Animal Tests

[StrongHeartsWin]

By the way, G. Adams, I was wondering if you were going to comment on this ludicrous statement like I invited in my two posts above this one. Just want to see if you, too, would assert that there is a possibility that animals are volunteering themselves to be tested, like Kubedawg describes:

Quote by: Kubedawg Quote by: kubedawg And that's a catch 22 because you will never be able to tell if an animal is being forced or is willfully doing it.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin By the way, G. Adams, I was wondering if you were going to comment on this ludicrous statement like I invited in my two posts above this one. Just want to see if you, too, would assert that there is a possibility that animals are volunteering themselves to be tested, like Kubedawg describes:

Only too happy to.

Kube, what world are you living on where that counts as a justification? I am in support of animal testing, but at least I accept the responsibility that it is forced and cruel. Animals are not in a position to give consent, whether they would like to or not, therefore it can never be voluntary. If I mug someone I can't seriously claim that it may have actually been gift-giving just because the other person didn't object. How about we test on humans in vegatative states? They might agree to it, or maybe not, but until they say no we're in the clear, right?

[Captain Chaos]

I don't think Kubedawg was being literal in saying that animals are volunteering.


Have you guys considered using enemy combatants for testing? After all, they do not have rights.

(that last statement was not serious, btw)

[kubedawg]

Quote by: G. Adams Only too happy to. Kube, what world are you living on where that counts as a justification? I am in support of animal testing, but at least I accept the responsibility that it is forced and cruel. Animals are not in a position to give consent, whether they would like to or not, therefore it can never be voluntary. If I mug someone I can't seriously claim that it may have actually been gift-giving just because the other person didn't object. How about we test on humans in vegatative states? They might agree to it, or maybe not, but until they say no we're in the clear, right?

Yes I was only saying that because stronghearts is coming at this topic from a biased and unfair perspective. I was just trying to tell the fact that I doubt too many humans would willfully volunteer for medical testing. SHW is only pointing out the facts that everyone already knows in that we know there is not going to be an animal volunteering to be tested on. This is not equal consideration of interest because it involves something that cannot be done. We can never tell if an animal wants to willfully voolunteer to be tested on. And I'd like to point out what an outrageous comment SHW posted about it. Add that to the Debate Wall of Shame...

[G. Adams]

Quote by: kubedawg Yes I was only saying that because stronghearts is coming at this topic from a biased and unfair perspective. I was just trying to tell the fact that I doubt too many humans would willfully volunteer for medical testing. SHW is only pointing out the facts that everyone already knows in that we know there is not going to be an animal volunteering to be tested on. This is not equal consideration of interest because it involves something that cannot be done. We can never tell if an animal wants to willfully voolunteer to be tested on. And I'd like to point out what an outrageous comment SHW posted about it. Add that to the Debate Wall of Shame...

SHW is right in saying that there are no voluntary animal tests. A more appropriate response to him would be "So? And?", not twisting around a ludicrous suggestion that animals may or may not volunteer, we just don't know.

Humans do engage in a massive amount of later stage medical testing, not because it's good or bad for society, but because they are paid well. If you up the money on offer, there would be those that would go in for earlier stage testing. You would/should also need less test subjects, because the results would be much more relevant to their intended application.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos I don't think Kubedawg was being literal in saying that animals are volunteering.

I didn`t see anywhere he intimated that he was not being literal. What point made you think he was not being literal? He even goes on in a second post to repeat it again.

I would tell him that in a debate being taken seriously to mean what you say and to say what you mean. I am a little surprised you couldn`t point that out to him and the fact that putting forth such a statement -- if not literal -- is nothing more than obfuscation -- or just absurd.

Have you guys considered using enemy combatants for testing? After all, they do not have rights. (that last statement was not serious, btw)

Clearly stated so by you and hence no confusion. But, if not clearly stated, there is no way to know if this is a literal statement or not -- other than basing it on what we know of your character from previous posts. Kubedawg doesn`t have the luxury of past posts to say he didn`t mean what he said because he never said that animals are forced to undergo tests. Another reason why your statement could be taken serious if it were not clearly stated it wasn`t is because that suggestion you put forth has some truth in the reality of the past.

But, funny you should mention it; I have read literature before that said nomadic people, such a American Indians, when moving into new territory to inhabit, not being sure of which plants were edible, would force any captives they had to eat plant food they were not sure of and watch them for several days for adverse affects. In addition, Japanese doctors tested on POWs new medical procedures, such as shooting a prisoner in the gut at close range for doctors to practice bullet removal techniques in battlefield like conditions to name but one example of their testing on POWs.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: G. Adams SHW is right in saying that there are no voluntary animal tests. A more appropriate response to him would be "So? And?", not twisting around a ludicrous suggestion that animals may or may not volunteer, we just don't know.

Exactly and well said.

I have to say, eventhough G. Adams seems against me on most issues of animal rights, he has the maturity in debate to not support a ludicrous statement merely because it was said by someone on his side of the debate. To be able to call someone out from your own side for stating a ludicrous assertion is the sign of a mature debator and one who honors the rules and rigors of what is accepted and proper debate at higher levels.

Likewise, if I or SpideySpirit were to ever step outside the bounds of proper debate or state absurd statements for supporting our arguments, I would expect each of us to point out to the other that that such a statement is ludicrous and holds no water within the normal views of society or acadamia. I am not just talking about things we and others do not agree with each other on -- but just wacky way out there out of this world assertions -- like "we don`t know if animals willingly submit for testing."

Humans do engage in a massive amount of later stage medical testing, not because it's good or bad for society, but because they are paid well. If you up the money on offer, there would be those that would go in for earlier stage testing. You would/should also need less test subjects, because the results would be much more relevant to their intended application.

Right on the mark on all counts!

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeart I didn`t see anywhere he intimated that he was not being literal. What point made you think he was not being literal? He even goes on in a second post to repeat it again.

It is too ridiculous to be meant literally.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos It is too ridiculous to be meant literally.

Then you are making an assumption on Kubdawg`s perception of what he thinks is ridiculous or not and which he did not give us any hint of. How can you do that? Just because something said by someone is ridiculous does not automatically make them free from their ridiculous statement by giving the shelter under the umbrella of "not being literal."

For example, Raliens believe they were created in test tubes by superiour aliens and then transplanted here on Earth waiting for their ships which are under the command of Jesus to come and wisk them away. Surely that is rediculous and we see it as such. But, just because it is rediculous from our view does not mean the Raliens preach their message as symbolic.

But you are right, it is ridiculous what he stated.

[Captain Chaos]

Kubedawg,

I think sometimes some of us have a hard time understanding what you are saying. Would you be able to make your points in a slightly more direct fashion, so that they will be easier to follow?

[SpideySpirit]

Quote by: kubedawg I'm just evening the playing field here. Prisoners are people too ya know, and prisoners have rights. If you are assuming equal consideration of rights, then why force prisoners to go through the same tests instead of animals? That's pretty much what I was trying to say. Stop twisting my words into your own assumptions. You gotta dig through some of this. Nothing is just on the top layer. I didn't say that animals could volunteer for this, in fact, I said the opposite. I was pointing out how you continue to contradict yourself in almost every post you make.

Yes prisoners are people, well doesn't that depend on the color of their skin??
The nomenclature that you use is very speciesist, My point is that the main stream nomenclature of the not to distant past didn't refer to Negros, Asians, even women as real people and they were not extended equal consideration of interests. Non-humans animals are people they just have a different body to me.

[Captain Chaos]

Humans are sentient, animals are not.

Spidey, do you make no distinguisment between lower and higher degrees of intelligence, when evaluating the worth of a being, or the significance of a being's emotions and thoughts?

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Humans are sentient, animals are not. Spidey, do you make no distinguisment between lower and higher degrees of intelligence, when evaluating the worth of a being, or the significance of a being's emotions and thoughts?

Many animals are very much sentient. Off the top of my head, the higher apes, dolphins, elephants, cats and dogs/wolves are sentient. I don't know if you've had a dog, but a dog knows when your depressed and, if your close to he dog at least, they will look after you. Additionally, there are numerous reports of dogs pulling owners out of bed when the building is burning. Surely a none-sentient creature would consider only direct survival?

[Captain Chaos]

Indeed, you are correct. I had the wrong understanding of that word. I looked it up.

However, Humans are vastly more intelligent than animals.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Indeed, you are correct. I had the wrong understanding of that word. I looked it up. However, Humans are vastly more intelligent than animals.

Most humans slave 40-50 hour weeks at a job they hate (if their lucky) so that they can come home and watch tv for a couple of hours, eat, sleep, repeat. Retire at 65, die at 75, being too feeble in the gap between to make the most of life.

Dolphins and wolves hunt, screw and play ALL day.

Which group sounds more intelligent?

Ignoring that, if we are judging by intelligence, perhaps we can test on idiot humans then? How about low-functioning autistics? Or people in vegetative states? Hardly chess champions are they? If you think that would be wrong, then it can't be intelligence that defines whether you something is a suitable test subject or not.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Well said, G.

Intelligence is irrelevant for choosing purposes in regards to testing products or advancements in areas.

As G. said, if intelligence were the measuring stick in how we treat beings, then those in vegetative states or those who are severely retarted whose mental states measure less than a primate or some other animal, would be or should be targeted for testing. I reject that.

And, G. has made a good case for questioning our intelligence (or lack of it) in how our species in general lives its life. I would also add that it is quite dumb to not live in harmony with the ecological systems of one`s environment. Not intelligent at all.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Kubedawg, I think sometimes some of us have a hard time understanding what you are saying. Would you be able to make your points in a slightly more direct fashion, so that they will be easier to follow?

Sure.

SHW says animals aren't volunteering to be tested, and I agree. However, I view human rights above the rights of animals, so it is alright for us to test animals, as long as it might help us or animals medically. Yes there has been billions of dollars spent on funding for medical research to develop a cure for cancer, and or other diseases. Some of these tests are by using animals. But certainly not all of them, which is why I first pointed out that fact. I think if people are willing to be tested on, even if it means death, that's their life. But, I don't think people, even prisoners, even murderers, rapists, etc be forced to undergo testing if they don't want to. Greed is a good way scientists can use to get people to test, but that's the wrong direction. I feel, if we can do tests on animals that prove beneficial torwards finding cures for diseases, then all the better. So basically, I see forced tests on animals before willfull tests on humans, if it can get the job done. I may be wrong in the fact that it can bring results to test animals instead of humans, however, don't you think they would have dumped the idea after spending these billions of dollars with nothing to show for it?

[Captain Chaos]

Animal tests are a crucial part of the drug testing process.

Many drugs never make it to human testing because they prove dangerous in animals.

Also, many drugs are discovered through testing the actions of various chemicals in animals, and tweaking the formula until they get it right.

I am in the middle on this issue. I think much animal testing is cruel, and could be eliminated. However, I think much of it is necessary and irreplacable with either humans or computer models.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Many drugs never make it to human testing because they prove dangerous in animals.

And drugs which have made it through animal testing have proven dangerous to humans. Do you just say "tough luck" to those who were injured in those cases? Rather callous for those who say they care about human life to just pull out the ledger and say, "Look here, you 100 children and parents of those who have suffered birth defects from our drugs are to just suck it up because we learned something from your injuries that are going to help 1,000 other kids."

I think there is a little more to the dignity of life in general than just that.

Micro dosing, culture testing, computer modeling are just a few which show great promise and may be the safer route all the way around than animal testing -- for in those cases that drugs are being tested in very small doses on exactly the target species it is being designed for.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin And drugs which have made it through animal testing have proven dangerous to humans. Do you just say "tough luck" to those who were injured in those cases? Rather callous for those who say they care about human life to just pull out the ledger and say, "Look here, you 100 children and parents of those who have suffered birth defects from our drugs are to just suck it up because we learned something from your injuries that are going to help 1,000 other kids." I think there is a little more to the dignity of life in general than just that. Micro dosing, culture testing, computer modeling are just a few which show great promise and may be the safer route all the way around than animal testing -- for in those cases that drugs are being tested in very small doses on exactly the target species it is being designed for.

Micro dosing, culture testing, and computer modeling are also part of the testing process. You have faith that they will be sufficient, I do not.

The fact that dangerous drugs make it to market just means that drug companies are not doing enough testing before they get approval.