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?
Take the time. Don't be blind. You will find. An open mind. There's no need for you to tell me what I've done wrong. I can, can see, all this contradiction around me. I just, just want, I want to be free. Don't question my actions. I never said that I was flawless
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?Originally Posted by lo0m
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.
Why do I keep posting about this, I'm soooo over this shit. << haha I sound like a rich prissy person.
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.
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.
you must be fucking kidding me.. i wrote you about 5 times that this is not true.
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.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.
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?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.
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) andMy 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?
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.
Last edited by lo0m; 08-24-2009 at 01:01 AM.
Take the time. Don't be blind. You will find. An open mind. There's no need for you to tell me what I've done wrong. I can, can see, all this contradiction around me. I just, just want, I want to be free. Don't question my actions. I never said that I was flawless
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.
Others walk the bow, I walk the string
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?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.
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.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?
Since when has the context of this conversation been about anything but medical testing?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.
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.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.
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.
Others walk the bow, I walk the string
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.
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...
Take the time. Don't be blind. You will find. An open mind. There's no need for you to tell me what I've done wrong. I can, can see, all this contradiction around me. I just, just want, I want to be free. Don't question my actions. I never said that I was flawless
Yet you would eat an animal.
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?
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?
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.
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.
This highlights further how you are not talking about things as a whole but from a very simplistic perspective.
Or eat them?
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?
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 like them both in different ways...i saidf i would sooner kill a chicken.
Nope, chickens are pretty cute too.
Chickens aren't so wild
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.
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?
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.
You don't have to, no ones holding a gun to your head!!
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.
Others walk the bow, I walk the string
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks