is animal testing wrong if they make the animal cuter?

[xsecx]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

yes it's wrong. ó.ò