Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Sodfather · Nov 18, 2003, 04:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
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?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually, viri exhibit life-like characteristics but are not life. I believe they are proteins.

Perhaps you can use bacterial life as another example.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
and with your obvious distain for human life, why on earth would you endorse communal and communist living within the community of hated humans?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I would say it's because he's possibly one of my dear "non-conformists for the sake of non-conformity." I am going to mention that in my sig, it's almost profound.

indierockboy · Nov 18, 2003, 04:44 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<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>

what are your thoughts on vegetarianism and veganism, then?

G. Adams · Nov 18, 2003, 05:58 pm

My life is life stance is in regards to sentient life, or else you do get to more ridiculous levels, like comparing grass to humans.

Its not none-conformism for its own sake, i've held this view since i was very, very young.

I don't hate humans. Your logic that if i don't put humans higher than animals, then I hate humans. That is like saying if i don't put whites higher than blacks, I hate whites. Its not true, I don't hate humans, i love humans as much as animals. I hate to see humans suffering, and I hate to see animals suffering.

I'm not for or against vegetarianism, but I personally am not either vegetarian or vegan. Its generally unhealthy, its natural for me to eat meat, its meat that allowed the monkey's brain to grow and create ostrolapithicus. I do however buy my meat from a local butcher, and I don't eat much of it. The butcher buys his meat locally, and those animals are treated humanely and slaughtered as easily as possible. This was the case when I lived in Middlesbrough, I've had to compromise temporarily as I've moved to uni, and don't know where I can get this type of standard, but i am looking.

indierockboy · Nov 19, 2003, 05:37 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
My life is life stance is in regards to sentient life, or else you do get to more ridiculous levels, like comparing grass to humans.

Its not none-conformism for its own sake, i've held this view since i was very, very young.

I don't hate humans. Your logic that if i don't put humans higher than animals, then I hate humans. That is like saying if i don't put whites higher than blacks, I hate whites. Its not true, I don't hate humans, i love humans as much as animals. I hate to see humans suffering, and I hate to see animals suffering.

I'm not for or against vegetarianism, but I personally am not either vegetarian or vegan. Its generally unhealthy, its natural for me to eat meat, its meat that allowed the monkey's brain to grow and create ostrolapithicus. I do however buy my meat from a local butcher, and I don't eat much of it. The butcher buys his meat locally, and those animals are treated humanely and slaughtered as easily as possible. This was the case when I lived in Middlesbrough, I've had to compromise temporarily as I've moved to uni, and don't know where I can get this type of standard, but i am looking.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

i don't know how much of that was directed at me. however, i would like to point out that i was only curious to know your position, and am not judging you upon it. i think the complexities of life, beit human or animal, are far beyond my abilities to comprehend. as such, i have no right to cast judgement. however, i must refute the idea that vegetarianism (and veganism) is an unhealthy choice. recent studies have shown that a balanced diet that contains few to no animal products is just as healthy, if not healthier, than otherwise.

**Pooeypants** · Nov 20, 2003, 01:00 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
How would you test for neurological reactions?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
We grow a brain without a body? Or perhaps just parts of a brain? Grotesque as it may sound I'd say it's a good alternative to animal testing.

Waychel · Nov 21, 2003, 02:00 am

I think the bottom line is that everyone finds animal testing cruel and immoral. However, it would be more immoral to put all medical progression at a stand still.

Recently, scientists in Britain found a regenerative cure for Parkinsons disease among lab rats they've been testing on. This could lead to a potential cure or treatment for human beings with Parkinsons, such as my father.

IMO, whatever lab rats that died to make this discovery and will die in continued research of it are wholly justified. The moral conviction to help human beings far outweighs that of animals and their "rights" to most people, including myself.

Animal testing may be responsible for the deaths of many animals, but it is also responsible for saving the lives of even more human beings. Which is more important to you?

**Pooeypants** · Nov 21, 2003, 02:15 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
I think the bottom line is that everyone finds animal testing cruel and immoral. However, it would be more immoral to put all medical progression at a stand still.

Recently, scientists in Britain found a regenerative cure for Parkinsons disease among lab rats they've been testing on. This could lead to a potential cure or treatment for human beings with Parkinsons, such as my father.

IMO, whatever lab rats that died to make this discovery and will die in continued research of it are wholly justified. The moral conviction to help human beings far outweighs that of animals and their "rights" to most people, including myself.

Animal testing may be responsible for the deaths of many animals, but it is also responsible for saving the lives of even more human beings. Which is more important to you?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
yes, we must learn when something is worth sacrificing for the good of the many.

nature of reality · Nov 21, 2003, 09:52 pm

G. Adams--

You don't value them EQUALLY.

Not only did you excplicitly say you valued animal life MORE then human life (since they were innocent), but also your views support this

You value a Hawk and Pigeon equally. If the Hawk kills the Pigeon for whatever benefit, you don't give a shit.

When a human kills a rat for his own benefit, you see that as bad.

Because you value that rat more then the human.

white rice · Nov 22, 2003, 01:41 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (indierockboy,)
however, i must refute the idea that vegetarianism (and veganism) is an unhealthy choice. recent studies have shown that a balanced diet that contains few to no animal products is just as healthy, if not healthier, than otherwise.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I agree, while it's inconvenient to maintain a vegetarian diet with the neccessary protiens, it isn't impossible. Personally, I love the taste of beef and chicken.

The rate of progress biological research is achieving is impossible without animal testing.

G. Adams · Nov 22, 2003, 11:58 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,)
G. Adams--

You don't value them EQUALLY.

Not only did you excplicitly say you valued animal life MORE then human life (since they were innocent), but also your views support this

You value a Hawk and Pigeon equally. If the Hawk kills the Pigeon for whatever benefit, you don't give a shit.

When a human kills a rat for his own benefit, you see that as bad.

Because you value that rat more then the human.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If a human kills another human for his benefit i'm pissed too. I don't object to killing animals for real benefit, I'm against useless killing of animals, such as testing minor drugs that are only being created for profits, rather than actual benefits. which is why, if you look through my later posts you will see how I support the testing of animals in areas such as AIDS research.

Impenitent · Nov 22, 2003, 12:09 pm

AIDS research is done for PROFIT

ALL drug research is done for profit...

how many new wonder drugs have been developed in countries with socialized medicine? NONE!

Waychel · Nov 22, 2003, 12:52 pm

ALL medical research is done for a profit. Scientists need to eat too, you know.

Why have no new wonder drugs been developed in countries with socialized medicine? Maybe because these same countries can barely afford to keep their hospitals adequately staffed and stocked, let alone spare what money they have for medical research?

Medical research costs MONEY like everything else in this world. That money isn't just going to scientists, but the equipment and facilities they will need to carry out such research.

Maybe if these same countries adopted free enterprise, they would be able to afford medical research in some years to come. That is, if they can value a human life over a rat.

G. Adams · Nov 22, 2003, 01:01 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
AIDS research is done for PROFIT

ALL drug research is done for profit...

how many new wonder drugs have been developed in countries with socialized medicine? NONE!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

*sighs*

Look, your being pedantic, you know what I mean. There is drugs research with helping people in mind with profit as well, and there are drugs produced just for profit made in the western world, such as minor improvements to aspirin.

AIDS research is not being funded nearly as much as this crisis demands, because the people who need the drugs can't afford to buy them, so it would be unprofitable.

Waychel · Nov 22, 2003, 01:12 pm

There are sooo many companies that fund AIDS research (and charities) with some remainder of their profits. My makeup by MAC for example: All profts from lip products go to AIDS research. I think I can say with some assurance that AIDS research, Breast Cancer research and Heart Disease research are the three most focused upon of medical science in this country.

What country pays millions of dollars a year in financial aid to Africa towards AIDS victims? America. There's no such thing as too much funding or focus, but we're far from ignoring the issue - here or in any other country.

Impenitent · Nov 22, 2003, 01:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
AIDS research is done for PROFIT

ALL drug research is done for profit...

how many new wonder drugs have been developed in countries with socialized medicine? NONE!<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

*sighs*

Look, your being pedantic, you know what I mean. There is drugs research with helping people in mind with profit as well, and there are drugs produced just for profit made in the western world, such as minor improvements to aspirin.

AIDS research is not being funded nearly as much as this crisis demands, because the people who need the drugs can't afford to buy them, so it would be unprofitable.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

no, I am not being pedantic, that is the way it is... there is no research being done without profit in mind... AIDS research is being funded exactly as much as the crisis demands... if they had money to fund the research, there would be more research... if there was an incentive to do it, they would... you admit AIDS research is unprofitable and you expect researchers to slave away to find a cure for free? your idea of human nature and motivation is flawed... but then again, you think communism could work... it can't because the human animal operates from a basic instinct of greed...

no profit, no research

Waychel · Nov 22, 2003, 01:16 pm

Impenitent, since you are so against medical research for profit, then why don't you fund every facility, every scientist, every manufacturer in every field of medical science in this country yourself?

Impenitent · Nov 22, 2003, 01:43 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,)
Impenitent, since you are so against medical research for profit, then why don't you fund every facility, every scientist, every manufacturer in every field of medical science in this country yourself?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

no, I am not against profit at all...

people work operate from greed...

G thinks otherwise, not I...

G. Adams · Nov 22, 2003, 01:53 pm

I'm not against medicine for profit, i'm against testing on animals for research that is driven PURELY by profit, rather trying to save lives.

Impenitent · Nov 22, 2003, 04:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
I'm not against medicine for profit, i'm against testing on animals for research that is driven PURELY by profit, rather trying to save lives.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

you like profit now? how CAPITALISTIC of you...

there is no profit in communism...

Waychel · Nov 22, 2003, 05:31 pm

Quite frankly, I could care less if a company does not have saintly, philanthropic reasons for investing its own money into a specific criteria of medical research. If they expect to generate some return of investment, then that means another company will take a liking to the proposal too, investing money of its own into the same venture. The only people losing money are the companies and human beings will be the ones to gain from the developments and discoveries afterwards: Win-win.

Why should it matter whether a company funds AIDS research in the hope of getting some return of the profits invested sometime in the future? Shouldn't the only thing that matter be the cure or treatment that comes out in the end? You also seem to think that all scientists are business men, when in actuality they are normal men, simply with the conviction to help people. Not very many scientists live the high life.

If you think these "evil" corporations shouldn't fund their research, then once again, please feel free to do a better job of funding them yourselves. Your complaints are impractical.

Another thing to note is that literally billions of dollars have been poured into AIDS research since the 1980's and we're still far from having a cure. So really, there is no immediate return of profits when it comes to medical research and very little chance of gain in most cases when it comes to diseases and such. The real reason most companies invest their money to such causes is actually because they want to appear to have a "humanitarian" image. If they appear to be "giving back" something, the public has a warmer image of them and will have an inclination towards choosing their product(s) or buying more of them. So in most cases, these companies invest money into medical research not expecting a direct return in profits, but a boost in sales and public image as a result of the contribution.

Nov 18, 2003, 04:11 pm	#41 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) 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?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually, viri exhibit life-like characteristics but are not life. I believe they are proteins. Perhaps you can use bacterial life as another example. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) and with your obvious distain for human life, why on earth would you endorse communal and communist living within the community of hated humans?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I would say it's because he's possibly one of my dear "non-conformists for the sake of non-conformity." I am going to mention that in my sig, it's almost profound.

Nov 18, 2003, 04:44 pm	#42 (permalink) (top)
indierockboy Molten Ash Location: ontario canada Posts: 104	</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'> what are your thoughts on vegetarianism and veganism, then? http://www.autophobic.net/tmesis/sig.gif

Nov 18, 2003, 05:58 pm	#43 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,153	My life is life stance is in regards to sentient life, or else you do get to more ridiculous levels, like comparing grass to humans. Its not none-conformism for its own sake, i've held this view since i was very, very young. I don't hate humans. Your logic that if i don't put humans higher than animals, then I hate humans. That is like saying if i don't put whites higher than blacks, I hate whites. Its not true, I don't hate humans, i love humans as much as animals. I hate to see humans suffering, and I hate to see animals suffering. I'm not for or against vegetarianism, but I personally am not either vegetarian or vegan. Its generally unhealthy, its natural for me to eat meat, its meat that allowed the monkey's brain to grow and create ostrolapithicus. I do however buy my meat from a local butcher, and I don't eat much of it. The butcher buys his meat locally, and those animals are treated humanely and slaughtered as easily as possible. This was the case when I lived in Middlesbrough, I've had to compromise temporarily as I've moved to uni, and don't know where I can get this type of standard, but i am looking. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 19, 2003, 05:37 am	#44 (permalink) (top)
indierockboy Molten Ash Location: ontario canada Posts: 104	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) My life is life stance is in regards to sentient life, or else you do get to more ridiculous levels, like comparing grass to humans. Its not none-conformism for its own sake, i've held this view since i was very, very young. I don't hate humans. Your logic that if i don't put humans higher than animals, then I hate humans. That is like saying if i don't put whites higher than blacks, I hate whites. Its not true, I don't hate humans, i love humans as much as animals. I hate to see humans suffering, and I hate to see animals suffering. I'm not for or against vegetarianism, but I personally am not either vegetarian or vegan. Its generally unhealthy, its natural for me to eat meat, its meat that allowed the monkey's brain to grow and create ostrolapithicus. I do however buy my meat from a local butcher, and I don't eat much of it. The butcher buys his meat locally, and those animals are treated humanely and slaughtered as easily as possible. This was the case when I lived in Middlesbrough, I've had to compromise temporarily as I've moved to uni, and don't know where I can get this type of standard, but i am looking.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> i don't know how much of that was directed at me. however, i would like to point out that i was only curious to know your position, and am not judging you upon it. i think the complexities of life, beit human or animal, are far beyond my abilities to comprehend. as such, i have no right to cast judgement. however, i must refute the idea that vegetarianism (and veganism) is an unhealthy choice. recent studies have shown that a balanced diet that contains few to no animal products is just as healthy, if not healthier, than otherwise. http://www.autophobic.net/tmesis/sig.gif

Nov 20, 2003, 01:00 pm	#45 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,602	</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'> We grow a brain without a body? Or perhaps just parts of a brain? Grotesque as it may sound I'd say it's a good alternative to animal testing. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Nov 21, 2003, 02:00 am	#46 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	I think the bottom line is that everyone finds animal testing cruel and immoral. However, it would be more immoral to put all medical progression at a stand still. Recently, scientists in Britain found a regenerative cure for Parkinsons disease among lab rats they've been testing on. This could lead to a potential cure or treatment for human beings with Parkinsons, such as my father. IMO, whatever lab rats that died to make this discovery and will die in continued research of it are wholly justified. The moral conviction to help human beings far outweighs that of animals and their "rights" to most people, including myself. Animal testing may be responsible for the deaths of many animals, but it is also responsible for saving the lives of even more human beings. Which is more important to you? Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Nov 21, 2003, 02:15 pm	#47 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,602	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) I think the bottom line is that everyone finds animal testing cruel and immoral. However, it would be more immoral to put all medical progression at a stand still. Recently, scientists in Britain found a regenerative cure for Parkinsons disease among lab rats they've been testing on. This could lead to a potential cure or treatment for human beings with Parkinsons, such as my father. IMO, whatever lab rats that died to make this discovery and will die in continued research of it are wholly justified. The moral conviction to help human beings far outweighs that of animals and their "rights" to most people, including myself. Animal testing may be responsible for the deaths of many animals, but it is also responsible for saving the lives of even more human beings. Which is more important to you?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> yes, we must learn when something is worth sacrificing for the good of the many. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Nov 21, 2003, 09:52 pm	#48 (permalink) (top)
nature of reality Molten Ash Posts: 134	G. Adams-- You don't value them EQUALLY. Not only did you excplicitly say you valued animal life MORE then human life (since they were innocent), but also your views support this You value a Hawk and Pigeon equally. If the Hawk kills the Pigeon for whatever benefit, you don't give a shit. When a human kills a rat for his own benefit, you see that as bad. Because you value that rat more then the human. Whats wrong with Liberty?

Nov 22, 2003, 01:41 am	#49 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (indierockboy,) however, i must refute the idea that vegetarianism (and veganism) is an unhealthy choice. recent studies have shown that a balanced diet that contains few to no animal products is just as healthy, if not healthier, than otherwise.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I agree, while it's inconvenient to maintain a vegetarian diet with the neccessary protiens, it isn't impossible. Personally, I love the taste of beef and chicken. The rate of progress biological research is achieving is impossible without animal testing. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Nov 22, 2003, 11:58 am	#50 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,153	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (nature of reality,) G. Adams-- You don't value them EQUALLY. Not only did you excplicitly say you valued animal life MORE then human life (since they were innocent), but also your views support this You value a Hawk and Pigeon equally. If the Hawk kills the Pigeon for whatever benefit, you don't give a shit. When a human kills a rat for his own benefit, you see that as bad. Because you value that rat more then the human.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If a human kills another human for his benefit i'm pissed too. I don't object to killing animals for real benefit, I'm against useless killing of animals, such as testing minor drugs that are only being created for profits, rather than actual benefits. which is why, if you look through my later posts you will see how I support the testing of animals in areas such as AIDS research. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 22, 2003, 12:09 pm	#51 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	AIDS research is done for PROFIT ALL drug research is done for profit... how many new wonder drugs have been developed in countries with socialized medicine? NONE! "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 22, 2003, 12:52 pm	#52 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	ALL medical research is done for a profit. Scientists need to eat too, you know. Why have no new wonder drugs been developed in countries with socialized medicine? Maybe because these same countries can barely afford to keep their hospitals adequately staffed and stocked, let alone spare what money they have for medical research? Medical research costs MONEY like everything else in this world. That money isn't just going to scientists, but the equipment and facilities they will need to carry out such research. Maybe if these same countries adopted free enterprise, they would be able to afford medical research in some years to come. That is, if they can value a human life over a rat. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Nov 22, 2003, 01:01 pm	#53 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,153	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) AIDS research is done for PROFIT ALL drug research is done for profit... how many new wonder drugs have been developed in countries with socialized medicine? NONE!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> sighs Look, your being pedantic, you know what I mean. There is drugs research with helping people in mind with profit as well, and there are drugs produced just for profit made in the western world, such as minor improvements to aspirin. AIDS research is not being funded nearly as much as this crisis demands, because the people who need the drugs can't afford to buy them, so it would be unprofitable. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 22, 2003, 01:12 pm	#54 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	There are sooo many companies that fund AIDS research (and charities) with some remainder of their profits. My makeup by MAC for example: All profts from lip products go to AIDS research. I think I can say with some assurance that AIDS research, Breast Cancer research and Heart Disease research are the three most focused upon of medical science in this country. What country pays millions of dollars a year in financial aid to Africa towards AIDS victims? America. There's no such thing as too much funding or focus, but we're far from ignoring the issue - here or in any other country. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Nov 22, 2003, 01:13 pm	#55 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) AIDS research is done for PROFIT ALL drug research is done for profit... how many new wonder drugs have been developed in countries with socialized medicine? NONE!<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> sighs Look, your being pedantic, you know what I mean. There is drugs research with helping people in mind with profit as well, and there are drugs produced just for profit made in the western world, such as minor improvements to aspirin. AIDS research is not being funded nearly as much as this crisis demands, because the people who need the drugs can't afford to buy them, so it would be unprofitable.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> no, I am not being pedantic, that is the way it is... there is no research being done without profit in mind... AIDS research is being funded exactly as much as the crisis demands... if they had money to fund the research, there would be more research... if there was an incentive to do it, they would... you admit AIDS research is unprofitable and you expect researchers to slave away to find a cure for free? your idea of human nature and motivation is flawed... but then again, you think communism could work... it can't because the human animal operates from a basic instinct of greed... no profit, no research "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 22, 2003, 01:16 pm	#56 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Impenitent, since you are so against medical research for profit, then why don't you fund every facility, every scientist, every manufacturer in every field of medical science in this country yourself? Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Nov 22, 2003, 01:43 pm	#57 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Waychel,) Impenitent, since you are so against medical research for profit, then why don't you fund every facility, every scientist, every manufacturer in every field of medical science in this country yourself?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> no, I am not against profit at all... people work operate from greed... G thinks otherwise, not I... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 22, 2003, 01:53 pm	#58 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,153	I'm not against medicine for profit, i'm against testing on animals for research that is driven PURELY by profit, rather trying to save lives. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 22, 2003, 04:13 pm	#59 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) I'm not against medicine for profit, i'm against testing on animals for research that is driven PURELY by profit, rather trying to save lives.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> you like profit now? how CAPITALISTIC of you... there is no profit in communism... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 22, 2003, 05:31 pm	#60 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Quite frankly, I could care less if a company does not have saintly, philanthropic reasons for investing its own money into a specific criteria of medical research. If they expect to generate some return of investment, then that means another company will take a liking to the proposal too, investing money of its own into the same venture. The only people losing money are the companies and human beings will be the ones to gain from the developments and discoveries afterwards: Win-win. Why should it matter whether a company funds AIDS research in the hope of getting some return of the profits invested sometime in the future? Shouldn't the only thing that matter be the cure or treatment that comes out in the end? You also seem to think that all scientists are business men, when in actuality they are normal men, simply with the conviction to help people. Not very many scientists live the high life. If you think these "evil" corporations shouldn't fund their research, then once again, please feel free to do a better job of funding them yourselves. Your complaints are impractical. Another thing to note is that literally billions of dollars have been poured into AIDS research since the 1980's and we're still far from having a cure. So really, there is no immediate return of profits when it comes to medical research and very little chance of gain in most cases when it comes to diseases and such. The real reason most companies invest their money to such causes is actually because they want to appear to have a "humanitarian" image. If they appear to be "giving back" something, the public has a warmer image of them and will have an inclination towards choosing their product(s) or buying more of them. So in most cases, these companies invest money into medical research not expecting a direct return in profits, but a boost in sales and public image as a result of the contribution. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.