women wrong.


Yeah and that's great for people that agree with you. The problem happens on subjects like there were there isn't agreement. So how do you decide what's right then? Why would your opinion be more important than someone elses?




I'm not talking about packing bees up and using them. I'm talking about the natural life of a bee and pollination. I think it is wrong to do anything with an animal, like I have said before.


How do you think crops get pollinated? Do you really think that there are all these bee colonies local to crops that just make that happen naturally? Dude, I really keep getting the opinion that you spout things that you don't really understand how they work.



I'm not saying its necessarily universally accepted, but more and more people everyday are accepting the EMOTIONAL feeling that it is wrong to test/kill animals like we do. Such as the emotional feeling came about with hitting women, and now it is illegal. Someone didn't just wake up one day, without any emotion and go "HITTING WOMEN IS WRONG"(now I do obviously think it is completely wrong), but what makes it wrong? the fact that a girl isn't a guy? the fact that a girl has breasts? what makes it any different than hitting a man? exactly, emotion. So yes, I do run a lot if not all of my opinions on my emotions.

I like how you take this discussion from something not emotional to something emotional. We're talking about what gives someone the right to think something and you keep focusing on these weird things, like murder, like racism, like wife beatings. Things that no one would disagree at this day and age that it's right. Right now, what you're talking about is choosing human lives over animal lives or choosing animal lives over human. Right now you are choosing animal lives over human lives. I, and most people, think that human lives are more important than animals. you must too on some level since you keep ignoring the question about your mother. Your emotional arguments don't really hold any influence to anyone but you if you can't present them with a well thought out and supported argument. Right now all you have is "I think animals should be left alone and people should figure some other way out and if they don't then they should die, because i said so"

xsecx
08-11-2009, 09:35 PM
aren't you vegan? isn't being vegan and agreeing that animal testing is ok or a right technique for testing, hypocritical?

your reading comprehension sucks.

and griffo is a vegan and has said in this tread that he supports animal testing where necessary.

JoeyX
08-11-2009, 09:43 PM
Thanks for the compliment.

I do not think anybody should die because their opinion. I might think they are wrong, but I don't think they should die because of it. I base my opinion on my feelings, because I do not want nor do I care to look into how it is done, I see it being done, and that is enough for me to hate it. That is enough of a reason for me to think it is wrong. I don't need facts, I don't need numbers, or the law, or a percentage of society and how they feel. I'm saying that I myself think it is wrong, to hurt an animal. I think it would be wrong to test on my mother, I think it would be wrong to test on your mother, I think it would be wrong to test on any living species, and me seeing their suffering is enough for me to make that point. I'm also not forcing my opinion on somebody, however I will easily show my feelings on the situation.

I'm sorry that I'm not educated enough for you to give you all these statistics, or laws. I'm also sorry that I do not care what most of society does and or feels on a situation, because I'd rather live with my own feelings. I'm also sorry that I'm not sorry.

xsecx
08-11-2009, 09:53 PM
I do not think anybody should die because their opinion. I might think they are wrong, but I don't think they should die because of it. I base my opinion on my feelings, because I do not want nor do I care to look into how it is done, I see it being done, and that is enough for me to hate it. That is enough of a reason for me to think it is wrong. I don't need facts, I don't need numbers, or the law, or a percentage of society and how they feel. I'm saying that I myself think it is wrong, to hurt an animal. I think it would be wrong to test on my mother, I think it would be wrong to test on your mother, I think it would be wrong to test on any living species, and me seeing their suffering is enough for me to make that point. I'm also not forcing my opinion on somebody, however I will easily show my feelings on the situation.


That's all fine, except right now, something has to die. It's either going to be animals that are being used for medical testing, or humans that die because the research has been stopped. You being ignorant about how things work means that your opinion is an uninformed on and therefore doesn't hold as much weight as someone who has researched the subject, thought about and come to a conclusion that is supported by facts. You've just basically listed reasons why everyone should dismiss your feelings on the subject because they're not based on anything other than your emotions. You can't even answer why you think it's wrong to test on another species other than "because I feel it's wrong"




I'm sorry that I'm not educated enough for you to give you all these statistics, or laws. I'm also sorry that I do not care what most of society does and or feels on a situation, because I'd rather live with my own feelings. I'm also sorry that I'm not sorry.

You should be sorry that your keep using the word ignorant when it really does apply to yourself. It really shows how much you really care about a subject that you don't even bother researching it to really understand the situation other than a surface understanding of animals die, animals dying bad. animal testing bad. hulk smash.

JoeyX
08-11-2009, 10:04 PM
That's all fine, except right now, something has to die. It's either going to be animals that are being used for medical testing, or humans that die because the research has been stopped. You being ignorant about how things work means that your opinion is an uninformed on and therefore doesn't hold as much weight as someone who has researched the subject, thought about and come to a conclusion that is supported by facts. You've just basically listed reasons why everyone should dismiss your feelings on the subject because they're not based on anything other than your emotions. You can't even answer why you think it's wrong to test on another species other than "because I feel it's wrong"




You should be sorry that your keep using the word ignorant when it really does apply to yourself. It really shows how much you really care about a subject that you don't even bother researching it to really understand the situation other than a surface understanding of animals die, animals dying bad. animal testing bad. hulk smash.

Maybe I should change my name to Hulk Smash.

lo0m
08-12-2009, 12:48 AM
I just told you, you just didn't like the answer.

answering a question with similar questions just to flip the sides is not an answer.. and definitely not the type of answers you seem to like... and also demand on anyone else..


well no, it has everything to do with it. What gives you the right to do anything? The bad things in the world, if they're allowed in that place, the people doing them have the right. You may disagree with something like abortion, but that doesn't give you the right to stop someone from doing it. You think it's bad, most people think it's good, so what right do you have to stop it? How is your opinion more valid that someone elses? Why do you have the right to direct action, but the people you're acting against don't even though what you're doing is illegal and what they're doing is legal and accepted?

this is no argument at all... if something is bad in this world, it's our duty (or a right at minimum) to try to change it and make the world better.. if not - why the hell are we testing on rodents for over 40 years to get a cure for cancer even when we know that rodents do never get membrane affecting cancer (carcinom) like we do most of the time, just bone sarkomas? just to inprison them, exploit them, torture them, kill them? that would be even more twisted than it really is..

i'm not throwing bombs at labs, i don't do direct liberation actions, i'm not even burning circuses, would you believe that? i'm fighting with weapons that everyone is able to use. words. and i didn't dispute your right to have such a different approach on this topic for a second.. i'm not really forcing anyone to do anything except thinking. so the analogy with abortion is reeeally flawed...

lo0m
08-12-2009, 01:55 AM
and how many lives were saved from those 25 million animal deaths? There have been 25 million deaths to HIV/AIDS alone. So how many lives do you think were extended due to animal testing? How many more people are alive today than wouldn't be, just from HIV/AIDS if testing hadn't been done?

HIV and AIDS is not the same thing.. anyway i honestly don't know.. you don't know and anyone else don't know.. what I know, is that more than 90% drugs that passed animal tests are discarded and never hit the market.. what I know is that (despite of what you said) we share only about 2 % of illnesses with other animals.. what I know about are 100000 death humans in 1994 due to toxic reaction to drugs that safely passed the animal tests.. is that even possible? yes, of course it is.. if we would count serious side effects, drugs on the market cause harm or even death of humans in more than 60% cases (another study says 4 of 10)... i should propably name some:

Practolol caused about 20 deaths and also caused blindness to more than 90 people after safely passing animal tests...
Opren killed 61 people and caused harm to thousands of others.. but was sucessfully tested on primates
Flosint is proved to be fatal to humans even if it passed the tests on monkeys, dogs and rats.

every year hundreds of thousands are killed worldwide due to prescription drugs. more 2 million hospitalized.. and 80% of stillbirths are due to these drugs...so, ok, what about flipping sides:

lemon juice is deadly poisonous according to animal tests (but botulin and arsenic is fine)
at least 50 drugs you can buy cause cancer to animals
if we would rely on animal tests solely, there would be no insulin, ritalin, and even penicilin.. none of these passes animal testing..

and what about thalidomide? thalidomide was a german drug for nightmares and it was declared as a safe sedative even for breastfeeding mothers as it was tested on thousands of animals.. what happened? ten of thousands babies born to mothers using thalidomide were born with dysfunctions and deformations.. and now, when the lucky ones who survived have children, they have the same deformations as their fathers/mothers..

so is it justifiable to kill 25 million animals A YEAR(!) to have results with this accuracy? wouldn't be wiser and safer for both humans and animals to use those 136 billions a year to try to develop a human body simulation than to keep injecting our own diseases to animals that react different or don't "catch" the disease at all?

or what about prevention? we're on sxe forum and we all realize that when you smoke for years, you'll have lung cancer some day (so why we're regularely testing cigs?).. this is also valid for many other diseases (not saying that for all even when some reports say that) - healthy lifestyle and prevention is the best "cure".

straightXed
08-12-2009, 05:07 AM
aren't you vegan? isn't being vegan and agreeing that animal testing is ok or a right technique for testing, hypocritical?

Ok, you obviously missed my last post, when you address it you will see that i am clearly not vegan. I personally try to have consistancy with my actions and beliefs.

straightXed
08-12-2009, 05:16 AM
Yes it is wrong to me. Just as l0om said it is wrong to beat your wife, but that was once acceptable. All it takes is for someone to believe it is wrong to THEM(me), and to start making a difference by becoming vegan, becoming an activist, etc. Year after year, more and more people are becoming vegan, and in this world that is "health" crazy, it won't surprise me that within the next couple of centuries, vegan will be the normal lifestyle, and eating meat will be close to obsolete.

Odd seeing as meat sales are up despite a recession...but then i am "health crazy" and eat meat which might be where a flaw lies in your theory.

But i did ask in an earlier post what action you actually take to coincide with your views...you mention activism and veganism, could you give more background on this in relation to you?


The only people that will still eat meat, it thick skulled, close minded people, who think "meat is the way to go, cause my granddaddy said so", and people who still think they are "superior" to other animals.

Do you believe that eating meat is honestly about being thick skulled? In your world view is there simply no superiority or do you believe that a righteous vegan human is superior to a meat eating one? Because i am unsure from this statement.

straightXed
08-12-2009, 05:31 AM
So you decide everything in your life you believe, on the law? You don't go, well that law is fucked up and I don't think that is right? Ever. You always do what "society" thinks is right? I wouldn't think you do, because you are straight edge, it is the given right by LAW to drink, but you choose not, why? Because you think it is wrong,....right?

I personally accept that the law allows drinking but it is not mandatory, i don't find a need to and find the idea quite pointless but i am part of society and the law represents us as a whole. Straightedge is considerably minor and for the law to reflect straightedge and outlaw drinking would infringe upon masses and only compliment a minority...that is not really helpful. You and your belief is that of a minority, most people support testing...there are many who think its cruel but think the advance in medicine makes it justifiable. Then theres you who shuns medicine altogether, quite a minority really.


So yeah, my opinion does run off of my emotion, just as the emotion that hitting women is wrong. Its not a "fact" that hitting women is wrong, its an emotional feeling/thought that makes hitting women wrong.

Actually, legally speaking, it is a fact that it is wrong to hit someone.



I'm not saying its necessarily universally accepted, but more and more people everyday are accepting the EMOTIONAL feeling that it is wrong to test/kill animals like we do.

Many balance out the emotion with the fact it is being used to further advance medicine.



Such as the emotional feeling came about with hitting women, and now it is illegal. Someone didn't just wake up one day, without any emotion and go "HITTING WOMEN IS WRONG"(now I do obviously think it is completely wrong), but what makes it wrong? the fact that a girl isn't a guy? the fact that a girl has breasts? what makes it any different than hitting a man? exactly, emotion. So yes, I do run a lot if not all of my opinions on my emotions.

Difference is there really doesn't seem to be an argument that much good comes from hitting a woman, hence me asking for the arguments for and against both wife beating and animal testing because one has positves as an end result and the other generally doesn't. I am aware the end result matters little to you and that medicine is not very important to you as you do not partake but i am hoping you can see it from a more objective standpoint.

xsecx
08-12-2009, 06:16 AM
answering a question with similar questions just to flip the sides is not an answer.. and definitely not the type of answers you seem to like... and also demand on anyone else..

I told you what gave me the right, you just didn't like it. I also asked what you think gave you the right, which you apparently still can't answer.



this is no argument at all... if something is bad in this world, it's our duty (or a right at minimum) to try to change it and make the world better.. if not - why the hell are we testing on rodents for over 40 years to get a cure for cancer even when we know that rodents do never get membrane affecting cancer (carcinom) like we do most of the time, just bone sarkomas? just to inprison them, exploit them, torture them, kill them? that would be even more twisted than it really is..


which is great, when everyone is in agreement about what makes something bad. Like for instance, right now, I and others here think your viewpoint would actually make the world a worse place. You somehow think that your personal morality is the universally right one, when most people don't agree with you.



i'm not throwing bombs at labs, i don't do direct liberation actions, i'm not even burning circuses, would you believe that? i'm fighting with weapons that everyone is able to use. words. and i didn't dispute your right to have such a different approach on this topic for a second.. i'm not really forcing anyone to do anything except thinking. so the analogy with abortion is reeeally flawed...

but you support direct action, so it's not flawed at all. You're not against direct action. you wouldn't try and talk someone out it, and I'm sure you've done thing that support organizations that do it. Or are you going to take back what you said in the militant thread? And if you could, please answer specifically the following questions:

You think it's bad, most people think it's good, so what right do you have to stop it? How is your opinion more valid that someone elses? Why do you have the right to direct action, but the people you're acting against don't even though what you're doing is illegal and what they're doing is legal and accepted

xsecx
08-12-2009, 06:32 AM
HIV and AIDS is not the same thing.. anyway i honestly don't know.. you don't know and anyone else don't know.. what I know, is that more than 90% drugs that passed animal tests are discarded and never hit the market.. what I know is that (despite of what you said) we share only about 2 % of illnesses with other animals.. what I know about are 100000 death humans in 1994 due to toxic reaction to drugs that safely passed the animal tests.. is that even possible? yes, of course it is.. if we would count serious side effects, drugs on the market cause harm or even death of humans in more than 60% cases (another study says 4 of 10)... i should propably name some:


One is the earlier stage of the other. And yet, you feel the need to state that but don't actually address the point. You completely dodge the point. So here's some things that are known:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN2430954320080725

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701190435.htm

just look at the death rates from measels, mumps, polio, and tb since vaccines were created.

And you're going to tell me that the number of lives effected are somehow unknown? It's not that they're unknown, they're just way more numerous than you'd like to think about because it shoots your argument to shit.



Practolol caused about 20 deaths and also caused blindness to more than 90 people after safely passing animal tests...
Opren killed 61 people and caused harm to thousands of others.. but was sucessfully tested on primates
Flosint is proved to be fatal to humans even if it passed the tests on monkeys, dogs and rats.

every year hundreds of thousands are killed worldwide due to prescription drugs. more 2 million hospitalized.. and 80% of stillbirths are due to these drugs...so, ok, what about flipping sides:

lemon juice is deadly poisonous according to animal tests (but botulin and arsenic is fine)
at least 50 drugs you can buy cause cancer to animals
if we would rely on animal tests solely, there would be no insulin, ritalin, and even penicilin.. none of these passes animal testing..

and what about thalidomide? thalidomide was a german drug for nightmares and it was declared as a safe sedative even for breastfeeding mothers as it was tested on thousands of animals.. what happened? ten of thousands babies born to mothers using thalidomide were born with dysfunctions and deformations.. and now, when the lucky ones who survived have children, they have the same deformations as their fathers/mothers..

so is it justifiable to kill 25 million animals A YEAR(!) to have results with this accuracy? wouldn't be wiser and safer for both humans and animals to use those 136 billions a year to try to develop a human body simulation than to keep injecting our own diseases to animals that react different or don't "catch" the disease at all?


You want an honest answer? I don't know. I'm not a scientist. I do however know that a lot of them are an awful lot smarter than you and me. I also know that there aren't exactly a load of scientists who are against animal testing for medical research. So, what makes you more qualified than them? Don't you think if they thought there was a better way, they'd use it? Also, why are you in denial that there are other things being done to decrease the number of tests done on animals such as computer modeling?




or what about prevention? we're on sxe forum and we all realize that when you smoke for years, you'll have lung cancer some day (so why we're regularely testing cigs?).. this is also valid for many other diseases (not saying that for all even when some reports say that) - healthy lifestyle and prevention is the best "cure".

And an awful lot of things can't be prevented, especially when you don't know the causes. And how do you learn the causes? Research. It's fun circle, isn't it.

lo0m
08-12-2009, 06:37 AM
I told you what gave me the right, you just didn't like it. I also asked what you think gave you the right, which you apparently still can't answer.

so you're stating that what gives you the right is the fact that it's "legal and practiced"? are you serious? and what gave me the right to openly disagree with this legal practice? morals and - legality of having an opinion (i wouldn't count that myself, but if it's good reason for you..)..



which is great, when everyone is in agreement about what makes something bad. Like for instance, right now, I and others here think your viewpoint would actually make the world a worse place. You somehow think that your personal morality is the universally right one, when most people don't agree with you.

so you don't agree with me that it would be good to have world with fewer suffering?
well, so human rights activists that worked against racism in the South were bad, because their sense of morality was different than the one of local inhabitans?
also i don't (and many people) agree that animal testing is good. So not everyone is in agreement..



but you support direct action, so it's not flawed at all. You're not against direct action. you wouldn't try and talk someone out it, and I'm sure you've done thing that support organizations that do it. Or are you going to take back what you said in the militant thread? And if you could, please answer specifically the following questions:

abortion and people's stance on it is totally different topic than this one.. it involves different problems, different logic and most of all - people propably do count the objects will to do what she wants..
also, direct action is not one type of doing.. it may involve anything between freeing animals (which i agree with) and bombing a fur shop full of people (which i'm of course strickly against).. you said it like: "you like military so you agree with torturing of troops".. that is demagogic



You think it's bad, most people think it's good, so what right do you have to stop it? How is your opinion more valid that someone elses? Why do you have the right to direct action, but the people you're acting against don't even though what you're doing is illegal and what they're doing is legal and accepted

if i would think, that i have the right to stop it, i would involve myself in some horrible things.. i don't.. but i know that i have the right to say and defend my opinion...

xsecx
08-12-2009, 06:45 AM
so you're stating that what gives you the right is the fact that it's "legal and practiced"? are you serious? and what gave me the right to openly disagree with this legal practice? morals and - legality of having an opinion (i wouldn't count that myself, but if it's good reason for you..)..

Well, how else are rights decided? Your morality doesn't really matter outside of you. So when you're trying to justify something to someone else, you kind of have to have something better than "because I feel it". Rights are granted by the individual, they're granted by the state. Do you seriously not understand this concept or do you just believe that you can do whatever you want because your morality tells you that it's ok?



so you don't agree with me that it would be good to have world with fewer suffering?
well, so human rights activists that worked against racism in the South were bad, because their sense of morality was different than the one of local inhabitans?
also i don't (and many people) agree that animal testing is good. So not everyone is in agreement..

Yes except that your way would lead to a world with more suffering. And the majority of people on earth believe that it would lead to more suffering, so what then? When do your morals supersede those of everyone else? You also seem fixated on bringing up the past and using analogies that don't make sense. In the south, it was a minority of people that felt that way, and that's why it was changed. Abortion is a much better analogy, especially since there are many places now that it's still illegal and viewed as wrong.



abortion and people's stance on it is totally different topic than this one.. it involves different problems, different logic and most of all - people propably do count the objects will to do what she wants..


saying it's totally different is great, but how? Both sides think they're right. Both sides think that there way would lead to less suffering.



also, direct action is not one type of doing.. it may involve anything between freeing animals (which i agree with) and bombing a fur shop full of people (which i'm of course strickly against).. you said it like: "you like military so you agree with torturing of troops".. that is demagogic


And freeing animals would stop testing. Therefore you're enforcing your will on others and aren't just using your voice. So which is it? You're not just stating your opinion, you're acting on it.





if i would think, that i have the right to stop it, i would involve myself in some horrible things.. i don't.. but i know that i have the right to say and defend my opinion...

But you just said you support direct action to stop it?

lo0m
08-12-2009, 06:51 AM
One is the earlier stage of the other. And yet, you feel the need to state that but don't actually address the point. You completely dodge the point. So here's some things that are known:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN2430954320080725

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080701190435.htm

just look at the death rates from measels, mumps, polio, and tb since vaccines were created. And you're going to tell me that the number of lives effected are somehow unknown? It's not that they're unknown, they're just way more numerous than you'd like to think about because it shoots your argument to shit.

ok, these are some numbers.. but you cannot predict a number that is dependent on a) number of diseases, b) number of people in the world, c) how many would have the disease if the disease wouldn't be cured, d) if there would be another cures if we would change the medicine sciences towards more crueltyfree practices, etc etc.. this so HUGE mathematical problem that it cannot be solved.. too many argument, too many variables and too many intradependencies.. so - as i stated - i don't know and NOONE knows...




You want an honest answer? I don't know. I'm not a scientist. I do however know that a lot of them are an awful lot smarter than you and me. I also know that there aren't exactly a load of scientists who are against animal testing for medical research. So, what makes you more qualified than them? Don't you think if they thought there was a better way, they'd use it? Also, why are you in denial that there are other things being done to decrease the number of tests done on animals such as computer modeling?

yes, there are always smarter people around.. in every field.. German society of sciences actually asked doctors why are animal tests co flawed.. 88% of them answered that it's because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans.. that's a huge number and somehow convincing for me.. the percentage would be lower if they would ask researchers, that is for sure.. they just get used to it.. as the people working in slaughterhouses.. and i'm not saying there aren't alternatives.. they are more than 500 of them...



And an awful lot of things can't be prevented, especially when you don't know the causes. And how do you learn the causes? Research. It's fun circle, isn't it.
1) there is a big debate in scientific field about what can be prevented so i won't step into this
2) yes, research!! but if you don't want to expierence a disease then letting some other being suffer the same disease is not a research... that is cruelty

lo0m
08-12-2009, 07:01 AM
Well, how else are rights decided? Your morality doesn't really matter outside of you. So when you're trying to justify something to someone else, you kind of have to have something better than "because I feel it". Rights are granted by the individual, they're granted by the state. Do you seriously not understand this concept or do you just believe that you can do whatever you want because your morality tells you that it's ok?

did you ever heard about civil disobedience??



Yes except that your way would lead to a world with more suffering. And the majority of people on earth believe that it would lead to more suffering, so what then? When do your morals supersede those of everyone else? You also seem fixated on bringing up the past and using analogies that don't make sense. In the south, it was a minority of people that felt that way, and that's why it was changed. Abortion is a much better analogy, especially since there are many places now that it's still illegal and viewed as wrong.

in the south, it was both legal and practiced.. that was your argument.. so now we're counting votes to match you argument.. hey, we've just discovered democracy..




saying it's totally different is great, but how? Both sides think they're right. Both sides think that there way would lead to less suffering.


yeah, but animal rights is about those who care vs. those who don't care.. in abortion debate everyone cares they just have different approach based on morality, reasoning and religion.. so, BOTH sides are acting upon their morality.. does this make that debate unreasonable?



And freeing animals would stop testing. Therefore you're enforcing your will on others and aren't just using your voice. So which is it? You're not just stating your opinion, you're acting on it.


i'm not, but if i'd free some animals, it's saving life.. what about freeing a slave? is that bad? what about freeing tortured child. is that bad?

xsecx
08-12-2009, 07:04 AM
ok, these are some numbers.. but you cannot predict a number that is dependent on a) number of diseases, b) number of people in the world, c) how many would have the disease if the disease wouldn't be cured, d) if there would be another cures if we would change the medicine sciences towards more crueltyfree practices, etc etc.. this so HUGE mathematical problem that it cannot be solved.. too many argument, too many variables and too many intradependencies.. so - as i stated - i don't know and NOONE knows...

Sure you can, that's how trending works. Otherwise you're saying nothing can be predicted ever. There is hard data that shows how many lives were saved and/or made better due to that research. You just want to ignore it because it goes against what you believe.



yes, there are always smarter people around.. in every field.. German society of sciences actually asked doctors why are animal tests co flawed.. 88% of them answered that it's because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans.. that's a huge number and somehow convincing for me.. the percentage would be lower if they would ask researchers, that is for sure.. they just get used to it.. as the people working in slaughterhouses.. and i'm not saying there aren't alternatives.. they are more than 500 of them...


Then why are you against animal testing in the meantime until those alternatives make sense? Why are you for the suffering of millions of people each year? Are you seriously in denial of the positives that animal based research have led to?



1) there is a big debate in scientific field about what can be prevented so i won't step into this
2) yes, research!! but if you don't want to expierence a disease then letting some other being suffer the same disease is not a research... that is cruelty

Well no, it may be cruel, but it's still research. How do you expect research to be done then?

xsecx
08-12-2009, 07:13 AM
did you ever heard about civil disobedience??

Sure, but that doesn't really answer the question. I keep asking it, you keep ignoring it.
Well, how else are rights decided? At what point is your morality THE morality and that everyone should just follow what you think, because you think it?



in the south, it was both legal and practiced.. that was your argument.. so now we're counting votes to match you argument.. hey, we've just discovered democracy..


Any time you want to address the first part of that paragraph would be great. But yes, at the time, the people were acting within their rights. Are you going to somehow argue that they weren't? People didn't like it, worked together and things changed and now they don't have that right anymore.




yeah, but animal rights is about those who care vs. those who don't care.. in abortion debate everyone cares they just have different approach based on morality, reasoning and religion.. so, BOTH sides are acting upon their morality.. does this make that debate unreasonable?


See this is where you thinking is completely fucked up and your supposed moral superiority shines through. Do you seriously think that people who are for animal animal testing don't care? That they're not acting upon their morality? If you can't see the parallels you're delusional.



i'm not, but if i'd free some animals, it's saving life.. what about freeing a slave? is that bad? what about freeing tortured child. is that bad?

You are. It's saving one life and endangering many more. If direct action isn't enforcing your will, what is it?

And again, you're trying to draw parallels to shit that doesn't make sense. In your mind they're the same, to the VAST majority of people on this planet they aren't. They're not seeing the test subjects are slaves or equals. They're seeing them as a means to an end. And that end is the reduction of human suffering.

lo0m
08-12-2009, 07:22 AM
Sure you can, that's how trending works. Otherwise you're saying nothing can be predicted ever. There is hard data that shows how many lives were saved and/or made better due to that research. You just want to ignore it because it goes against what you believe.

other predictions are based on a lot smaller mathematical models and still don't work.. be it economics, weather, or fertility rate... there is always a BIG portion of pure propability, which has in strict statistic sense no value



Then why are you against animal testing in the meantime until those alternatives make sense? Why are you for the suffering of millions of people each year? Are you seriously in denial of the positives that animal based research have led to?

simply 'cause the suffering of people is more natural than invasive research performed on animals.. and we have cures for many diseases already tested so there would be no millions of death people each year.. i'm not saying that we should discard all of them because their history is a bloodbath.. we should use them.. but change our practice immediately..



Well no, it may be cruel, but it's still research. How do you expect research to be done then?
so even you agree it's cruel? research can be done through modeling, mathematics, chemics, etc etc.. and it is done right now but the law still needs those supported by torturing animals.. that's nonsense and the laws should be revised...

lo0m
08-12-2009, 07:26 AM
Sure, but that doesn't really answer the question. I keep asking it, you keep ignoring it.


did you answer this?
you don't know and anyone else don't know.. what I know, is that more than 90% drugs that passed animal tests are discarded and never hit the market.. what I know is that (despite of what you said) we share only about 2 % of illnesses with other animals.. what I know about are 100000 death humans in 1994 due to toxic reaction to drugs that safely passed the animal tests.. is that even possible? yes, of course it is.. if we would count serious side effects, drugs on the market cause harm or even death of humans in more than 60% cases (another study says 4 of 10)... i should propably name some:

Practolol caused about 20 deaths and also caused blindness to more than 90 people after safely passing animal tests...
Opren killed 61 people and caused harm to thousands of others.. but was sucessfully tested on primates
Flosint is proved to be fatal to humans even if it passed the tests on monkeys, dogs and rats.

every year hundreds of thousands are killed worldwide due to prescription drugs. more 2 million hospitalized.. and 80% of stillbirths are due to these drugs...so, ok, what about flipping sides:

lemon juice is deadly poisonous according to animal tests (but botulin and arsenic is fine)
at least 50 drugs you can buy cause cancer to animals
if we would rely on animal tests solely, there would be no insulin, ritalin, and even penicilin.. none of these passes animal testing..

and what about thalidomide? thalidomide was a german drug for nightmares and it was declared as a safe sedative even for breastfeeding mothers as it was tested on thousands of animals.. what happened? ten of thousands babies born to mothers using thalidomide were born with dysfunctions and deformations.. and now, when the lucky ones who survived have children, they have the same deformations as their fathers/mothers..
no, you didn't and yet you want me to answer the question that i've asked you first?

xsecx
08-12-2009, 07:46 AM
other predictions are based on a lot smaller mathematical models and still don't work.. be it economics, weather, or fertility rate... there is always a BIG portion of pure propability, which has in strict statistic sense no value


So you're saying that no attempt at prediction should be made? That historical data and trends don't actually mean anything when trying to predict the continuation in those same trends?



simply 'cause the suffering of people is more natural than invasive research performed on animals.. and we have cures for many diseases already tested so there would be no millions of death people each year.. i'm not saying that we should discard all of them because their history is a bloodbath.. we should use them.. but change our practice immediately..

Again, you have the mistaken belief that things don't change and mutate. There's a decent chance that there will be a flu pandemic this fall and a lot of people may die as a result of it. This shit isn't static and if you stop immediately it will leads to deaths, immediately.




so even you agree it's cruel? research can be done through modeling, mathematics, chemics, etc etc.. and it is done right now but the law still needs those supported by torturing animals.. that's nonsense and the laws should be revised...

When did I ever say that it wasn't cruel? I do however believe that it's necessary until science figures out a better way. I'm glad you think it's nonsense, but again, people smarter than you and I don't think it is.

xsecx
08-12-2009, 07:50 AM
did you answer this?
no, you didn't and yet you want me to answer the question that i've asked you first?

go back and read.

You want an honest answer? I don't know. I'm not a scientist. I do however know that a lot of them are an awful lot smarter than you and me. I also know that there aren't exactly a load of scientists who are against animal testing for medical research. So, what makes you more qualified than them? Don't you think if they thought there was a better way, they'd use it? Also, why are you in denial that there are other things being done to decrease the number of tests done on animals such as computer modeling?


Picking out a few examples of how research failed or caused problems in humans doesn't really dismiss all the lives that have been saved.


so yeah. any time you want to go back and address my post, that'd be swell.

lo0m
08-12-2009, 07:55 AM
So you're saying that no attempt at prediction should be made? That historical data and trends don't actually mean anything when trying to predict the continuation in those same trends?

you pick just what you like again? ok.. basically no.. but there's a problem - you place your totally unqualified prediction as fact, scientist are aware that they're predictions are just that..


Again, you have the mistaken belief that things don't change and mutate. There's a decent chance that there will be a flu pandemic this fall and a lot of people may die as a result of it. This shit isn't static and if you stop immediately it will leads to deaths, immediately.

if that would be truth, than none of us would ever be born, cause we would die out throught the middle ages... flu pandemic? you mean the scaremongery in news?



When did I ever say that it wasn't cruel? I do however believe that it's necessary until science figures out a better way. I'm glad you think it's nonsense, but again, people smarter than you and I don't think it is.
there is already a better way.. this whole shit is still happening because of legislation.. so, would you change it? cause that's all i want right now.. that animal tests should not be required by law as scientists know that there are alternatives..

lo0m
08-12-2009, 07:58 AM
go back and read.

You want an honest answer? I don't know. I'm not a scientist. I do however know that a lot of them are an awful lot smarter than you and me. I also know that there aren't exactly a load of scientists who are against animal testing for medical research. So, what makes you more qualified than them? Don't you think if they thought there was a better way, they'd use it? Also, why are you in denial that there are other things being done to decrease the number of tests done on animals such as computer modeling?


Picking out a few examples of how research failed or caused problems in humans doesn't really dismiss all the lives that have been saved.


so yeah. any time you want to go back and address my post, that'd be swell.

no, but it not only proves proves that it's totally unreliable but also it's seriously hurting people.. more than 2 millions hospitalized a year is not a "few examples".. you do value human life, don't you? so why are you supporting practice that also caused many deaths to humans?

if there were questions i didn't answer, feel free to copypaste them here, i'll honestly try to answer them...

xsecx
08-12-2009, 08:19 AM
you pick just what you like again? ok.. basically no.. but there's a problem - you place your totally unqualified prediction as fact, scientist are aware that they're predictions are just that..

Where did I say that? What i did say was that it's the only way to predict what will come and then prepare to deal with it.



if that would be truth, than none of us would ever be born, cause we would die out throught the middle ages... flu pandemic? you mean the scaremongery in news?


yeah dude, because plagues never happened. There have never been periods of time throughout history where illness has been widespread and lead to millions of deaths.



there is already a better way.. this whole shit is still happening because of legislation.. so, would you change it? cause that's all i want right now.. that animal tests should not be required by law as scientists know that there are alternatives..

oh ok. because you say it, it must be true. Where is this happening?

xsecx
08-12-2009, 08:24 AM
no, but it not only proves proves that it's totally unreliable but also it's seriously hurting people.. more than 2 millions hospitalized a year is not a "few examples".. you do value human life, don't you? so why are you supporting practice that also caused many deaths to humans?


you can't look at it in a vaccuum. How many lives were saved? You say that it can't be known so you completely dismiss it. That's just not how the world works. Why do you completely dismiss the positives that have happened and pretend that don't exist?



if there were questions i didn't answer, feel free to copypaste them here, i'll honestly try to answer them...

Well, how else are rights decided? At what point is your morality THE morality and that everyone should just follow what you think, because you think it?

See this is where you thinking is completely fucked up and your supposed moral superiority shines through. Do you seriously think that people who are for animal animal testing don't care? That they're not acting upon their morality? If you can't see the parallels you're delusional.

You are. It's saving one life and endangering many more. If direct action isn't enforcing your will, what is it?

JoeyX
08-12-2009, 02:18 PM
Wait....so because I'm a "minority" in my beliefs, that makes me wrong? Or that makes it not justifiable? So minorities of all kinds are wrong? Just because Blacks were once a minority they were wrong in that time? Because the end result of slavery was the fact that they got the job done, they fixed things, they cooked, they cleaned, they did whatever they were told, but meanwhile they dealt with on going daily suffering. But wait, lets look at the end result, they got the job done, they did things that helped with SUPERIOR white man at the time. Right?....no wrong, thats where you are wrong, just because something/someone is a minority, doesn't mean they don't matter. All it takes is for a belief that it is wrong, to change the world. As it has changed.

Meat sales go up, because meat is cheaper. I'm a chef, this arguement you WILL lose on, because I know how and why prices fluctuate, and ever notice how the bulk of meat you buy is more than before, the bulk is cheaper. Always has been, always will be, think about how a restaurant works, they buy in bulk. And just remember, just because it says "ribeye", or a certain cut that you think you like, doesn't mean its that actual cut. Just like when you buy chicken, and they say you are getting 2 breasts, you are most likely getting one breast, that has been butterfly cut, and now is one breast cut into 2. :)
There are many ways grocery stores make profit, and are legally allowed to do it, and companies as well. You may or may not catch onto these things, but I'am taught these things. Not that any of that really matters, but I thought I'd mention that with your "prices on meat".

I'm sorry that I will never "balance" my emotion with the fact that it helps to further advance medicine.

It is wrong to hit somebody legally yes. But lets say you are out somewhere, and you see 2 guys fighting, you are most likely gonna laugh and be like, wow, ridiculous, but not get involved, or if anything stop the fight. But if you see a guy hitting a woman, you are most likely(or I would hope) get involved, and beat the shit out of that guy for hitting a girl, which is what I would do. Again, it doesn't always come down to the law, it comes down to the morals of oneself.

Also, I accept the fact that alcohol is legal, do I feel that is it right? Fuck no. I've seen and have to deal with way more than alot of people do within the "alcohol" world. My uncle is dying for being an alcoholic(needs new liver, etc.), my mother used to drink daily, some of my friends are basically unknowing alcoholics. So no I don't take being straight edge as just as thing where I myself do not like drugs and alcohol for me. Yes, straight edge is for me, but it goes farther than that, I think all drugs and alcohol not used for medicinal purposes, should be illegal. And yes, because I know you'll ask again so I'll answer, I believe that medical purposes entitles non-animal/human tested medicines.

All in all, eating meat is rather unhealthy. Because I guarantee you eat more than the portion you are supposed to have a day. You are to have no more than a "palms" worth, or 2oz. of meat a day. Guaranteed you eat at least a half lb., 8oz. of meat a day, at least.

I've said before I'm not taking much action right now, as I admit I'm quite the hypocrite. However, I'm working my way to becoming vegan, as it is a strong belief I have, but I too admit it is hard going from being a daily animal consumer, to not at all.

I don't think eating meat is being thick skulled, it is the people who act barbaric and outweigh their feelings with facts, my feelings and my families feelings come first, always have and will. So I hope that my family would stop eating meat as well, and I hope they would choose to not take medicines that are tested on animals. But right now I need to work on myself, and become vegan.

I don't believe that if I was vegan, I'am superior to a eat meater, however I would feel that I'm contributing to a better life for myself and others(animals included), I'am living a better life, and am not destroying life.

straightXed
08-12-2009, 04:30 PM
Wait....so because I'm a "minority" in my beliefs, that makes me wrong?

I assume this is directed at me...but the answer is no, that is not what i said, i said that your beliefs oppose those that are represneted by the law of the land which in turn are supported by the masses that voted for them. You can believe what you want, if you are wrong or not really doesn't figure into this element of things.


Or that makes it not justifiable?

Also not what i said


So minorities of all kinds are wrong?

Again not what i said


Just because Blacks were once a minority they were wrong in that time?

Nope.


Because the end result of slavery was the fact that they got the job done, they fixed things, they cooked, they cleaned, they did whatever they were told, but meanwhile they dealt with on going daily suffering.

Not at all related to what i have said.



But wait, lets look at the end result, they got the job done, they did things that helped with SUPERIOR white man at the time. Right?....no wrong, thats where you are wrong,

This is not where i am wrong because its not what i said at all. Its where you are wrong because you clearly don't understand how democracy works.




just because something/someone is a minority, doesn't mean they don't matter. All it takes is for a belief that it is wrong, to change the world. As it has changed.

I never said it didn't actually matter either but that society will reflect the opinions of the masses that make up that society. Do you have an issue with living in a democratic society? You have options. You also have a government that whilst run by majority rule does look after the minority as best it can.


Meat sales go up, because meat is cheaper. I'm a chef, this arguement you WILL lose on, because I know how and why prices fluctuate, and ever notice how the bulk of meat you buy is more than before, the bulk is cheaper. Always has been, always will be, think about how a restaurant works, they buy in bulk. And just remember, just because it says "ribeye", or a certain cut that you think you like, doesn't mean its that actual cut. Just like when you buy chicken, and they say you are getting 2 breasts, you are most likely getting one breast, that has been butterfly cut, and now is one breast cut into 2. :)

I will not lose on this just because you are a chef, just as the fact i have 10 years in the food retail trade, including purchasing knowledge for a huge retailer will not necessarily garuntee i know more than anyone else. Anyone can research the market and understand it, i do however regularly read upon on the food retail market as it is directly related to my everyday work. You have mentioned bulk buying but that has little to do with it in reality because bulk buying is directly related to real estate, the sort of bulk buying i call bulk buying is refering to a large amount of stock holding. This incurs costs at storage space, man power to handle this order, transit cost to shift extra quantity to store, shelf space in store to cope with quantity, enough shelf talking to get the product leaving the shelf. Factor the cost of all that into things and you will see that bulk buying is not as remarkably cheap as you may assume. Talking about butterfly cut chicken breasts is ridiculous and not only insults my inteligence but yours too as the figures will; not be compiled by counting the number of breasts in a case but rather by the weight of the product. If you had perhaps pointed to the amount of water injected into breasts you may have come off slightly smarter in this. However, one of the more interesting factors that meat shifts is feed, feeding animals is expensive, farmers are often eager to slaughter to recoup feeding costs...feeding costs relate to a lot of things one thing it relates to is oil, oil is not doing great but it is doing considerably better than it did at the start of the year. That is one of the main reasons that within this recession food is not only holding price well it is also actually able to remain cheap and the industry is still able to report significant growth...thats the grocery industry not meat in particular.



There are many ways grocery stores make profit, and are legally allowed to do it, and companies as well. You may or may not catch onto these things, but I'am taught these things. Not that any of that really matters, but I thought I'd mention that with your "prices on meat".

You won't believe how many things you won't get taught about but pick up a copy of the grocer, it gives a pretty good insight into things.


I'm sorry that I will never "balance" my emotion with the fact that it helps to further advance medicine.

You might!


It is wrong to hit somebody legally yes. But lets say you are out somewhere, and you see 2 guys fighting, you are most likely gonna laugh and be like, wow, ridiculous, but not get involved, or if anything stop the fight. But if you see a guy hitting a woman, you are most likely(or I would hope) get involved, and beat the shit out of that guy for hitting a girl, which is what I would do. Again, it doesn't always come down to the law, it comes down to the morals of oneself.

I won't beat the shit out of him if i were to intervine, thats thuggish and thick skulled. I would ensure the police were involved i would ensure the woman was safe. It is not my position to doll out vigalante justice. Further more i would do the same if it was a male being beaten on, and in fact saw something similar happen just the other night.

I would like to also mention about how a bouncer i know once tried to help a woman in the way you are suggesting and he did let his emotions get the better of him and he went after the guy, whilst doing so the woman who he "helped" bottled him in return for the favour. So be careful when you let emotions dictate your actions. The bouncer is fine and still working doors today and approaches that situation very differently now.


Also, I accept the fact that alcohol is legal, do I feel that is it right? Fuck no.


Thats great, have you thought about what happens when a drug that is in demand by the masses is then associated with an underworld of crime?


I've seen and have to deal with way more than alot of people do within the "alcohol" world. My uncle is dying for being an alcoholic(needs new liver, etc.), my mother used to drink daily, some of my friends are basically unknowing alcoholics.


I am sorry to hear that, i have seen things to but i'm not going to get in a pissing contest about what i have seen versus what you have seen. I am sorry it effected your life at all.


So no I don't take being straight edge as just as thing where I myself do not like drugs and alcohol for me. Yes, straight edge is for me, but it goes farther than that, I think all drugs and alcohol not used for medicinal purposes, should be illegal.

But straightedge doesn't go further, thats your personal belief that goes further. The legal versus illegal debate is interesting but it is a completely different topic...start a new thread about it if you wish to discuss that.


And yes, because I know you'll ask again so I'll answer, I believe that medical purposes entitles non-animal/human tested medicines.

Don't quite get what you are getting at...what question are you answering?


All in all, eating meat is rather unhealthy. Because I guarantee you eat more than the portion you are supposed to have a day. You are to have no more than a "palms" worth, or 2oz. of meat a day. Guaranteed you eat at least a half lb., 8oz. of meat a day, at least.

How much do i eat a day again? Why is it unhealthy again? What adverse effects has it had/is it having on me again? What are the health properties of my alternatives again?


I've said before I'm not taking much action right now, as I admit I'm quite the hypocrite. However, I'm working my way to becoming vegan, as it is a strong belief I have, but I too admit it is hard going from being a daily animal consumer, to not at all.

Well you never said it in response to my asking it, you have however flip flopped on being a hypocryte to not being one to being one again and it is making me dizzy! Its actually easy, saying it is hard to do just makes it hard to do. I did it and i don't even think eating meat is wrong.


I don't think eating meat is being thick skulled, it is the people who act barbaric and outweigh their feelings with facts, my feelings and my families feelings come first, always have and will. So I hope that my family would stop eating meat as well, and I hope they would choose to not take medicines that are tested on animals. But right now I need to work on myself, and become vegan.

I don't even know where to begin with this. If you think that it is thick skulled i can tell you really won't appreciate any of the information or knowledge i have gained. You are not likely to want to agree with me on much at all as i do like to research and formulate opinions based on facts...it doesn't mean i have no emotion it just means i use my emotion to serve me well. Good luck with being vegan


I don't believe that if I was vegan, I'am superior to a eat meater, however I would feel that I'm contributing to a better life for myself and others(animals included), I'am living a better life, and am not destroying life.

So you would feel superior in your actions? I mean you say you wouldn't but then give an example of how you would be in your eyes.

lo0m
08-13-2009, 12:51 AM
Where did I say that? What i did say was that it's the only way to predict what will come and then prepare to deal with it.


have you studied math beyond the scope of high school? i had.. and i'm saying that you just could flip a coin or randomly pick some numbers and your prediction would be about the same accurate.. you've heard about chaos principle - the one with the butterfly and a storm? this is similar.. you have too many unkown variables to even predict if that would be thousands or billions.. tommorrow can 3 billion people die on some yet unkown, unseen disease and you can not predict that.. you're simply trying to foreseen the future.. unless you have some new type of huge particle accelerator and you're ready to prove some Einstein's assumptions that it is simply not possible and every prediction in such a massive scale is totally unreliable and ill-founded..



yeah dude, because plagues never happened. There have never been periods of time throughout history where illness has been widespread and lead to millions of deaths.


yeah dude, because new people are never born.. there have been at least one period of time when people were giving birth to children at such speed that they've dominated the whole planet and the end result now is 7billion inhabitants on planet which cannot feed or have water for that mass. billion people will die, does it seem better to you than millions of dead from your hypotetical mutated viruses (...from outer space" would make a good 60' movie title)



oh ok. because you say it, it must be true. Where is this happening?

EU, US at minimum but i believe it's worldwide policy.. all pharmaceutics are required by law to be tested..

xsecx
08-13-2009, 12:57 AM
have you studied math beyond the scope of high school? i had.. and i'm saying that you just could flip a coin or randomly pick some numbers and your prediction would be about the same accurate.. you've heard about chaos principle - the one with the butterfly and a storm? this is similar.. you have too many unkown variables to even predict if that would be thousands or billions.. tommorrow can 3 billion people die on some yet unkown, unseen disease and you can not predict that.. you're simply trying to foreseen the future.. unless you have some new type of huge particle accelerator and you're ready to prove some Einstein's assumptions that it is simply not possible and every prediction in such a massive scale is totally unreliable and ill-founded..


Yes I have. So trend analysis is completely pointless? Do you think people should just not try and predict anything and just react to shit?



yeah dude, because new people are never born.. there have been at least one period of time when people were giving birth to children at such speed that they've dominated the whole planet and the end result now is 7billion inhabitants on planet which cannot feed or have water for that mass. billion people will die, does it seem better to you than millions of dead from your hypotetical mutated viruses (...from outer space" would make a good 60' movie title)


What does this have to do with people dying immediately if all animal testing stopped? Or are you saying that you actively support the culling of humanity, since this is now the second time you've mentioned it.




EU, US at minimum but i believe it's worldwide policy.. all pharmaceutics are required by law to be tested..

uh yeah. what are some specific examples of where alternatives were present that completely removed the need for animal testing, that animal testing happened anyway?

lo0m
08-13-2009, 01:33 AM
you can't look at it in a vaccuum. How many lives were saved? You say that it can't be known so you completely dismiss it. That's just not how the world works. Why do you completely dismiss the positives that have happened and pretend that don't exist?

no and i didn't.. i said we should use the drugs that were already tested...but i'm somehow getting pissed cause your argumentation is not fair to say at least.. you used some scientific facts to prove you're right and i acknowledged them and used them as foundation for opposition.. and when I use scientific arguments against, you suddenly dismiss all of them cause you're not an scientist.. why did you participate in this debate in the first place?.. i know i started this debate by replying to your post that was on similiar but not identical topic but if you felt somehow incapable to evaluate scientific data you shouldn't use them yourself in the first place.. so, you're the one who's dismissing the facts here.. i only dismissed your totally unqualified predictions of future as they're based on emotions not facts (that's not the way you like it, is it?).. i will try to answer those heavy biased questions down there and then propably won't continue in this debate as i feel we would be running in circles from this point... this was not a conference, this was just a fucking thread on forum, where noone is scientist (at least in this field i believe) so I can't understand why you suddenly start denying facts with an excuse "because there are smarter people than you and I"...



Well, how else are rights decided? At what point is your morality THE morality and that everyone should just follow what you think, because you think it?


morality is one thing and fact is another.. my morality is not in any way superior to anyone elses but it is my foundation on which i can use the facts to try to convince people that my morality is maybe better than their and that they can use some of it and maybe change their view on the matter.. but the choice is always theirs, i'm not forcing them to do anything...



See this is where you thinking is completely fucked up and your supposed moral superiority shines through. Do you seriously think that people who are for animal animal testing don't care? That they're not acting upon their morality? If you can't see the parallels you're delusional.


the former answer is reliable also to this question i will just add that people against animal testing do care.. but people always care about themselves, their sex,their race, their specie... so where's the line? we learned to not take care just about ourselves as we've realized that other people feel the same as we do.. in the last century we somehow learned to not take care just about our sex 'cause we've realized that women (from male perspective) are humans just as males are... vast majority of people also realized that we should care about human not regarding his race or color of skin, as (despite of our differences) we realized that we're the same and we're living on the same planet.. so why do we not realize that animals, despite not intelligent as us, are also sensitive beings and we should also care about them?



You are. It's saving one life and endangering many more. If direct action isn't enforcing your will, what is it?

i assume that this is from the "freeing animals from labs" post... let me put it this way - if there were retarted people as testing subjects, would you say the same? the only difference is that my circle of compassion is somehow broader than yours and now you're forcing your morality on me..

lo0m
08-13-2009, 01:49 AM
Yes I have. So trend analysis is completely pointless? Do you think people should just not try and predict anything and just react to shit?

well, yes.. it is completely pointless if performed on this huge amount of unknown data.. how exactly accurate are let's say economic analyses? and how many months to the future this predictions can be used and still reliable? not many and still every day i learn that these are just predictions.. the large the amount of data is, the more inaccurate they are.. if this wasn't true, there would be no recesion, all people would know when buy/sell their stock and economic system would collapse... this is so far from truth :-)



What does this have to do with people dying immediately if all animal testing stopped? Or are you saying that you actively support the culling of humanity, since this is now the second time you've mentioned it.

everything around me gives me the idea that nature's way is the best way... you may call it "culling" if you want to.. but understand that this will happen anyway and i would be the happiest person if there wouldn't be another dead animal/human.. the drugs wouldn't propably reach people in the third world that need them the most...



uh yeah. what are some specific examples of where alternatives were present that completely removed the need for animal testing, that animal testing happened anyway?

we have bunch of in vitro tests.. one example

"An example of a toxicity test in animals that is being replaced by in vitro techniques is the LD50 test, in which the concentration of a chemical is increased in a population of test animals until 50 percent of the animals die. A similar in vitro test is the IC50 test, which can be used to determine the cytotoxicity of a chemical in terms of the chemical’s ability to inhibit the growth of half of a population of cells. The IC50 test is useful for comparing the toxicity of chemicals in human cells and thus produces data that are more relevant to humans than an LD50 value obtained from rats, mice, or other animals." (said by Kara Rogers, Britannica’s life sciences editor. She holds a Ph.D. in pharmacology and toxicology from the University of Arizona, where her research focused on understanding the role of antioxidants in mitochondria. Rogers has written for various publications on topics ranging from current medical research and eugenics to parasitic and vector-borne diseases.)

xsecx
08-15-2009, 10:07 AM
no and i didn't.. i said we should use the drugs that were already tested...but i'm somehow getting pissed cause your argumentation is not fair to say at least.. you used some scientific facts to prove you're right and i acknowledged them and used them as foundation for opposition.. and when I use scientific arguments against, you suddenly dismiss all of them cause you're not an scientist.. why did you participate in this debate in the first place?.. i know i started this debate by replying to your post that was on similiar but not identical topic but if you felt somehow incapable to evaluate scientific data you shouldn't use them yourself in the first place.. so, you're the one who's dismissing the facts here.. i only dismissed your totally unqualified predictions of future as they're based on emotions not facts (that's not the way you like it, is it?).. i will try to answer those heavy biased questions down there and then propably won't continue in this debate as i feel we would be running in circles from this point... this was not a conference, this was just a fucking thread on forum, where noone is scientist (at least in this field i believe) so I can't understand why you suddenly start denying facts with an excuse "because there are smarter people than you and I"...

No, I dismiss them because you're selectively picking things as reasons why everything should be abandoned without looking at the whole picture. You talk about the suffering caused by testing but you fail to even attempt to grasp the amount of suffering that is prevented overall. I don't see where I denied any facts either? I never argued that there weren't mistakes made or that human lives aren't lost as well to medical testing. What I did argue however was that the lives saved and extended greatly outweigh the deaths.



morality is one thing and fact is another.. my morality is not in any way superior to anyone elses but it is my foundation on which i can use the facts to try to convince people that my morality is maybe better than their and that they can use some of it and maybe change their view on the matter.. but the choice is always theirs, i'm not forcing them to do anything...


Then why do you support direct action then? I also think it's odd that you can't answer the same question you asked me. What gives you the right?




the former answer is reliable also to this question i will just add that people against animal testing do care.. but people always care about themselves, their sex,their race, their specie... so where's the line? we learned to not take care just about ourselves as we've realized that other people feel the same as we do.. in the last century we somehow learned to not take care just about our sex 'cause we've realized that women (from male perspective) are humans just as males are... vast majority of people also realized that we should care about human not regarding his race or color of skin, as (despite of our differences) we realized that we're the same and we're living on the same planet.. so why do we not realize that animals, despite not intelligent as us, are also sensitive beings and we should also care about them?

Why should humans do something that right now will lead to more human deaths? Why would they? Why would anyone endanger their families directly and knowingly to save the lives of animals? Right now it comes down to choice. You either choose to save animal test subject lives and lead directly to more human and animal suffering and death, or you keep going until such time that it isn't necessary. Right now at this point in human history it's either/or. Please explain to me why the lives of those test animals are so much more important than the vastly greater number of lives that could be saved/helped by their deaths?



i assume that this is from the "freeing animals from labs" post... let me put it this way - if there were retarted people as testing subjects, would you say the same? the only difference is that my circle of compassion is somehow broader than yours and now you're forcing your morality on me..

no, because I, and the vast majority of people in the world don't consider humans and animals the same. So like I said, how is this not enforcing your will?

xsecx
08-15-2009, 10:20 AM
well, yes.. it is completely pointless if performed on this huge amount of unknown data.. how exactly accurate are let's say economic analyses? and how many months to the future this predictions can be used and still reliable? not many and still every day i learn that these are just predictions.. the large the amount of data is, the more inaccurate they are.. if this wasn't true, there would be no recesion, all people would know when buy/sell their stock and economic system would collapse... this is so far from truth :-)


The predictions are done for modeling to decide courses of actions. Predictions can be and sometimes are wrong, but that doesn't really explain why people shouldn't do it? I'm just curious how you plan your life? Or do you play everything by ear and don't plan for anything because there's just too much unknown to even bother?



everything around me gives me the idea that nature's way is the best way... you may call it "culling" if you want to.. but understand that this will happen anyway and i would be the happiest person if there wouldn't be another dead animal/human.. the drugs wouldn't propably reach people in the third world that need them the most...


In your world, it would be the third world who would be negatively effected the most and suddenly, since that's where disease tends to spread the quickest and easiest. You have a really weird way of looking at things, if there wouldn't be another dead animal or human you'd be happy since what you propose would lead to many many deaths of both. So if you could please explain to me why you think that if we stopped animal testing today, more humans and animals wouldn't die? Do you really think epidemics don't happen?



we have bunch of in vitro tests.. one example

"An example of a toxicity test in animals that is being replaced by in vitro techniques is the LD50 test, in which the concentration of a chemical is increased in a population of test animals until 50 percent of the animals die. A similar in vitro test is the IC50 test, which can be used to determine the cytotoxicity of a chemical in terms of the chemical’s ability to inhibit the growth of half of a population of cells. The IC50 test is useful for comparing the toxicity of chemicals in human cells and thus produces data that are more relevant to humans than an LD50 value obtained from rats, mice, or other animals." (said by Kara Rogers, Britannica’s life sciences editor. She holds a Ph.D. in pharmacology and toxicology from the University of Arizona, where her research focused on understanding the role of antioxidants in mitochondria. Rogers has written for various publications on topics ranging from current medical research and eugenics to parasitic and vector-borne diseases.)

uh yeah. that's trying to determine the toxicity of a substance, that's not actually researching anything. It's to find out how much of a given substance would be deadly. So where does it say that animals were used anyway?

lo0m
08-17-2009, 02:07 AM
hell yeah, i saw this coming. i will repeat the facts:

* more than 90% drugs that passed animal tests are discarded and never hit the market
* we share only about 2 % of illnesses with other animals
* drugs on the market cause harm or even death of humans in more than 60% cases
* every year hundreds of thousands are killed worldwide due to prescription drugs. more 2 million hospitalized
* 80% of stillbirths are due to these drugs
* UN stated that out of more than 200000 drugs on the market worldwide, just 240 are essential and really made some difference

so, this is not seing the bigger picture, just picking selective reasons? well, i really don't think that..

also, you wanna know how unprecise your unqualified predictions are? you've stated that there can be a big flu pandemic this year ("There's a decent chance that there will be a flu pandemic this fall and a lot of people may die as a result of it"). i call this media scaremongering but you're definitely not alone in this so, let's say that i want to ban Tamiflu because it's animal tested (i don't want as i stated before but let's pretend that). so what would really be the difference? if there were no tamiflu (or relenza), some people would catch a flu. if this disease would be really hard to beat, some people would die, i agree with it despite the fact that there's no evidence for it (that it's that hard). now imagine that everyone would get a Tamiflu. Tamiflu is designed to reduce the lenght of the disease and if taken preventivelly it will have about the same effect as placebo. if taken to 48h after catching a flu it can shorten an average five day flu for about a half day. and.. that's it.. it can't do nothing more for you.. you still need to have a fever to kill viruses by your own.. well, that's what i call a "lifesaver" :-) .. on the other hand about 50% children experience side effects (from diarhea to serious neuropsychiatric problem), you don't really know what you'll end up using.. and tamiflu and some other flu vaccines are made from kidneys from diseased african green monkeys so you have to kill them...
I'm not saying that I didn't miss something, I'm just showing you how one fact totally changed your prediction.. and this is just one disease, one drug.. how can you even pretend to have some prediction about how many human(!) lifes will/won't be lost if there will be no animal testing.. you couldn't do that even if you were top pharmaceutical engineer and Noble prize winner in mathematics in one person.. it's not possible so stop pretending it is...

anyway, we're really just running in circles with no agreeing at all (and there will propably be none) so it became pointless to continue in this debate.. so i won't

oh, I almost forgot to answer your question about what gives me the right to demand what i demand.. well, it's morality.. yes, you can say that my morality is not your morality but that really doesn't matter... this world is based on emotions and morality and every change is being weight by morality.. you can take any social change that change the society to more compassionate and you'll find out it was based on morals.. hell, you could discard freedom as whole, because it is solely based on morals and if we were talking in facts it raises more problems than it solves...

xsecx
08-17-2009, 09:28 AM
hell yeah, i saw this coming. i will repeat the facts:

* more than 90% drugs that passed animal tests are discarded and never hit the market
* we share only about 2 % of illnesses with other animals
* drugs on the market cause harm or even death of humans in more than 60% cases
* every year hundreds of thousands are killed worldwide due to prescription drugs. more 2 million hospitalized
* 80% of stillbirths are due to these drugs
* UN stated that out of more than 200000 drugs on the market worldwide, just 240 are essential and really made some difference

so, this is not seing the bigger picture, just picking selective reasons? well, i really don't think that..


Yes, and do all those facts somehow dismiss the advancements that were made and the lives that were saved? Are you going to try and argue that animal testing hasn't had a net positive effect? You give statements like every year hundreds of thousands are killed worldwide due to prescription drugs. more 2 million hospitalized but that doesn't really matter unless you contrast it with the numbers cured and saved. You can't simply look at one side of it and that's my point. You can't talk about compassion and saving lives and then only focus on the test subjects and not the end results of that research.





also, you wanna know how unprecise your unqualified predictions are? you've stated that there can be a big flu pandemic this year ("There's a decent chance that there will be a flu pandemic this fall and a lot of people may die as a result of it"). i call this media scaremongering but you're definitely not alone in this so, let's say that i want to ban Tamiflu because it's animal tested (i don't want as i stated before but let's pretend that). so what would really be the difference? if there were no tamiflu (or relenza), some people would catch a flu. if this disease would be really hard to beat, some people would die, i agree with it despite the fact that there's no evidence for it (that it's that hard). now imagine that everyone would get a Tamiflu. Tamiflu is designed to reduce the lenght of the disease and if taken preventivelly it will have about the same effect as placebo. if taken to 48h after catching a flu it can shorten an average five day flu for about a half day. and.. that's it.. it can't do nothing more for you.. you still need to have a fever to kill viruses by your own.. well, that's what i call a "lifesaver" :-) .. on the other hand about 50% children experience side effects (from diarhea to serious neuropsychiatric problem), you don't really know what you'll end up using.. and tamiflu and some other flu vaccines are made from kidneys from diseased african green monkeys so you have to kill them...
I'm not saying that I didn't miss something, I'm just showing you how one fact totally changed your prediction.. and this is just one disease, one drug.. how can you even pretend to have some prediction about how many human(!) lifes will/won't be lost if there will be no animal testing.. you couldn't do that even if you were top pharmaceutical engineer and Noble prize winner in mathematics in one person.. it's not possible so stop pretending it is...


Yeah, I guess the world health organization are media scaremongers? But yet, you cite them above, so which is it? Or do you just ignore the points that don't fit your world view? There are vaccines being worked on right now that involve animal testing. That would actually be a more accurate thing to discuss. If these vaccines weren't used, you'd be looking at a much greater infection rate than you would otherwise. I'm just curious as to how you plan for anything, since you apparently believe you can't prepare for anything. I'd like to understand how modeling can't happen? I mean, you have a known infection rate, you can assume a certain amount of growth, so you can figure out how many doses will need to be made. But in your world, you simply don't do anything and just figure that people are shit out of luck because diseases don't mutate, so whatever we have today will be enough to take care of it, and if not, oh well, we're over populated anyway.




anyway, we're really just running in circles with no agreeing at all (and there will propably be none) so it became pointless to continue in this debate.. so i won't


wait, I thought you weren't going to do this again? I'm just amazed that you completely ignore question, and then just say that it's pointless. It is if you don't actually want to discuss the questions that are posed by the other side.



oh, I almost forgot to answer your question about what gives me the right to demand what i demand.. well, it's morality.. yes, you can say that my morality is not your morality but that really doesn't matter... this world is based on emotions and morality and every change is being weight by morality.. you can take any social change that change the society to more compassionate and you'll find out it was based on morals.. hell, you could discard freedom as whole, because it is solely based on morals and if we were talking in facts it raises more problems than it solves...

Yes, but that doesn't really give you the right to enforce your morality over others does it? Especially in a situation like this, where I, and others, believe that your morality in this situation is actually less compassionate that the alternative.

lo0m
08-18-2009, 12:40 AM
Yes, and do all those facts somehow dismiss the advancements that were made and the lives that were saved? Are you going to try and argue that animal testing hasn't had a net positive effect? You give statements like every year hundreds of thousands are killed worldwide due to prescription drugs. more 2 million hospitalized but that doesn't really matter unless you contrast it with the numbers cured and saved. You can't simply look at one side of it and that's my point. You can't talk about compassion and saving lives and then only focus on the test subjects and not the end results of that research.

no, i already acknowledged the positives that you've listed and i'm just showing the other side of the coin.. i've said it before, you maybe missed it



Yeah, I guess the world health organization are media scaremongers? But yet, you cite them above, so which is it? Or do you just ignore the points that don't fit your world view? There are vaccines being worked on right now that involve animal testing. That would actually be a more accurate thing to discuss. If these vaccines weren't used, you'd be looking at a much greater infection rate than you would otherwise. I'm just curious as to how you plan for anything, since you apparently believe you can't prepare for anything. I'd like to understand how modeling can't happen? I mean, you have a known infection rate, you can assume a certain amount of growth, so you can figure out how many doses will need to be made. But in your world, you simply don't do anything and just figure that people are shit out of luck because diseases don't mutate, so whatever we have today will be enough to take care of it, and if not, oh well, we're over populated anyway.

well, i can cite Hitler and still he was a motherfucker. that doesn't mean that he didn't have some good points.. he was a socialist after all so many other politicians after WWII and even now are saying similar things..
stop making these predictions.. you say that there some vaccines being worked on and than you jump straight to reading from the crystal ball.. what about important questions like how many of these vaccines are developed?.. is it just one type? what will be its efficiency? will it have side effects? how expensive will be the production? will it be suitable as prevention? or will it be the same bullshit like Tamiflu?
and again.. what about Tamiflu and the bird flu "there will be an pandemic"?.. we ended up with literaly millions of unused vaccines.. so that is the prediction you can trust?
and i'm not saying you can't predict anything.. some prediction may be useful and their propability is high, i'm not arguing on that..

[/quote]


wait, I thought you weren't going to do this again? I'm just amazed that you completely ignore question, and then just say that it's pointless. It is if you don't actually want to discuss the questions that are posed by the other side.

well, i have a feeling that everything important was said.. i'm not aware of unanswered question but mayby there are some...


Yes, but that doesn't really give you the right to enforce your morality over others does it? Especially in a situation like this, where I, and others, believe that your morality in this situation is actually less compassionate that the alternative.
well, i'm not forcing you anything.. don't repeat it again and again because it's not true.. but if you would ask what gives me the right to show my morality and opinions,.. well, it's freedom of speech and expression.. i maybe would be enforcing something to you if i would dispute you these rights but that is clearly not the case...

don't take it like i was trying to completely change your view on today's world or even enforce it. i was just participating in a debate that may become fruitful for one of us or even just an unconcerned reader... and that's it..

xsecx
08-18-2009, 08:40 AM
no, i already acknowledged the positives that you've listed and i'm just showing the other side of the coin.. i've said it before, you maybe missed it


Then you admit that there are far more lives saved and helped than lost due to animal testing?



well, i can cite Hitler and still he was a motherfucker. that doesn't mean that he didn't have some good points.. he was a socialist after all so many other politicians after WWII and even now are saying similar things..
stop making these predictions.. you say that there some vaccines being worked on and than you jump straight to reading from the crystal ball.. what about important questions like how many of these vaccines are developed?.. is it just one type? what will be its efficiency? will it have side effects? how expensive will be the production? will it be suitable as prevention? or will it be the same bullshit like Tamiflu?
and again.. what about Tamiflu and the bird flu "there will be an pandemic"?.. we ended up with literaly millions of unused vaccines.. so that is the prediction you can trust?
and i'm not saying you can't predict anything.. some prediction may be useful and their propability is high, i'm not arguing on that..


What is it with you and hitler?

So whats your solution then? Don't do anything? Do you understand that sometimes you prepare for something that doesn't happen? Are you seriously suggesting that no preparation should be done? And if not, then what are you suggesting?



well, i have a feeling that everything important was said.. i'm not aware of unanswered question but mayby there are some...


Well from the last round:

Predictions can be and sometimes are wrong, but that doesn't really explain why people shouldn't do it? I'm just curious how you plan your life? Or do you play everything by ear and don't plan for anything because there's just too much unknown to even bother?

So if you could please explain to me why you think that if we stopped animal testing today, more humans and animals wouldn't die? Do you really think epidemics don't happen?

Please explain to me why the lives of those test animals are so much more important than the vastly greater number of lives that could be saved/helped by their deaths?




well, i'm not forcing you anything.. don't repeat it again and again because it's not true.. but if you would ask what gives me the right to show my morality and opinions,.. well, it's freedom of speech and expression.. i maybe would be enforcing something to you if i would dispute you these rights but that is clearly not the case...


Then what is direct action then? What gives you the right to enforce your will by performing or condoning direct action of lab test subjects?

lo0m
08-19-2009, 07:09 AM
Then you admit that there are far more lives saved and helped than lost due to animal testing?

no, but i admit that from this view it's not black and white..


What is it with you and hitler?

huh? place Bush, Obama or Captain Nemo instead of Hitler. It really doesn't matter..


So whats your solution then? Don't do anything? Do you understand that sometimes you prepare for something that doesn't happen? Are you seriously suggesting that no preparation should be done? And if not, then what are you suggesting?

no, i'm just saying that what you tried to predict is unpredictable..


Well from the last round:

Predictions can be and sometimes are wrong, but that doesn't really explain why people shouldn't do it? I'm just curious how you plan your life? Or do you play everything by ear and don't plan for anything because there's just too much unknown to even bother?


yeah, i don't plan my life too much.. of course there are some things that can be planned, but it's always about propability, nothing in the future is firm.. some predictions have high propabilty or don't involve mathematics beyond man's knowledge...


So if you could please explain to me why you think that if we stopped animal testing today, more humans and animals wouldn't die? Do you really think epidemics don't happen?

yes, but they would happen anyway.. if a new disease would strike, you still don't have a cure for that, maybe some widerange drugs.. animal testing won't speed up the process of developing the cure...


Please explain to me why the lives of those test animals are so much more important than the vastly greater number of lives that could be saved/helped by their deaths?

if people would die due some disease, its natural.. yes, it is sad but understand that i'm not saying that we should not fight it!! no way.. just not with the help of torturing other animals.. because these lifes are literaly taken.. we kill them, we enslave them, we lock them in cages, we destroy their families, we take their babies, we torture them very cruely just for our possible profit.. killing in the name of saving lives is hypocrisy.. and by the way massive enforcing of our morality on creatures that really don't understand...



Then what is direct action then? What gives you the right to enforce your will by performing or condoning direct action of lab test subjects?
"lab test subject".. yeah that is definitely perfect "labspeek".. but i'll rather use the term "living creature"... that defines what it really is.. and saving directly endangered lives is more important than incalculable propability of lives lost.. and noone knows if those lets say 20 monkeys won't be tortured and killed with some result or their lives will be literaly wasted with no benefit at all.. this should ring a bell.. and if it doesn't, we have reached (again) the core divergence between two of us.. and that is the lie that animals feel pain, anger, sorrow, bitterness or resignation somehow different than we do..

xsecx
08-19-2009, 08:36 AM
no, but i admit that from this view it's not black and white..

Ok, then even though there's evidence that there are more lives saved than lost , why don't think so?



huh? place Bush, Obama or Captain Nemo instead of Hitler. It really doesn't matter..


Well it does, since you keep referencing hitler and no one else. I just think it's funny.



no, i'm just saying that what you tried to predict is unpredictable..

Ok, then what's the alternative? Doing nothing really isn't an option. I think it's weird that you seem to say why something is bad but then don't offer any kind of alternative.



yeah, i don't plan my life too much.. of course there are some things that can be planned, but it's always about propability, nothing in the future is firm.. some predictions have high propabilty or don't involve mathematics beyond man's knowledge...


How's that worked out for you? Is it a model you think the rest of the world should follow too?



yes, but they would happen anyway.. if a new disease would strike, you still don't have a cure for that, maybe some widerange drugs.. animal testing won't speed up the process of developing the cure...

Infections aren't necessarily all at once, so you would still have time to develop and test something. Why wouldn't animal testing speed up the process of developing a cure? How would you suggest the development of new drugs happen without any animal testing, today?



if people would die due some disease, its natural.. yes, it is sad but understand that i'm not saying that we should not fight it!! no way.. just not with the help of torturing other animals.. because these lifes are literaly taken.. we kill them, we enslave them, we lock them in cages, we destroy their families, we take their babies, we torture them very cruely just for our possible profit.. killing in the name of saving lives is hypocrisy.. and by the way massive enforcing of our morality on creatures that really don't understand...


So how, today should it be fought? If it's natural, then why should you fight it? Do you admit/accept that many more lives are saved than taken? If not, then why not? Why are those lives more important than others? If something has to die, why wouldn't it be the few to save the many, especially if your view is one of compassion.



"lab test subject".. yeah that is definitely perfect "labspeek".. but i'll rather use the term "living creature"... that defines what it really is.. and saving directly endangered lives is more important than incalculable propability of lives lost.. and noone knows if those lets say 20 monkeys won't be tortured and killed with some result or their lives will be literaly wasted with no benefit at all.. this should ring a bell.. and if it doesn't, we have reached (again) the core divergence between two of us.. and that is the lie that animals feel pain, anger, sorrow, bitterness or resignation somehow different than we do..

You still haven't answered what gives you the right? Are you seriously now trying to say that animal testing doesn't save lives? And the flip side, lets say those 20 monkeys could be pivotal to helping find a cure for a specific kind of cancer. You're directly endangering many more lives by your actions, but you refuse to accept the reality of it.

lo0m
08-20-2009, 01:01 AM
Ok, then even though there's evidence that there are more lives saved than lost , why don't think so?

where's the evidence.. you know how many lives were saved last year due to animal tested drugs minus the destroyed by side effects? i honestly don't..


Well it does, since you keep referencing hitler and no one else. I just think it's funny.

well, then laugh :-)


Ok, then what's the alternative? Doing nothing really isn't an option. I think it's weird that you seem to say why something is bad but then don't offer any kind of alternative.

..later in this post..


How's that worked out for you? Is it a model you think the rest of the world should follow too?

well, i must say that it's working for me far more better than I would predict and the fact is that anyone could live like that, yet I admit there are many people that feel happier with their lifes planned. something like communists 5-year-plans (which btw never worked)


Infections aren't necessarily all at once, so you would still have time to develop and test something. Why wouldn't animal testing speed up the process of developing a cure? How would you suggest the development of new drugs happen without any animal testing, today?

well, the fact is that a drug development is done without animals. this is what i call serious work and it involves chemics, biotechnics, mathematics, virtual simulation, DNA engineering (ok, i'm not fan of this one, but it is becoming strong), etc.. the part, where animal lifes are lost is the testing. Testing that not only produces results unrelevant to human as human is not a rat nor dog nor chimpanzee but which has to be of course backed by consequential testing on human volunteers (or nigerian children :-/). So i don't want the whole pharmaceutical business to collapse, i just want to dismiss the part which involves animal testing..



So how, today should it be fought? If it's natural, then why should you fight it? Do you admit/accept that many more lives are saved than taken? If not, then why not? Why are those lives more important than others? If something has to die, why wouldn't it be the few to save the many, especially if your view is one of compassion.
hmm, i think i already answered most of these previously in this post but let me say this: If you don't see the difference between natural cause of death and killing someone than you're becoming really dangerous for the society..



You still haven't answered what gives you the right? Are you seriously now trying to say that animal testing doesn't save lives?
"i did, you just didn't like the answer" hm?
And the flip side, lets say those 20 monkeys could be pivotal to helping find a cure for a specific kind of cancer. You're directly endangering many more lives by your actions, but you refuse to accept the reality of it.
exactly! and that's the problem, the propability that something will maybe happen.. if you're compassionate (and you say you are) and still value one life over another (you already know that this is what makes me sad, but it's your honest opinion and I respect it) than some propability shouldn't be enough for you to send 20 beautiful creatures to death...

xsecx
08-20-2009, 09:10 AM
where's the evidence.. you know how many lives were saved last year due to animal tested drugs minus the destroyed by side effects? i honestly don't..


Do you honestly think there aren't statics that show cure rates? That you couldn't just compare the number of lives lost per year to things like mumps, measles, polio, tb etc before there were vaccines and now? Not to mention the stuff that is treatable now vs what isn't? How do you think the decisions are made to put things out there for use?



well, i must say that it's working for me far more better than I would predict and the fact is that anyone could live like that, yet I admit there are many people that feel happier with their lifes planned. something like communists 5-year-plans (which btw never worked)


So you don't save money, don't have any kind of retirement plan? You don't have any kind of career path and just float through life? Do you have people that depend on you? How do you provide for their future?



well, the fact is that a drug development is done without animals. this is what i call serious work and it involves chemics, biotechnics, mathematics, virtual simulation, DNA engineering (ok, i'm not fan of this one, but it is becoming strong), etc.. the part, where animal lifes are lost is the testing. Testing that not only produces results unrelevant to human as human is not a rat nor dog nor chimpanzee but which has to be of course backed by consequential testing on human volunteers (or nigerian children :-/). So i don't want the whole pharmaceutical business to collapse, i just want to dismiss the part which involves animal testing..


I'm confused now, you said previously that some drugs were developed directly from the deaths of animals? I also don't really see how you can develop something without the ability to test it. If you honestly believe that there's no use for animal testing, then how do you explain the positive results that have happened while being used?



hmm, i think i already answered most of these previously in this post but let me say this: If you don't see the difference between natural cause of death and killing someone than you're becoming really dangerous for the society..


Well no, you talked about development, but didn't really address how things should be tested. Unless you're saying that it should only be done by volunteers. I'm not really sure why you think people would be willing to be test subjects, especially during the early stages of development when the safety and possible side effects aren't yet known. You still haven't answered the fundamental question to this entire debate. Why are the lives of animal more important than the lives of humans? Especially when the numbers of lives saved are significantly higher than those lost?



"i did, you just didn't like the answer" hm?


Not really, if you could point to the answer where you said "I have the right because...." that'd be swell.



exactly! and that's the problem, the propability that something will maybe happen.. if you're compassionate (and you say you are) and still value one life over another (you already know that this is what makes me sad, but it's your honest opinion and I respect it) than some propability shouldn't be enough for you to send 20 beautiful creatures to death...

So you're willing to condemn many other people to death, which is a certainty if animal testing is stopped today. How is that compassionate? The reality is that something is going to die in this situation, so I really want to understand how it makes sense to you that saving the lives of 20 monkeys is more important than the lives many many times that humans?

lo0m
08-21-2009, 12:18 AM
ok, this is enough.. you're still talking about some propability, which may or may not happen. but to fight death with death is hypocrisy, as i stated. i'm really outta here, you just dismiss all my points and answer only to those, that seem to give you some beat board to reply as agressive (and ignorant) as you possibly can.. one final question.. what was your motivation in this debate?

xsecx
08-21-2009, 08:55 AM
ok, this is enough.. you're still talking about some propability, which may or may not happen. but to fight death with death is hypocrisy, as i stated. i'm really outta here, you just dismiss all my points and answer only to those, that seem to give you some beat board to reply as agressive (and ignorant) as you possibly can.. one final question.. what was your motivation in this debate?

How is it a probability when it's definitive that if you stopped animal testing today, lives would be lost? I just think it's odd that you appear in complete denial of the good that comes from animal testing and the lives that are saved. You discount it completely and call it a probability to fit your world view. I also don't know where I dismissed your points. I never argued them, because for a lot of them, they're true, but you however aren't looking at the whole picture with them. You can't look at the deaths of animals in testing without looking at the effect at the end. If you do, then you're looking at an incomplete picture. That's my main issue with your viewpoint. You focus in on the deaths of animals and completely ignore the good comes from those deaths. I like how you call me ignorant and aggressive though as a passing shot since your last statement to me was that I was dangerous to society because I condone animal testing. My motivation is to hopefully have you accept reality and actually look at the entire situation. Now my final question to you, Do you accept that more lives have been saved overall than lost due to animal testing, If not, then why not?

JoeyX
08-23-2009, 04:35 PM
1 death, does not justify 1 million saved lives in my eyes.

Just thought I'd put that in there. Death should not happen for anybody's benefit. Not for an animals, not for humans, this post has made me think alot about even owning a gun, and how much I feel I don't need it. Because I honestly do believe a human life is not worth taking for my own benefit, I only have it to help my life, not to hurt anothers, but I guess the final result would kill another, but that isn't my intention, my intention is to not get jumped or get hurt by something else, or die from something else. But in a sense, that person is also asking for it, by coming at me and attacking me, which doesn't justify killing them, but it gives a necessary reason. For sure, kill an animal if it is attacking you, but why kill it if hasn't done anything to you, for your own benefit? Like I said....

1 death, does not justify a million saved lives in my eyes. Just doesn't.

JoeyX
08-23-2009, 04:42 PM
Why do I keep posting about this, I'm soooo over this shit. << haha I sound like a rich prissy person.

xsecx
08-23-2009, 05:13 PM
1 death, does not justify 1 million saved lives in my eyes.


ok why?

JoeyX
08-24-2009, 12:03 AM
ok why?

Because I just don't believe that even 1 life justifies even a million. Every life is worth so much. Even the person you hate the most in this world, deserves to live.

3 kinds of people in this world deserve to die

rapists, murderers, abusers.

It's not even that they deserve to die, its just they don't care about other peoples lives in the sense that they hurt/kill others, so they shouldn't live either. It's one thing to hate people, it's another to hurt/kill people.

I don't know, I'm so about life, I hate everything and anything that kills life, always have been that way. That's why I don't hunt, in a family FULL of hunters. I just don't agree with it. I don't need some scientific fact to sway or make my decision on how I feel.

I think all life is equal, and doesn't deserve to be hurt, or killed for the benefit of another.

If you come at me(attack), that is one thing, but if I get some disease where there is no cure, that animal STILL DID NOTHING WRONG to be tested on, his life should not be sacrificed because I have a disease, thats not the animals problem, its my problem, so why should I hurt another animal because of my problem? I just don't agree with that, call it ignorant, call it whatever, I don't care, I'm don't agree with hurting an animal for my benefit. As I don't believe in sacrificing my life, for an animal. It's life.

JoeyX
08-24-2009, 12:06 AM
and just because we "save animals lives" doesn't give us the right to use them as test subjects. If you choose to save an animals life, a dog drowning in water or just anything for example ya know, that is your choice, but don't expect the dog or whatever to save you back, it didn't ask to be saved. Even if it did, since when do we need to get something in return to help?! You've said before "we help animals too", that doesn't justify us testing on them, not to me at least.

lo0m
08-24-2009, 12:58 AM
How is it a probability when it's definitive that if you stopped animal testing today, lives would be lost? I just think it's odd that you appear in complete denial of the good that comes from animal testing and the lives that are saved. You discount it completely and call it a probability to fit your world view.
you must be fucking kidding me.. i wrote you about 5 times that this is not true.

I also don't know where I dismissed your points. I never argued them, because for a lot of them, they're true, but you however aren't looking at the whole picture with them.

ha, and are you looking at the whole picture? or did you just stop at the point where more human lives are saved and then stopped thinking further? human overpopulation has its own pros and cons. due to lives saved there will be lives lost. just not in your state. so, you're not looking at the whole picture neither as noone can think through all possibilities and all implications.

You can't look at the deaths of animals in testing without looking at the effect at the end. If you do, then you're looking at an incomplete picture. That's my main issue with your viewpoint. You focus in on the deaths of animals and completely ignore the good comes from those deaths. I like how you call me ignorant and aggressive though as a passing shot since your last statement to me was that I was dangerous to society because I condone animal testing.
see, this is how you debate. you're twisting my statements. i didn't say that. i said: "If you don't see the difference between natural cause of death and killing someone than you're becoming really dangerous for the society".. there is really different condition in this sentence than the one you tried to impose. after all, it was just a fucking sarcasm.. or do you really think that i think about you as a dangerous person? why would i call you clever guy then? why would i participate in this debate at all?

My motivation is to hopefully have you accept reality and actually look at the entire situation. Now my final question to you, Do you accept that more lives have been saved overall than lost due to animal testing, If not, then why not?
no, but if your question would be modified just a little (animal tested drugs vs. animal testing) then i would say "propably yes". look, i don't have anything against the drugs that are save and that had to go through animal testing. that does not mean that their effects are not valid. what i'm trying to say all this debate is that despite of lives saved is that animal testing is inaccurate, dangerous for all creatures involved (including human) and
brutal. the lives saved are not justified in my eyes due to this testing not due to the existence of drugs.
look, i'm a programmer and if i would write a piece of software (and imagine that it would be used to save human lifes) that would be a testing suite for drugs and would be used by majority of pharm. facilities and someone would point out that in case of ritalin, insulin and penicilin (which are "essential drugs") my programme doesn't give the right results, it would be a serious problem. if that someone would also claim that 90% precent of the drugs that pass save my tests are discarded afterwards, it would be a catastrophe. and it wouldn't really matter how many drugs passed save and hit the market cause as a testing suite that software would be completely useless.. the value of my software, my company and propably some of the weakest pharm. companies would be immediately destroyed. this software is animal testing. the only difference is that we actually know a lot more about human-made piece of software than about animals with all their specialities... so in the end, it's kinda funny cause i propably care about human lifes more than you do with your human-limited compassion.

straightXed
08-24-2009, 06:32 AM
Because I just don't believe that even 1 life justifies even a million. Every life is worth so much. Even the person you hate the most in this world, deserves to live.

3 kinds of people in this world deserve to die

rapists, murderers, abusers.

It's not even that they deserve to die, its just they don't care about other peoples lives in the sense that they hurt/kill others, so they shouldn't live either. It's one thing to hate people, it's another to hurt/kill people.

I don't know, I'm so about life, I hate everything and anything that kills life, always have been that way. That's why I don't hunt, in a family FULL of hunters. I just don't agree with it. I don't need some scientific fact to sway or make my decision on how I feel.

I think all life is equal, and doesn't deserve to be hurt, or killed for the benefit of another.

If you come at me(attack), that is one thing, but if I get some disease where there is no cure, that animal STILL DID NOTHING WRONG to be tested on, his life should not be sacrificed because I have a disease, thats not the animals problem, its my problem, so why should I hurt another animal because of my problem? I just don't agree with that, call it ignorant, call it whatever, I don't care, I'm don't agree with hurting an animal for my benefit. As I don't believe in sacrificing my life, for an animal. It's life.

Could you contradict yourself more than you have in this post? Its all over the place...you should aim for some consistancy in your standpoint.

xsecx
08-24-2009, 08:46 AM
you must be fucking kidding me.. i wrote you about 5 times that this is not true.


If it's not true then why do you make statements that the number isn't known? I'd like to know where you actually stated plainly that you accept the fact that the numbers of lives saved greatly outnumber those lost in testing?



ha, and are you looking at the whole picture? or did you just stop at the point where more human lives are saved and then stopped thinking further? human overpopulation has its own pros and cons. due to lives saved there will be lives lost. just not in your state. so, you're not looking at the whole picture neither as noone can think through all possibilities and all implications.

Um, yeah I am. I'm not in denial of either side. So if something saves more lives than it costs, by a great margin, why would/should I think about it any further? I'm also not really sure what overpopulation has to with a discussion about animals being used for drug testing? Unless you're trying to change the discussion to talk about what should be done to decrease the human population?



see, this is how you debate. you're twisting my statements. i didn't say that. i said: "If you don't see the difference between natural cause of death and killing someone than you're becoming really dangerous for the society".. there is really different condition in this sentence than the one you tried to impose. after all, it was just a fucking sarcasm.. or do you really think that i think about you as a dangerous person? why would i call you clever guy then? why would i participate in this debate at all?


I'm not twisting anything, you're making the statement as a forgone conclusion. That I must think that way. I think it's interesting that you have a real tendency to focus on part of response and then ignore the rest. You don't actually address the fact that you resorted to insulting me. To tend to say flippant shit as a distraction.




no, but if your question would be modified just a little (animal tested drugs vs. animal testing) then i would say "propably yes". look, i don't have anything against the drugs that are save and that had to go through animal testing. that does not mean that their effects are not valid. what i'm trying to say all this debate is that despite of lives saved is that animal testing is inaccurate, dangerous for all creatures involved (including human) and
brutal. the lives saved are not justified in my eyes due to this testing not due to the existence of drugs.


Since when has the context of this conversation been about anything but medical testing?
How can you say that it's inaccurate and dangerous when you just accepted that more lives are saved than effected negatively? When looking at, on the whole, your statement contradicts itself.



look, i'm a programmer and if i would write a piece of software (and imagine that it would be used to save human lifes) that would be a testing suite for drugs and would be used by majority of pharm. facilities and someone would point out that in case of ritalin, insulin and penicilin (which are "essential drugs") my programme doesn't give the right results, it would be a serious problem. if that someone would also claim that 90% precent of the drugs that pass save my tests are discarded afterwards, it would be a catastrophe. and it wouldn't really matter how many drugs passed save and hit the market cause as a testing suite that software would be completely useless.. the value of my software, my company and propably some of the weakest pharm. companies would be immediately destroyed. this software is animal testing. the only difference is that we actually know a lot more about human-made piece of software than about animals with all their specialities... so in the end, it's kinda funny cause i propably care about human lifes more than you do with your human-limited compassion.

This scenario demonstrates the main flaw with your way of thinking. You believe that because something isn't perfect that it shouldn't be done. That's not reality. If everyone thought like you did, the world would be a much different place and many many people and animals would have died that didn't need to. I also think it's ironic that after the statements you've made in this thread you want to start a "who cares more about human lives" pissing contest.

JoeyX
08-24-2009, 01:31 PM
I know its contradicting to love life so much, and then have such a passion of hate for murderers and things, but can't they both exist?

To hope that people live great and wonderful lives, but hate people who try to destroy that?

straightXed
08-24-2009, 04:19 PM
I know its contradicting to love life so much, and then have such a passion of hate for murderers and things, but can't they both exist?

To hope that people live great and wonderful lives, but hate people who try to destroy that?

Saying 3 types of people deserve to die right after saying the person you hate the most in the world deserves to live.

Hey i love life too, i think its fucking fantastic, i love it so much that i have a lot of gratitude to those that enable us to live longer and more prosperous lives. I have more value for human life than i do for and ant or mosquito's life, bee's are pretty cool, i quite like honey. I'd sooner kill a chicken than a cat. I guess what i am getting back to is that i don't think all life is equal and your post initially says that you don't either but then it says that you do.

Quite a contradiction really, and it reminds me of the other contradiction you have...your diet! Have you managed to change that yet to be more consistant with your viewpoint? I mean i know our opinions vary, i really don't see your stance to be as wholely compasionate as you do and i do see human welfare as a priority for humans - although as animals go we are pretty damn considerate to other animals in relation to how other animals behave. Hell we even have a growing concern for their habitats, food sources and sustainability as a species. But we should stop using animals for are own ends like other animals do and so on and so forth...i find lots of fault with your view, i have posted long posts asking for the flaws i find to be explained but you are clearly not going to respond to them as you are tired of discussing it. Again that is fair enough but i really just want something to come from this, and if that one thing can be that you become more consistant in what you say and do then that would be excellent. I mean seriously, you should be vegan by now, i mean what you say gives the impression you are and its really deflating to find you aren't after saying things so passionately about life. Not only is it deflating it also takes all the conviction out of what you say. Its so hard to take what you say to be what you truly feel when you are still eating meat (assuming you are?!) and it would just be great for your actions to represent what you think and feel. And for some reason i am hoping that will take care of other contradictions you make also because you do tend to give off a very mixed feel on things. Like i say, i would just like something good to come from this and if that one thing is you becoming more consistant then that would be awesome. I hope you take this post graciously.

JoeyX
08-24-2009, 05:58 PM
Saying 3 types of people deserve to die right after saying the person you hate the most in the world deserves to live.

Hey i love life too, i think its fucking fantastic, i love it so much that i have a lot of gratitude to those that enable us to live longer and more prosperous lives. I have more value for human life than i do for and ant or mosquito's life, bee's are pretty cool, i quite like honey. I'd sooner kill a chicken than a cat. I guess what i am getting back to is that i don't think all life is equal and your post initially says that you don't either but then it says that you do.

Quite a contradiction really, and it reminds me of the other contradiction you have...your diet! Have you managed to change that yet to be more consistant with your viewpoint? I mean i know our opinions vary, i really don't see your stance to be as wholely compasionate as you do and i do see human welfare as a priority for humans - although as animals go we are pretty damn considerate to other animals in relation to how other animals behave. Hell we even have a growing concern for their habitats, food sources and sustainability as a species. But we should stop using animals for are own ends like other animals do and so on and so forth...i find lots of fault with your view, i have posted long posts asking for the flaws i find to be explained but you are clearly not going to respond to them as you are tired of discussing it. Again that is fair enough but i really just want something to come from this, and if that one thing can be that you become more consistant in what you say and do then that would be excellent. I mean seriously, you should be vegan by now, i mean what you say gives the impression you are and its really deflating to find you aren't after saying things so passionately about life. Not only is it deflating it also takes all the conviction out of what you say. Its so hard to take what you say to be what you truly feel when you are still eating meat (assuming you are?!) and it would just be great for your actions to represent what you think and feel. And for some reason i am hoping that will take care of other contradictions you make also because you do tend to give off a very mixed feel on things. Like i say, i would just like something good to come from this and if that one thing is you becoming more consistant then that would be awesome. I hope you take this post graciously.

I will take it graciously, haha. I just guess then I admit that I have mixed feelings on things then. Because I do love life, and I'm the type of person that will help anybody and everybody if needed without question, and without anything needed in return. I just don't think an animal should be tested on and hurt, for the benefit of our own, when it didn't volunteer/or even ask to be messed with ya know. Just because it helps us in the end, doesn't mean that the animals thinks its ok to be tested on, just because good DOES come from it, which I'am willing to admit, doesn't mean the animal wants to be tested on. I don't think an animal should be tested on against its own will. And we aren't able to ask an animal(obviously) for its consent, so I don't think we have the right to do it. Whether you like a mosquito or not, does not make it less equal. Maybe TO YOU it is less equal, but as a whole its not....then again from humans it kinda is. But as a creature on earth, we are the same, we are both living beings on this planet. The animals low level of intelligence or unable to communicate with us shouldn't give us the right to test on them. Because I honestly believe, and hopefully you see it the same way...if animals spoke(english for example haha), and told us how they felt, we wouldn't test on them. But we do, because even though those feelings ARE still there, we just don't care to notice that, because they can't communicate it to us in a sense.

Why is it justified that a cat is more valuable basically than a chicken? I mean in the sense that you like one more than the other. Because it is more cute? Because it is more tame? Because it is more acceptable to what this so called "great society"? To me, that is treating an animal like a purse, or a piece of property, I mean you myswell put it in a purse and show it off like Paris Hilton with a dog in her purse. That's just cruel.

A cat and a mosquito and a chicken, all have feelings, all have brains, all feel pain, all need to eat, etc...., so the difference is? Being better looking doesn't justify in my opinion. That would mean that fat people in this world, are less of equality than a fit person, because they aren't as good looking, or maybe they can't do as much.

But in the end, they still play a part in this huge thing we call LIFE, whether if you ever need that part that one plays in your life, or not at all, doesn't mean it isn't necessary, or less equal. Spiders kill bugs, bees pollinate, etc., we all play a part, so why kill an animals that DOES have a purpose, which is not to be tested on.

lo0m
08-25-2009, 12:19 AM
If it's not true then why do you make statements that the number isn't known? I'd like to know where you actually stated plainly that you accept the fact that the numbers of lives saved greatly outnumber those lost in testing?


Um, yeah I am. I'm not in denial of either side. So if something saves more lives than it costs, by a great margin, why would/should I think about it any further? I'm also not really sure what overpopulation has to with a discussion about animals being used for drug testing? Unless you're trying to change the discussion to talk about what should be done to decrease the human population?



I'm not twisting anything, you're making the statement as a forgone conclusion. That I must think that way. I think it's interesting that you have a real tendency to focus on part of response and then ignore the rest. You don't actually address the fact that you resorted to insulting me. To tend to say flippant shit as a distraction.




Since when has the context of this conversation been about anything but medical testing?
How can you say that it's inaccurate and dangerous when you just accepted that more lives are saved than effected negatively? When looking at, on the whole, your statement contradicts itself.



This scenario demonstrates the main flaw with your way of thinking. You believe that because something isn't perfect that it shouldn't be done. That's not reality. If everyone thought like you did, the world would be a much different place and many many people and animals would have died that didn't need to. I also think it's ironic that after the statements you've made in this thread you want to start a "who cares more about human lives" pissing contest.

ok, this one made me laugh.. it's really beneath my dignity to answer this.. and i believe it was beneath your dignity to write it in the first place.. doesn't matter. anyway, it's really time to move on...

straightXed
08-25-2009, 05:13 AM
I will take it graciously, haha. I just guess then I admit that I have mixed feelings on things then. Because I do love life, and I'm the type of person that will help anybody and everybody if needed without question, and without anything needed in return. I just don't think an animal should be tested on and hurt, for the benefit of our own,when it didn't volunteer/or even ask to be messed with ya know.

Yet you would eat an animal.



Just because it helps us in the end, doesn't mean that the animals thinks its ok to be tested on, just because good DOES come from it, which I'am willing to admit, doesn't mean the animal wants to be tested on.

Yeah, the animals may not think its ok, i can think of things that i don't think is ok but this is life. Do animals think its ok to be eaten, to be kept as pets, to interact with humans in anyway?



I don't think an animal should be tested on against its own will. And we aren't able to ask an animal(obviously) for its consent, so I don't think we have the right to do it.

Yeah i understand you think that and by doing so you are happy for lives to be lost, whilst you continue to hold inconsistant beliefs which hold little weight. I mean you talk about what you don't think we have the right to do...do you have the right to pollute the plannet? The right to contribute to the shaping of our environment? The right to do anything that has any effect, direct or indirect, on anyone at all? Do you have consent for these things?





Whether you like a mosquito or not, does not make it less equal.

It does, it displays that i feel differently about it because it has different properties, its contribution to my world based on this highlights further why it is not equal to a cow. Of course you strip it all down and ignore all of that and look only at the crude fact that it lives. Ignoring things is easy and makes your opinion easy to hold.



Maybe TO YOU it is less equal, but as a whole its not....then again from humans it kinda is.

Yes to me and to anyone who doesn't strip it all down to absoloute basics with no defining features. As a whole it is different and unequal, when you attribute all elements...but you are happy to ignore many of those attributes as the fact it is alive somehow is a wildcard in your mind.




But as a creature on earth, we are the same, we are both living beings on this planet.

This highlights further how you are not talking about things as a whole but from a very simplistic perspective.



The animals low level of intelligence or unable to communicate with us shouldn't give us the right to test on them.

Or eat them?



Because I honestly believe, and hopefully you see it the same way...if animals spoke(english for example haha), and told us how they felt, we wouldn't test on them. But we do, because even though those feelings ARE still there, we just don't care to notice that, because they can't communicate it to us in a sense.

I think thats starting to sound like nonsense now...there are way to many dynamics for me to reply to that justly. It hasn't happened and the way it would shape the world if it did would make things rather different if all life on earth was communicating intelligently. However, we kill people based on what we thinkis right regardless of their opinion on the matter. I mean do we take into account how those sentanced to death feel about it? If all animals were communcating intelligently would those that go against man made or intelligently made law be free game for death, testing, food? If so why can we make that decision? Can we decide if they live or die?



Why is it justified that a cat is more valuable basically than a chicken?

A cat isn't necessary more valuble, i like eggs and chicken so in many ways you could say its the other way round. I have put more money into chickens than i have into cats in my life.



I mean in the sense that you like one more than the other.

I like them both in different ways...i saidf i would sooner kill a chicken.



Because it is more cute?

Nope, chickens are pretty cute too.



Because it is more tame?

Chickens aren't so wild



Because it is more acceptable to what this so called "great society"?

I think you have come at this from a very narrow angle. I feel you took what i said and assumed a lot of things with your line of questioning. The reason i would sooner kill a chicken is simply because i eat chicken, its not that i wouldn't eat cat but as it stands chicken is a good food source for me and i'm pretty sure there are laws against me eating cat here.



To me, that is treating an animal like a purse, or a piece of property, I mean you myswell put it in a purse and show it off like Paris Hilton with a dog in her purse. That's just cruel.

Yeah, nice rant but rather off the beaten track and unrelated to where i was going. So do you feel keeping pets in general is cruel or just if its a small dog being carried in a bag?



A cat and a mosquito and a chicken, all have feelings, all have brains, all feel pain, all need to eat, etc...., so the difference is? Being better looking doesn't justify in my opinion. That would mean that fat people in this world, are less of equality than a fit person, because they aren't as good looking, or maybe they can't do as much.

You are seriously hung up on the aesthetics of things here and have drifted so so so far from anything i have said at all. Mosquitos are not a great food source for me but for other animals they are. Other creatures kill them, brains and all. And then i, as a part of the human race, that has evolved dramatically and shaped its environment dramatically farm other creatures to serve as a food source. Have you ever noticed that zoo's are not just filled with cute animals? I have interest in all, the cuteness is subjective and not the reason they are kept. Of course you will be against going to zoos. But its interesting and telling that you see fat people as less attractive, i'm personally of the opinion that fit doesn't automatically equate to attractive so your analogy as wild and off the beaten track as it is really has not got much substance. But as for not being able to do as much...well i wouldn't suggest putting forward an overweight unfit person for your olympic 100m sprint. But humans aren't limited to physical prowess...whilst his size may work in many ways physically he may be able to do much more in other ways.



But in the end, they still play a part in this huge thing we call LIFE,

You don't have to, no ones holding a gun to your head!!



whether if you ever need that part that one plays in your life, or not at all, doesn't mean it isn't necessary, or less equal. Spiders kill bugs, bees pollinate, etc., we all play a part, so why kill an animals that DOES have a purpose, which is not to be tested on.

Do you believe we all have some set out reason to be here? What is your purpose? What bis the purpose of mice?

Anyway, it was wonderful to see that you pretty much ignored everything i wrote in my post and the stuff you did address you went way off base with to unprecidented levels. If you are going to discuss it, which i thought you were tired of doing, then address what i write instead of ignoring it completely. I mean i have other posts a few pages back that still have unanswered questions and points raised, but if you are not interested in actually discussing it then no worries. But the half assed replies that address nothing but seem to be mainly you ranting about things that aren't related to my post are really not worth anyones time.

xsecx
08-25-2009, 08:31 AM
ok, this one made me laugh.. it's really beneath my dignity to answer this.. and i believe it was beneath your dignity to write it in the first place.. doesn't matter. anyway, it's really time to move on...

I'm glad that you think civil discourse is beneath your dignity. This however is the best cop out I've heard from you yet.

lo0m
08-26-2009, 12:46 AM
I'm glad that you think civil discourse is beneath your dignity. This however is the best cop out I've heard from you yet.

blah blah blah.. I'm looking forward to see how you'll twist this statement :-)

xsecx
08-26-2009, 07:59 AM
blah blah blah.. I'm looking forward to see how you'll twist this statement :-)

I don't see how I twisted the first one, it's pretty clearly a copout, and so is this one. You're just following the standard flow of internet debates, you've already invoked hitler multiple times, threw hissy fits about stopping and now you're simply deflecting rather than actually talking about the subject. I'm just surprised that sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting I can't hear you somehow is within your dignity but civil discourse isn't.

lo0m
08-27-2009, 04:10 AM
I don't see how I twisted the first one, it's pretty clearly a copout, and so is this one. You're just following the standard flow of internet debates, you've already invoked hitler multiple times, threw hissy fits about stopping and now you're simply deflecting rather than actually talking about the subject. I'm just surprised that sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting I can't hear you somehow is within your dignity but civil discourse isn't.

i see you took the "i have to be a winner" attitude back from kindergarten. well, that's your problem mainly.. the final example of how you debate is this:


you: I just think it's odd that you appear in complete denial of the good that comes from animal testing and the lives that are saved. You discount it completely and call it a probability to fit your world view.

me: you must be fucking kidding me.. i wrote you about 5 times that this is not true.

you: If it's not true then why do you make statements that the number isn't known? I'd like to know where you actually stated plainly that you accept the fact that the numbers of lives saved greatly outnumber those lost in testing?


see? you propably don't. ok, i don't "discount all good that comes from animal testing" (ie. the drugs themselves which HAD to go trought this testing). i don't even discount that there are "lives saved" (even that this is not thanks to animal testing but the work of researchers in the first place). does that mean that I also agree with you about some number that I call unpredictable and I know why? no, definitely not. you're just waiting for a chance to put me in a direction you want me to because there you propably feel stronger. you keep doing it all the time, you did it in the "sxe and bible" debate and you keep doing it here. this irritates me.

another thing is the "insult". i didn't know that you'll be so touchy about it but that's not really my problem and if it made you feel uncomfortable then i apologize and i'm being honest. on the other hand it would be nice for all you meatheads to realize that your attitude towards other beings and your claim of superiority is a slap in the face to all of us that feel connected with those beings and that do care for them. and no, you DON'T care for them. you're just determining their fate based on your humanocentric view of reality . like it was you property. on one hand you play the "all religion is flawed" game yet you don't realize that you approach animals in totally religious and dogmatic way.

you're free to think that this is a copout from my side but the reality is that this debate holds no value whatsoever. you just want to have the truth. there's nothing wrong with that as we all want to. it's the style of propagation of your truth that makes me realize that continuing in this debate would be pointless. every your argument is like THE truth, even if you don't have anything to back it up. every my argument is made as possibly worthless as it can be. yeah, i'm talking mainly about the fact, that 90% of the drugs that pass save animal testing are immediately discarded. you say nothing is perfect. that's right but this is so far from perfect that it ends up being the second most timewasting, moneywasting and lifewasting thing next to war.

you can make another point about me being coward or that this is a copout. i don't care, you can do everything you want to boost your ego. bye

xsecx
08-27-2009, 08:36 AM
i see you took the "i have to be a winner" attitude back from kindergarten. well, that's your problem mainly..


well not so much. I just want things to come to some kind of an end. I think you're wrong and hoped and continue to hope that you'd actualy think about what I've said rather than just coming back with banal statements.



the final example of how you debate is this:


see? you propably don't. ok, i don't "discount all good that comes from animal testing" (ie. the drugs themselves which HAD to go trought this testing). i don't even discount that there are "lives saved" (even that this is not thanks to animal testing but the work of researchers in the first place). does that mean that I also agree with you about some number that I call unpredictable and I know why? no, definitely not. you're just waiting for a chance to put me in a direction you want me to because there you propably feel stronger. you keep doing it all the time, you did it in the "sxe and bible" debate and you keep doing it here. this irritates me.


I'm glad that it irritates you. That's kind of the point. There is a gigantic hole in your logic and way of thinking on this subject. We can't really talk about it until you address it. You haven't so I keep bringing it up. You simply cannot talk about how horrible something is without looking at 1) the sum total of good vs bad that is done and 2)the effect that would be had if it was stopped. You still haven't directly addressed either of those points. You misdirect and refuse to plainly and simply answer things so I'm forced to either ask you restate what you're saying directly or point to me where you did. You've done neither.





another thing is the "insult". i didn't know that you'll be so touchy about it but that's not really my problem and if it made you feel uncomfortable then i apologize and i'm being honest. on the other hand it would be nice for all you meatheads to realize that your attitude towards other beings and your claim of superiority is a slap in the face to all of us that feel connected with those beings and that do care for them. and no, you DON'T care for them. you're just determining their fate based on your humanocentric view of reality . like it was you property. on one hand you play the "all religion is flawed" game yet you don't realize that you approach animals in totally religious and dogmatic way.


I just think it's funny that you act like you have moral superiority and can't even have a debate without hurling insults. That you can't even do this without calling me a meathead. I still point out that what you're advocating actually leads to the deaths Your view point is narrowminded and misguided. You think you're saving lives when your words and actions are actually advocating more deaths. It's completely illogical. Also please explain to me how my approach with animals is religious and dogmatic?




you're free to think that this is a copout from my side but the reality is that this debate holds no value whatsoever. you just want to have the truth. there's nothing wrong with that as we all want to. it's the style of propagation of your truth that makes me realize that continuing in this debate would be pointless. every your argument is like THE truth, even if you don't have anything to back it up. every my argument is made as possibly worthless as it can be. yeah, i'm talking mainly about the fact, that 90% of the drugs that pass save animal testing are immediately discarded. you say nothing is perfect. that's right but this is so far from perfect that it ends up being the second most timewasting, moneywasting and lifewasting thing next to war.


The fact that you either do direct action yourself, or support direct action, actually makes this debate relevant. You talk about problems with the current system and how it needs to be stopped. You discount the 10% of drugs that make a difference. I think your view point actually is dangerous and am quite astonished that you see nothing wrong with condemning many more "beings" to death than the lives lost due to animal testing. For it to be lifewasting, those 10% would have to not save lives. But they do. This is the entire reason that your way of thinking is illogical. It's either do testing or do nothing right now, and it makes no sense to me that someone claiming to be compassionate thinks that it's more compassionate to allow many more "beings" to suffer with illnesses that could be cured partly through animal testing than using a significantly smaller number of animal test subjects.



you can make another point about me being coward or that this is a copout. i don't care, you can do everything you want to boost your ego. bye

Yeah, but this isn't about my ego and I never called you a coward. It is a copout, but I don't expect you to come to terms with that any more than your inability to grasp that human lives are important too.

lo0m
08-28-2009, 12:38 AM
well not so much. I just want things to come to some kind of an end. I think you're wrong and hoped and continue to hope that you'd actualy think about what I've said rather than just coming back with banal statements.


glad that it irritates you. That's kind of the point. There is a gigantic hole in your logic and way of thinking on this subject. We can't really talk about it until you address it. You haven't so I keep bringing it up. You simply cannot talk about how horrible something is without looking at 1) the sum total of good vs bad that is done and 2)the effect that would be had if it was stopped. You still haven't directly addressed either of those points. You misdirect and refuse to plainly and simply answer things so I'm forced to either ask you restate what you're saying directly or point to me where you did. You've done neither.

well, i'm sorry, but you gave me no chance to think something different than you're try to make me look like an idiot. you're saying i'm not seeing the bigger picture. But when I tell you, that a bigger picture is also the effect of lives saved, which is overpopulation, then suddenly bigger picture is no more important..




I just think it's funny that you act like you have moral superiority and can't even have a debate without hurling insults. That you can't even do this without calling me a meathead. I still point out that what you're advocating actually leads to the deaths Your view point is narrowminded and misguided. You think you're saving lives when your words and actions are actually advocating more deaths. It's completely illogical. Also please explain to me how my approach with animals is religious and dogmatic?

the idea of animal as a property is totally religious. it's the idea that someone "gave" it to you. that it's for you to do everything you want to with it. off course you don't really believe that someone gave it to you but this approach is based on judeochristian culture. i'm no cultural antropologist but i've read this several times..
btw - i wrote several times that i'm NOT morally superior and i don't feel that. but you AGAIN have to make that point to lower me.



The fact that you either do direct action yourself, or support direct action, actually makes this debate relevant. You talk about problems with the current system and how it needs to be stopped. You discount the 10% of drugs that make a difference. I think your view point actually is dangerous and am quite astonished that you see nothing wrong with condemning many more "beings" to death than the lives lost due to animal testing. For it to be lifewasting, those 10% would have to not save lives. But they do. This is the entire reason that your way of thinking is illogical. It's either do testing or do nothing right now, and it makes no sense to me that someone claiming to be compassionate thinks that it's more compassionate to allow many more "beings" to suffer with illnesses that could be cured partly through animal testing than using a significantly smaller number of animal test subjects.

i don't discount the 10% , can you read??? stop putting words in my mouth.. btw 90% are discarded based on another tests.. if there would be no animal tests, these 10% would hit the market ANYWAY and unsuitable drugs would be also discarded... so this "reason that my way is illogical" is a bullshit you just made up. and i know this will be a strange idea for meateater: but you are what you eat.. look at cancer rates of fruitarians, or flu rates of vegans..these people are more healthy ( shit it even fixed my guts that doctors couldn't fix for more than 10 years), so having a more positive attitude (and diet) towards nature would immediately mean less suffering on both animal and human side. will that make you a vegan? i doubt it. so don't tell me about logic..


Yeah, but this isn't about my ego and I never called you a coward. It is a copout, but I don't expect you to come to terms with that any more than your inability to grasp that human lives are important too.
uff, of course you didn't call me a coward but i still think that this has to do a lot with your ego.

xsecx
08-28-2009, 08:11 AM
well, i'm sorry, but you gave me no chance to think something different than you're try to make me look like an idiot. you're saying i'm not seeing the bigger picture. But when I tell you, that a bigger picture is also the effect of lives saved, which is overpopulation, then suddenly bigger picture is no more important..

So I'm to blame for how you choose to react?

You accuse me of twisting your words, and then what did you just do? I didn't say that the bigger picture is no more important at all. I said that the statement that treatments shouldn't be given to keep populations down was a separate discussion to the one we're having now. Population control and animal testing aren't at all directly related so to bring them together is outside of what we're discussing.




the idea of animal as a property is totally religious. it's the idea that someone "gave" it to you. that it's for you to do everything you want to with it. off course you don't really believe that someone gave it to you but this approach is based on judeochristian culture. i'm no cultural antropologist but i've read this several times..
btw - i wrote several times that i'm NOT morally superior and i don't feel that. but you AGAIN have to make that point to lower me.


You have a weird concept of what religious means. What you're talking about is a matter of entitlement not a matter of gods and the supernatural. The concept of using resources as appropriate and necessary is universal so I don't understand why you think it's a judeachristian value.

You contradict yourself. You say you're not morally superior, yet feel entitled to perform direct action. That means that you feel that your morality outweighs those who you disagree with. Especially in light of the fact that you just called me a meat head?




i don't discount the 10% , can you read??? stop putting words in my mouth.. btw 90% are discarded based on another tests.. if there would be no animal tests, these 10% would hit the market ANYWAY and unsuitable drugs would be also discarded... so this "reason that my way is illogical" is a bullshit you just made up. and i know this will be a strange idea for meateater: but you are what you eat.. look at cancer rates of fruitarians, or flu rates of vegans..these people are more healthy ( shit it even fixed my guts that doctors couldn't fix for more than 10 years), so having a more positive attitude (and diet) towards nature would immediately mean less suffering on both animal and human side. will that make you a vegan? i doubt it. so don't tell me about logic..


I'm not putting words in your mouth at all, you just don't like the way your words come across. I don't know if this is a language thing or what, but you have completely discounted the positives of animal testing, if you didn't you wouldn't be advocating the stopping of it until such time that a non animal based test system were in place.
Flu rates of vegans? Please explain to me how/why you think that a diet would have anything to do with the spread of an infectious disease? I also don't necessary agree that vegans are more healthy, but again, that's a completely different discussion than what we're having now. This is another prime example of you not addressing what's said but instead going off on an unrelated tangent.



uff, of course you didn't call me a coward but i still think that this has to do a lot with your ego.

I'm glad you think that, but it isn't. I keep accusing me of things, so are you sure this is about my ego and not yours?

xGriffox
08-28-2009, 01:34 PM
So xsecx, you agreed with me that non-medical animal testing was unreasonable and should be done away with so why do you consume animal products and directly contribute to the suffering of billions of sentient beings every year? You seem to be a champion of saving lives in your argument with Loom saying that the suffering of animals is justified to save human lives but it seems that animals (who forcibly gave their lives to help medical advancement) are not worth saving if it interferes with your dinner. Seems you are doing exactly what you are accusing Loom of: not looking at the whole picture but settling on what is convenient for you.

xsecx
08-28-2009, 02:11 PM
So xsecx, you agreed with me that non-medical animal testing was unreasonable and should be done away with so why do you consume animal products and directly contribute to the suffering of billions of sentient beings every year? You seem to be a champion of saving lives in your argument with Loom saying that the suffering of animals is justified to save human lives but it seems that animals (who forcibly gave their lives to help medical advancement) are not worth saving if it interferes with your dinner. Seems you are doing exactly what you are accusing Loom of: not looking at the whole picture but settling on what is convenient for you.

That's a completely different discussion though. I have an issue with animals being used for non medical testing, because it serves no purpose. Now consuming animals directly, there is a purpose, just one you and I don't agree on.

JoeyX
08-28-2009, 09:51 PM
Population control does have a lot to do with medicines and animal testing. Medicine comes from the testing of animals, and medicines save lives. Which means the statistics of deaths go down significantly because of those saved lives, as you even stated before about if we were to stop testing all together all the lives that would be lost. So that is a part of population control, because it effects the population significantly. You can't reason it out, because its a(how do I put this in easy terms) "sub-genre" of the overall subject. Animal testing has A LOT to do with population control, as it blatantly willingly or unwillingly does control a part of the population, obviously the population that uses medicine.

JoeyX
08-28-2009, 09:58 PM
I'm glad you think that, but it isn't. I keep accusing me of things, so are you sure this is about my ego and not yours?

I know this may come off as weird, or ridiculous in your eyes. But what about the animals "ego"(basically feelings and thoughts) for that matter. Lets go with your belief that they aren't equal. And lets go with the fact that yes, their unwilling sacrifice to animal testing does help save lives. Does that mean we shouldn't care about how the animal feels, its ego, its thoughts, its physical and mental pain to whatever ability that is. Does that not matter? Maybe the testing outweighs their feelings. What if your feelings were outweighed, and someone didn't give a fuck, and said, whatever...it helps my kind, fuck him.....thats ignorant, and selfish.

xsecx
08-29-2009, 08:06 AM
Population control does have a lot to do with medicines and animal testing. Medicine comes from the testing of animals, and medicines save lives. Which means the statistics of deaths go down significantly because of those saved lives, as you even stated before about if we were to stop testing all together all the lives that would be lost. So that is a part of population control, because it effects the population significantly. You can't reason it out, because its a(how do I put this in easy terms) "sub-genre" of the overall subject. Animal testing has A LOT to do with population control, as it blatantly willingly or unwillingly does control a part of the population, obviously the population that uses medicine.

Purposely not curing things as a means of human population control has nothing to do with animal testing and I can reason it out because it's a side effect and therefore a completely separate discussion. I also think it's funny that you keep popping in and out of this conversation when it suits you.

xsecx
08-29-2009, 08:08 AM
I know this may come off as weird, or ridiculous in your eyes. But what about the animals "ego"(basically feelings and thoughts) for that matter. Lets go with your belief that they aren't equal. And lets go with the fact that yes, their unwilling sacrifice to animal testing does help save lives. Does that mean we shouldn't care about how the animal feels, its ego, its thoughts, its physical and mental pain to whatever ability that is. Does that not matter? Maybe the testing outweighs their feelings. What if your feelings were outweighed, and someone didn't give a fuck, and said, whatever...it helps my kind, fuck him.....thats ignorant, and selfish.

this has already been talked to you about at length though. You also really need to stop using the term ignorant, I don't think you really understand what it means, especially since you keep making statements about things you haven't researched and don't really understand, which are actually ignorant.

Captain.Aney
09-09-2009, 11:44 AM
yes it's wrong. ó.ň