Animal Tests

[nature of reality]

"Animal life above humans any day. Its not like humans are on the brink of extinction now is it?

Animals are innocent, totally and purely. Humans, well adult humans, are not"

How are animals more innocent then humans?

I wonder where people would get the impression that your a hater of man.....



What over species has members so damned ignorant and brainwashed they think the welfare of other species is more important to their own?

Imagine a female woodchuck feeding a adder its young, because otherwise that adder might starve.

[G. Adams]

I don't hate humans. i am neutral towards us as a species. I care very much for humans as individuals and I value their lives, and rights over their own lives. But I equally care for other species and the rights they have to their own lives.

I think its just you who thinks I hate humans. You, rightly, tagged me as a communist and you, wrongly, dump all your misconceptions on me.

How are animals more innocent than humans? Well untill you can confirm that animals have a well developed sense of morality, which would allow them to recognise right from wrong, I can only assume that animals are showing their true feelings without the hinderances that humans do. An animal is natural, it's doing what it is meant to. Animals don't do good and evil, they just act as intended. Humans however are well aware of their actions, of the repercussions of their actions, and whether it is right or wrong (i'm not talking about societies rights or wrongs, but the right and wrong a person feels within themselves). Humans know war is wrong, yet their has never been a point in history without war.

I'm not ignorant and brainwashed. I have had these views as long as I can remember. I grew up with a lot of animals around me. My dog meant more to me than my family did at the time. The dog cared for me a lot more than my mam, (she's great now though) who went through a really tough time, and my dad was always at work. So I guess I appreciate animals more than you do.

Thats a very poor example. I'll put it in human terms, so you can see how far off the mark you are. A human murders an unwilling victim to ensure an adder lives. Now, using the same subjects, this is what I am suggesting. A volunteer puts themself forward to save another human, while similtaneously not bothering the adder.

You still put line after line, box after box upon a subject. This is a human, he is american, he is male, he is west coast, he is californian etc. I see another life, which as long as it doesn't unnecessarily threaten my or anyone elses existance, I won't bother in any negative ways. I apply this to all lifes. If my survival is at stake, then I'll kill without regret, like when I kill rabbits for dinner.

You don't think I care about the welfare of my own species? You hyppocritical asshole. You happily let 1 million die of hunger of each day to support your right to be greedy. You complain about the public health care system in Britain which allows anyone access to good health care, even if you don't live here, and then accues me of not caring about other humans.

At least another on this board, i'll keep him unnamed cause he likes to butt in, happily admits that nothing matters but power. You hold a pretense of caring for freedom and other people, while you hate democracy and helping the poor. I hope your just an ignorant kid who will grow up a little more normal eventually, because such idiocy is terrifying if its coming from an adult.

[nature of reality]

"Thats a very poor example. I'll put it in human terms, so you can see how far off the mark you are. A human murders an unwilling victim to ensure an adder lives. Now, using the same subjects, this is what I am suggesting. A volunteer puts themself forward to save another human, while similtaneously not bothering the adder."

How does this crap make sense at all. you said you value OTHER species MORE then your own. SO that would be like, if you were on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean or some crap like that, murdering your mother to feed your precious dog. That is an illuminating analogy to your standards.



"You don't think I care about the welfare of my own species? You hyppocritical asshole. You happily let 1 million die of hunger of each day to support your right to be greedy. You complain about the public health care system in Britain which allows anyone access to good health care, even if you don't live here, and then accues me of not caring about other humans. "

You would let over 50 million die for your right to feel self-righteous about a irrationial dogma.

Its not my fault if they starve, and its not my problem. I am not a slave to the weakest. I own myself, and will do with myself as I please, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

No, actually, i think the NHS in britain is a good idea... For the United States that is ... Ever hear of the brain drain ? your talented pharmcologists, health researchers, etc, are deserting your country, and rightly so.


"You hold a pretense of caring for freedom and other people, while you hate democracy and helping the poor"


I do care for freedom.

I don't think the welfare of people should be coerced, so i like the people who i like, but i don't want to be forced at gunpoint to accept altruism.

Democracy is just as dangerous as a dictatorship, unless it is strongly bound by objective laws, or else minority (individual, smallest minority) rights go out the window.

[Sodfather]

If not animals, what are we going to test the product out on? Is a rabbit's well-being more important than ours?

I got an idea: let's develop some skin cream that may or may not be corrosive when it comes in contact with epidermal cells. Then, let's test it on a human rather than a rabbit and let that human have a big scar on his arm rather than the rabbit.

Stupid...

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)
If not animals, what are we going to test the product out on? Is a rabbit's well-being more important than ours?

I got an idea: let's develop some skin cream that may or may not be corrosive when it comes in contact with epidermal cells. Then, let's test it on a human rather than a rabbit and let that human have a big scar on his arm rather than the rabbit.

Stupid...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Why is it stupid? Someone puts himself forward, knowing the risk involved. Or another life is captured and against its will is tested on.

IF the research was important, then I would, although disliking it, be prepared to accept it as neccesary, just as I do with stem cell research. But as much of todays research is regarding minor improvements to current drugs, which is profitable, rather than truelly benefitting research, like AIDS research, which is not profitable since the people who need the cure couldn't afford to buy it, I still stand by my objection to most testing.

Nature, I'll get back to you later, yours is going to take more time to write.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams)

Nope, test on humans. But not criminals. if you volunteer, fine. I see life as life, I don't discriminate on species. At least a human can choose to have tests, (if we ignore my philosophy that there is no such thing as choice...), such choice is beyond animals.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
right, I see where this is leading. We'll communites (mainly poor ppl) living near companies that need testing, and we'd find lot's of ppl who mutilated etc from testing (obviously if you give money in exchange for testing you'd attract those at the lower end of societal rank).
I still see no problem with testing on convicted criminals, ppl who have commited crime which could lead to capital punishment or life imprisonment should be used, I see no point in wasting tax payers money on keeping him/her alive in a place where he gets free accomadation and food. Let them burn.

[G. Adams]

Nope, I support communism remember, under my plans there would be no poor to be exploited by rich corporations.

Under capitalism, well it guts me to be thinking this way, but my views may be changing, animal testing could be justified as long as the company proves its work is important.

[white rice]

Some limits should be placed on animal research, but it is still a valuable tool that can't be replaced by computer simulations and random worst-case observations. The best option would be trying it on human beings for the benefit of humanity, but I wouldn't want to be the first to step into that line...

So while we're robbing some animals of that choice (though their purpose for living was most likely for experimentation), we are giving many other humans a chance to live a non-diseased life. I do wish that more people would be mindful of that sacrifice.

[nature of reality]

"Nature, I'll get back to you later, yours is going to take more time to write. "

Please do, i am deadly curious to see your justification for being willling to murder your mother to feed your dog.

[G. Adams]

I never said I would kill my mother to feed my dog. You seem to not understand the concept of volunteering. besides, I'm not dealing with you because your not here to argue, your just here to rant and rave.

[white rice]

I feel the concept of volunteering to become a lab rat is like becoming an organ donor. It might sound great to say that you'll become one, but carrying it out is a different story. Especially once the horror stories of people dying violent deaths, like how lab rats are now, show up on the evening news.

[G. Adams]

well then don't volunteer. tada, problem solved. someone will.

Of course I've seen a bigger flaw in my argument that I'm surprised hasn't been raised. I said if drugs were important enough to humanity, people would volunteer. Yet I've also said important research could be justifiably done upon animals. ah well, my view has moved throughout the time of this argument a little.

[white rice]

A very cute reply...

Someone will, but will there be enough? Countless billions are invested for animals to do who knows what to them. And organ shortages has been a reason for experimenting on pigs and primates for possible organ replacements. No matter how sophisticated a machine can be it will never match the efficiency and durability of a biological organ.

[Sodfather]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
I see life as life, I don't discriminate on species.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
And I'm assuming you see logic in that statement? Jesus...What in the...

Let me put it into these terms...

Two types of "life," which you view as wholly equal. The race of common rabits and the human race. According to you, the same value is placed on each.

Okay, let's have some fun with that amazingly illogical conclusion...

Eenie, meenie, minie, moe...As both species are of equal value, one is chosen to be exterminated by lot. What do you know, it's the humans. The result is the immediate loss of the institutions, laws, regulations, philosophy, scientific knowledge including millenia of biology and centuries of chemistry which the human race has strived to create and/or obtain throughout its existence.

This massive loss of accomplishments and data, you say, is equal to the loss of rabbits, which would result in, say, a few thousand extra pounds of grass left over per year and a few more insects and carrots lying around.

Do...You...See...My...Point? Equal? I think not, G. Adams.

[G. Adams]

Yes, equal. A rabbit is a life, a human is a life. What would the disapearence of all the culture matter if no-one was here to experience it anyway. Call me a hater of humans, but if there was a dog on a cliff ledge and a human I didn't know personally (and wasn't a stunning lass), I'd save the dog first. I'd do everything I could to save the human afterwoulds, but i'm getting that dog first.

The only way things arn't equal are the relations of one life to the individual in question. More clearly, the only things I would give special presidence are my friends and family, in that order too (i have a very strict definition of friend though, as in someone you could literally trust with everything, like pulling the plug on you, avenging your death, helping you beat the crap out of someone cause he raped an old friend of yours). After friends and family, I'd help an animal before a human. Then again if its a lass, even an ugly one i'd probably help her first, damned chivalry drummed into my brain, I hate waiting yet I feel like crap if i barge through a door without holding it for women. Its not as if they notice, and if they do its "I can open a door myself you know". Fucking cheers for that. Sorry, bitter tangents coming out here.

[white rice]

A very interesting scale you have there Mr. Adams.

Even if I held an attachment to the dog, I'd save the man's life because he'd be obligated to help me save the dog. Saving the dog first wouldn't help me in saving the man unless he was Lassie or something....

And for the last comment, don't take your gestures too personal. There are women who like to be treated as women. Some of those will hate to admit it though.

[Pooeypants]

How about we make clones of the human body but they're grown without heads? Is that a good alternative for a test organism?

[G. Adams]

How would you test for neurological reactions?

[Sodfather]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
How would you test for neurological reactions?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
An external electronic pulse generator that can simulate the brain's nervous impulses? No, too complicated...Just use rabbits. Last time I checked, rabbits' historic past consisted of eating grass, not creating an atomic bomb or inventing penicillin or building ninety-some story structures. :P

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Yes, equal. A rabbit is a life, a human is a life. What would the disapearence of all the culture matter if no-one was here to experience it anyway. Call me a hater of humans, but if there was a dog on a cliff ledge and a human I didn't know personally (and wasn't a stunning lass), I'd save the dog first. I'd do everything I could to save the human afterwoulds, but i'm getting that dog first.

The only way things arn't equal are the relations of one life to the individual in question. More clearly, the only things I would give special presidence are my friends and family, in that order too (i have a very strict definition of friend though, as in someone you could literally trust with everything, like pulling the plug on you, avenging your death, helping you beat the crap out of someone cause he raped an old friend of yours). After friends and family, I'd help an animal before a human. Then again if its a lass, even an ugly one i'd probably help her first, damned chivalry drummed into my brain, I hate waiting yet I feel like crap if i barge through a door without holding it for women. Its not as if they notice, and if they do its "I can open a door myself you know". Fucking cheers for that. Sorry, bitter tangents coming out here.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

and I was accused of being an intolerant beast...

no matter, life is a life yes? all life? is plant life is as important as human life? is viral life? is rodent life? is insect life?

and with your obvious distain for human life, why on earth would you endorse communal and communist living within the community of hated humans?