PDA

View Full Version : Animal testing, your feelings?

Tokis-Phoenix
28-02-06, 21:21
This is a poll/thread for all those out there that are concerned about animal testing and are against it to a certain extent for whatever reasons or in certain situations.

Erik
01-03-06, 08:58
This is a poll/thread for all those out there that are concerned about animal testing and are against it to a certain extent for whatever reasons or in certain situations.

Hopefully there will be more advances like this in all sectors in the future...

http://www.drugresearcher.com/news-by-product/news.asp?id=62773&idCat=5&k=new-microchip-could

Just out of curiosity, what is this post for? Just raising awareness?

Tokis-Phoenix
01-03-06, 18:11
Hopefully there will be more advances like this in all sectors in the future...
http://www.drugresearcher.com/news-by-product/news.asp?id=62773&idCat=5&k=new-microchip-could
Just out of curiosity, what is this post for? Just raising awareness?
This is more of a curiosity thread than anything else. I have noticed there are quite a few animal rights/welfare activists on this forum who say they are strongly against animal testing, some would even be willing to do more extreme acts against animal testing like destroy scientists or companys property or try to make their lives a misery, but i am curious to see how far many of these people and other people who are against animal testing to certain degrees that are concerned about these things, would actually act on their word or opinions when it comes down to it and to what extent roughly.
Practically everything you can think of that ends up in our shops, hospitals, armys or homes etc has been animal tested at some point- from noodles, to bleach, to shampoo, to mascara and perfume, biological weapons or viruses, genetic research to cancer treatments and alchohol and candy etc etc- almost everything has been animal tested at some point in its making. And just because it may have only initially been tested on animals when it first came out, does not mean the testing ends there- many animal tested products like Flash Bleach are regually re-tested on animals every couple of years to make sure they are still safe for human use.
There are also many things done in the name of medical research on animals that are quite horiffic but have very little use in the real world when it comes down to it as well.
Im generally against animal testing, but i am not sure to what extent or how far i would go to act on my opinions. Im not sure i could happily live in the comfort i know in a world without animal testing. But at the same time i disagree with alot of what goes on with it. So this thread is here to hear some of your opinions on the subject. I honestly do not think that even with the most extreme anti animal testing animal rights or welfare activists, would actually act on all of their opinions and refrain from consuming or buying or taking all animal tested products completely; this world has grown very dependent on such things...

Tsuyoiko
02-03-06, 12:17
You're really good at devising these polls Tokis!

I think testing on animals is wrong, but I would put those principles aside in certain circumstances, much as it would upset me. I always buy cruelty-free toiletries and cosmetics. I only use medicines if I absolutely have to - I always try to find a cruelty-free alternative as I believe in alternative remedies anyway. If my life was threatened or my quality of life severely impaired I would take medicines that have been tested on animals - I think that is just self defence.

nurizeko
02-03-06, 12:26
As long as all measures to lower suffering are taken i support animal testing for medicines and if the case arises, to save ass loads of my people, as the thread poll suggested.

Everything else (cosmetics and stuff) is unjustified, i think.

But no, i aint going to become an eco-terrorist over it.

Tokis-Phoenix
02-03-06, 19:57
You're really good at devising these polls Tokis!
I think testing on animals is wrong, but I would put those principles aside in certain circumstances, much as it would upset me. I always buy cruelty-free toiletries and cosmetics. I only use medicines if I absolutely have to - I always try to find a cruelty-free alternative as I believe in alternative remedies anyway. If my life was threatened or my quality of life severely impaired I would take medicines that have been tested on animals - I think that is just self defence.

Thanks :cool: .
This a link to an article that was released last year on how much animal testing and on what has been done over the years in England;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4177200.stm

The statistics sound relatively positive, but it is only showing a very small part of the big picture of things as far as animal testing goes- two points i would like to rbing up that were discussed in the article are;

a. Until a law was made in 1986, only animal experiments fell under the catogory of animal testing, rather than animal 'procedures' as well, which although the two are very similar, rarely fall under the smae catagory- which means many other countrys still only count animal experiments in animal testing rather than 'procedures' as well, so the statistics are very misleading..
b. In 1998 animal testing was banned over here for cosmetics, but...That does not mean that like the bulk of other animal testing, we do not buy animal tested products from other countries. This is an important factor to take into consideration. While we may have laws against certain forms of animal testing over here, but it is well known that we strongly support the particular forms of animal testing that we cannot legally do, in other countries that can.
I think this actually makes things worse, because, is it really better that we now even more financially support animal testing in countries that have less awareness or morality over animal testing even more freely? Would it be better, if only to a small or certain extent, that we support more animal testing in our own country/ies just so we can keep a closer eye and tighter control over it rather than let other countries, who we have even less influence over, get away with far worser acts of animal testing ? Hmm...

KrazyKat
07-03-06, 19:22
I am to an extent annoyed by the emphasis many AR activists place on animal testing. Although first let me say that regardeless of how effective animal testing is on medical research I would consider that too little is being done to reduce the number of tests on animals.

First of all Animal testing in the name of medicine, can be suported by arguments that it helps save human lives. This means that the issue is not clear cut, like say eggs from caged hens, but that it actually has a real argument supporting it.

As a result of this drawing attention to animal testing is only going to win support of people who are already vegetarian or eat free range, and infact drive many of the people we are trying to reach further away. To take an example at a protest outside McDonalds the other week one lady came over to our group and said something down the lines of 'let me tell you, I'm a nurse and without animal testing many people would be dying'. It doesn't matter that our protest had no connection at all to animal testing, because of that issue she wasn't willing to listen.

On the other hand, campaigns about fatory farming can have real success. Many people still do not know how badly animals can be treated there, and I find that many people are generally suportive, but too lazy to find convinient free range meats. Especially with the enviromental issue of overfishing at the moment I feel that progress could be made there too. I think the scale with this issues is different too, in terms of the number of animals.

Additionally, the argument is often brought up that by closing animal testing in the UK the testing will only be carried out abroard in courtries with weaker animal welfare. Assuming this to be true, campaigning should then be on changing people's attituteds and on the government, rather than on closing individual labs. (Although making examples of labs with bad practices wouldn't be a bad thing)

To answer the actual poll Most of AT is wrong whatever the animal involved, but I consider it acceptable to chose to take medicines tested on animals. Even if it contributes to more animal testing, I'm not sure a boycott would be so effective at the moment, and we could do so much more for the cause by living and being healthy than dying for an ideal.

KrazyKat
07-03-06, 19:27
By the way, does anyone have an idea of the ratio of animals killed to humans saved concering animal testing? I know it would acually be impossible to estimate beacuse it would be hard to judge the effecitiveness of alternative methodes that were never used/developed but I was just wondering if anyone had any numbers?

Tokis-Phoenix
25-03-06, 17:03
"Bump".
Plus, if you are around, strongvoicesforward what are your opinions on this poll since you seem to be a strong animal rights supporter?

Frank D. White
25-03-06, 23:20
My cat tested well on her SAT's.

Frank

:blush:

Ermac
26-03-06, 14:10
AT is okay in my eyes, their many lab rats or rabbits that are bred for lab testing so i think no one will miss and its just the way things are.

And to the people who think that is cruel, why don't you go become a test subject? nah didnt think so ;)

strongvoicesforward
26-03-06, 14:31
AT is okay in my eyes, their many lab rats or rabbits that are bred for lab testing...

Have they been bred to not feel pain or suffer?

so i think no one will miss and its just the way things are.

The world doesnt have to be static, and accepting things the way they are never would allow for change.

Tokis-Phoenix
26-03-06, 16:28
Have they been bred to not feel pain or suffer?
The world doesnt have to be static, and accepting things the way they are never would allow for change.

You treat the world like america, the rest of the world is hardly like america. Many things are imposible to change simply because of the balance of wealth between countries- if you ban animal testing here(i live in england, but i take it you are an american) or in america, our governments will just support it in another country that has even less choice or awareness of animal morality.
Change isn't about not accepting everything in the world you don't agree or feel happy with, if you don't look at the world realistically you will change nothing.
What does the realisation feel like, that if you ever banned animal testing in a place like america, we would just support and finance it even more in a place like China? Or do you refuse to comprehend that fact?
I take it you have also voted in the poll?

No-name
26-03-06, 16:48
Whether I agree with it or feel happy with it, there are few other methods pharmaceutical corporations, food product developers and consumer safety organizations can use to ensure that human pain and suffering (and lawsuits) do not occur. The capitalist dollar is on the side of animal testing.

I am generally hopeful that the animal testing that goes on is necessary and follows a set of ethics that ensures that the pain and suffering these animals recieve is necessary to prevent possible pain and suffering in humans. I am also certain that we need to keep an eye on the guys in lab coats. I would much rather find out from lab tests that a certain product is harmful, dangerous or presents some sort of risk, then to know that humans are suffering or dying becase it went untested. The days of radium water, x-ray shoe fitters and thalidomide should remind us that a few well designed tests could have saved thousands of human lives. Companies like Merc that lost hundreds of millions of dollars because some extra measure of testing was not done will never stand for the elimination of all testing.

Ermac
26-03-06, 20:39
Have they been bred to not feel pain or suffer?
The world doesnt have to be static, and accepting things the way they are never would allow for change.
So say if you took the rabbits and rats outta ATing.
Would you be ready to be tested?
Humans are higher then a simple rabbit or rat which is why their in the labs being tested on and where living our lives.
ofc its cruel but its how the chain of command and life is.

Thor
26-03-06, 21:09
I don't really like animal testing. I would rather they test on humans. Animals aren't here to be our test subjects.

No-name
27-03-06, 02:09
I don't really like animal testing. I would rather they test on humans. Animals aren't here to be our test subjects.
How do you know that?

Mars Man
27-03-06, 02:46
Good question there sabro san...one that I apply in other cases too.

Anyway, I would tend to think that there would be a ceiling on AT, where up to some, for lack of better knowledge, necessary level it is natural--above that would be waste and cruelty.

I did not vote regarding AT for military purposes because it only gave regard to 'my' people, where as I vouch for a non-boundry world.

You are good at making the polls, Tokis-Phoenix san. Nice!!

strongvoicesforward
27-03-06, 05:30
I don't really like animal testing. I would rather they test on humans. Animals aren't here to be our test subjects.

We agree, Thor.

We do to animals what we do merely because we can. It is "might makes right," and when people point to treatments which come from animal testing they are supporting, "the end justifies the means." Both of these outlooks are unethical.

What I find amusing is scientists will decry "the end justifies the means" argument when they are the target of Direct Action. Direct Actionists will destroy a lab to close it down to win their end. Logic has a funny way of biting both ways.

strongvoicesforward
27-03-06, 05:49
So say if you took the rabbits and rats outta ATing.
Would you be ready to be tested?

Many in the advanced stages of a desiese who do not have time to wait for years of animal testing would volunteer. Yes, I would if I had the pressing need to do so.

Weve already discussed this before in the Animal Rights thread, but a system using prisoners could also be put in place (before you address this, please go look at the AR thread to view the discussion about this. Mycernius and I posted more than several messages on this rebutting each other).

Today there are alternatives to animal testing. Just because they dont cover every possible scenario does not mean it should lead us to use animals. In fact, even animals cant cover every possible scenario -- but that doesnt lead us to use humans. Ethical lines should not be crossed and justifying doing so, while may seem logical, still should not be crossed.

Humans are higher then a simple rabbit or rat which is why their[theyre] in the labs being tested on and where[were living our lives.

lol. Funny logic and observation.

Is a species which wars against itself, causing some of the most suffering and pain, and often taking delight in that for greed and pleasure "higher"? -- not to mention degrading its environment, removing many of the natural things meant to keep our populations from overwhelming the environmental carrying capacities. If I were a betting man, I would bet that the cockroach will be here long after we are gone. Perhaps there is value in modesty.

...ofc its cruel but its how the chain of command and life is.

huh? You mean "might makes right"? If that is your logic, I am sure you will find many people who have been in weaker positions and were exploited by a stronger person or group of person who will not agree with you.

No-name
27-03-06, 06:34
You make a good point about humans being "higher" creatures. I do however ascribe significantly higher value to human life than I do to any other life. And although I agree that ethical lines should not be crossed, I do believe that because I ascribe a higher value to human life, animal testing is justified.

If my house was on fire, the four humans take precendence over the four cats...and the dog. And the fish... the last forrest fire that had us evacuate had my little aquatic friends sadly abandoned for eleven days.

The bigger question that you raise is why do I ascribe a higher value to human life than to my cat, his fleas, or the mites on the fleas. I think that is the major question... I don't give any other animal equal consideration with humans... people matter more than animals to me, and I can actually get myself upset over the billions that we spend pampering our beloved pets while humans suffer in various places. Why are people more special then pets, livestock, mammals, birds, eukaryotes, or bacterium... I can't think of a good answer to that at this moment... but give me time.

No-name
27-03-06, 07:17
Many in the advanced stages of a desiese who do not have time to wait for years of animal testing would volunteer. Yes, I would if I had the pressing need to do so.
So your answer to saving fido is to play on the desperation of the hopeless and dying. Wow I never though of that. Considering the legions of impoverished masses in the third world, we could probably buy the children out of the crowded slums for a fraction of the cost of the average rhesus monkey. What do you think? There are billions of poor throughout the world, orphans, plus prisoners, crimanals, drop outs, the mentally unfit, the religious (Christians!), and others who could be persuaded to risk all for the ultimate benefit of mankind. Where do I sign up?

strongvoicesforward
27-03-06, 07:58
12,000 children were deformed due to administering Thalidomide to women during their pregnancies. The drug was tested on animals before being given to women. Testing various dosages on mice, rats, and guinea pigs showed no negative results. Animals are not accurate models for humans. So, what do you say to all those kids who had limbs grow out of them as nubs?

gSorry, but you are collateral damage in the animal testing world.h And then, do you expect them to say thanks for the honor and shake your hand with one of their nubs?

If someone accepts those numbers and risks of the unknown for medical advancement in order to benefit a larger portion of the population, then one is promoting the idea that the majority can rule tyrannically over the minority so long as the majority continues to get the benefits. That is not ethical -- either for the animals or for those who are deformed by drugs because animal models are not accurate models for humans.

But hey, I would guess a few women got some benefit from the Thalidomide -- I guess that justifies all the other miseries derived from it. Perhaps the nubby armed kids are now old enough to appreciate the benefit and are trying to make their hands reach so that they may clap for those ladies.

No-name
27-03-06, 08:10
I don't know how thouroughly Thalidomide was or was not tested. Perhaps this horrible chapter in history illustrates that the testing done was inadequate. Not testing on animals would not have made the drug any safer. Fortunately, as you have previously pointed out, the human species is part of the animal family, and the comparative anatomy and physiology is perfectly valid. To suggest that people would want desire that horrible outcome is indeed a bitter and sad thing to do.

The strawman argument you give about what we in the rational world might say would be hilarious if it were not so cruel and misguided. You would have to be truly heartless to view humans as collateral damage or to make light of their suffering. It would have been far better to have visited this suffering instead on lab animals, and it would have saved humanity entirely from this dark chapter. Their misery would have saved us from ours. I find that emminently acceptable. Certainly if one more round of animal testing could have prevented this horrible occurance from happening, it would have been well worth it.

I also don't think comparing animals to human minorities is appropriate.

strongvoicesforward
27-03-06, 08:26
Thoroughness will be the cry of those who want to consider bringing drugs to the market that are animal tested. The thing is, lack of gthoroughnessh is noticed when the damage has been done. Ask the pharmeceutical company that developed Thalidomide and their experts/FDA administrators at the time will tell you it was gthoroughlyh tested or else they would not have brought it to market.

Furthermore, it is unrealistice to think that one kind of every animal in the world should be tested on each drug to ensure "thoroughness," but that would be the only absolute way of accounting for doses or chemicals that may kill one kind of animal but not another and then have the same or lack of same reaction in humans.

Thalidomide was a disaster just waiting to happen. It had no affect on commonly used lab animals. So, should all drugs be tested on all animals? domestic and exotic? It could not realistically happen.

Whether the term collateral damage is liked or not, to continue using animals as a model for humans, knowing that gcompleteh thoroughness can never be achieved and that their will be failures resulting in misery and death for those who are the recipient of animal tested drugs, one is putting forth the argument of accepting the risk of collateral damage.

No-name
27-03-06, 08:55
The methodology of animal testing is not my specialty. I don't have a clue about what constitutes "good" testing, or what "thouroughness" would be. I don't think testing drugs on every animal in the world is either necessary or valid. I am also uncertain that animal testing would ferret out every possible side effect. I don't know what the testing regimen for thallidomide was, what animals were used, or if more testing would have helped. But I would have found it perfectly acceptable if a few dozen animals could have stood in for the thousands of humans that suffered it would have been preferable. It seems a reasonable first step in securing the safety of humans if the only collateral damage is lab animals. I still value human life above those of animals.

strongvoicesforward
27-03-06, 09:37
Oraflex was a drug tested on Rhesus Monkeys for years and was approved as an anti-inflamatory and then released on the market in 1982. Usually drug testing on animals begin with rodents and then proceed to primates. In this case of lab folly sever liver damage due to toxiicity occurred resulting 3,500 serious adverse affects and 60 deaths in Great Britain alone.

More collateral damage justified for the masses? The notion that "collateral damage" can be limited to animals only is a fantasy.

Thunderthief
27-03-06, 09:40
Better to test on animals than a human, and testing has to be done for science to progress.

No-name
27-03-06, 09:44
Oraflex was a drug tested on Rhesus Monkeys for years and was approved as an anti-inflamatory and then released on the market in 1982. Usually drug testing on animals begin with rodents and then proceed to primates. In this case of lab folly sever liver damage due to toxiicity occurred resulting 3,500 serious adverse affects and 60 deaths in Great Britain alone.
More collateral damage justified for the masses? The notion that "collateral damage" can be limited to animals only is a fantasy.

Again this doesn't argue against animal testing... only that possibly more testing was needed... It doesn't suggest that many important side effects and the determining of the minimum therepeutic dose can not be determined through animal testing or perhaps even in the end that not all problems will show up on animal tests. You seem to imply that drugs would be better if they made it to market untested... this is the fantasy.

Mikawa Ossan
27-03-06, 09:47
I think part of what drives AT is the lack of an effective and feasible alternative.

If you are against AT, I think it would be the logical thing to do to try to come up with an alternative that is cheaper but yeilds comparible results or drastically more effective.

Tsuyoiko
27-03-06, 14:03
If you are against AT, I think it would be the logical thing to do to try to come up with an alternative that is cheaper but yeilds comparible results or drastically more effective.There is already a lot of research into alternatives. Here is a useful resource: http://altweb.jhsph.edu/. John Hopkins university has a centre devoted to such research: http://caat.jhsph.edu/. Here is a BBC discussion on the issue http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/animalexperiments/index.shtml

I think any company using animal testing should be forced by law to spend an equal or greater amount on research into alternatives.

Ermac
27-03-06, 14:07
Many in the advanced stages of a desiese who do not have time to wait for years of animal testing would volunteer. Yes, I would if I had the pressing need to do so.
Weve already discussed this before in the Animal Rights thread, but a system using prisoners could also be put in place (before you address this, please go look at the AR thread to view the discussion about this. Mycernius and I posted more than several messages on this rebutting each other).
Today there are alternatives to animal testing. Just because they dont cover every possible scenario does not mean it should lead us to use animals. In fact, even animals cant cover every possible scenario -- but that doesnt lead us to use humans. Ethical lines should not be crossed and justifying doing so, while may seem logical, still should not be crossed.
lol. Funny logic and observation.
Is a species which wars against itself, causing some of the most suffering and pain, and often taking delight in that for greed and pleasure "higher"? -- not to mention degrading its environment, removing many of the natural things meant to keep our populations from overwhelming the environmental carrying capacities. If I were a betting man, I would bet that the cockroach will be here long after we are gone. Perhaps there is value in modesty.
huh? You mean "might makes right"? If that is your logic, I am sure you will find many people who have been in weaker positions and were exploited by a stronger person or group of person who will not agree with you.

The fact of the matter is this.
ATin will continue to be a way of life long after Im gone.

Tsuyoiko
27-03-06, 14:38
The fact of the matter is this.
ATin will continue to be a way of life long after Im gone.Imagine if Martin Luther King had said "apartheid will continue to be a way of life long after I'm gone" :okashii:

strongvoicesforward
27-03-06, 15:27
The fact of the matter is this.
ATin will continue to be a way of life long after Im gone.

Things sure do not happen overnight -- especially when changing perceptions of ethics in regards to animals is going against thousands of years of traditional use and exploitation. Look at how many thousands of years it took for slavery to get wiped out -- errrrrr, actually it is still around in some forms. ARists have no illusions about the tough fight ahead. We live in reality and therefore just dont sit around and wish for things to happen. We organize an act on our convictions with multi-pronged approaches and strategies, always being dynamic adopting the new and the old which has been tried and tested in history.

Mycernius
27-03-06, 15:48
Look at how many thousands of years it took for slavery to get wiped out -- errrrrr, actually it is still around in some forms.
Just a quick note on this. There are more people working under slavery now than there were during the 17th to 19th centuries

strongvoicesforward
27-03-06, 15:59
Flenac, another Non-Steroid Anti-Inflamitory Drug which used mice, rats, guinea pigs, ferrets, rabbits, cats, dogs, pigs, horses, and monkeys as a tool for modeling use in humans was approved and caused severe toxicity in the liver tissue of its recipients. That is 10 species and it past the toxicity tests in all ten.

Here is the animal testersf argument of contradiction:
We test on animals because they are like us. We test on them because they are not like us.

But, we do know they scream with pain and try to resist when possible when they are being violated -- just like we all would do if we were being violated. I guess we are alike in that respect. No one wants the integrity of the body violated.

Besides being unethical by using the might make right argument, the model of using animals leads one to the argument of accepting collateral damage. We know, while not intended, that animal models are inherantly dangerous for applying use to humans, and as a result of that danger many will suffer the cosequences -- but that is acceptable because they will have died while furthering medical knowledge. I guess supporters of AT like to look at it the way Thomas Edison replied to a comment from a reporter after years of trying to finish an invention.

Reporter: You have tried a thousand ways to get this to work. You havent learned anything from your experiments.

T. Edison: On the contrary. Ive learned a thousand ways that dont work.

lol. While fine for inanimate objects, I dont think children would like to be one of the thousand ways theyve let someone know something isnt working when that has resulted in organ damage and disfigurement.

strongvoicesforward
27-03-06, 16:18
And lets not forget ATing besides medical, household chemicals and corrosives -- the gun and ammo industry just need living beings to shoot at to make sure their bullets are not too strong and go straight through the target. Lets make sure they shatter somewhere inside living tissue. No, no, no, a pumpkin, hardened silicone, or some other subsitute would not do. Hey, lets use live pigs for the test.

Tethered and tied and one moment eating, the next moment after being shot from close range are screaming their death cries of pain as the life force bleeds from them. Dont take my word for the depravity that it is. Look at the video titled gLemas Ltd Shoots Live Pigsh found here (http://www.stopanimaltests.com/index.aspx).

No-name
27-03-06, 16:27
Again, the Flenac case could just as easily be used as an argument for more testing, not less. Emperical evidence would have to take into account the thousands of chemicals and drugs and treatments tested on animals to see how many somehow got through the gate and caused unnecessary human suffering... and then determine why the methods used failed. It may be an indicator that the basic premise is flawed or simply that more testing is needed. Animals have a similar physiology, anatomy and biochemisty= which is why we test on them. They don't have the same ability to cognate, express, communicate and are not human and that is why we test on them. They are not seen by most people as equivalent in value.

They don't just test drugs, they test surgical methods and tools, treatments, chemicals and procedures, food products, consumer products, cosmetics... all of which I hope follows strict ethics and reliable sound methodology, and I hope is necessary and has no other alternative to assure safety in the human population.

Computer modeling, futuristic methodologies yet unheard of and tests involving human tissue hold a bit of promise that such methods used today will someday be crude and laughable.

I have never made the "might makes right" argument. Yet I do consider the animals that have suffered and died to bring us modern medicine acceptable (collateral damage is one of those wierd military euphemisms, if you like it....) I don't know if they want or don't want the integrity of the body violated. I don't know that we can anthropomorphize other species in this respect. Perhaps lab animals understand the nobility of the undertaking (however unlikely that is) and perhaps feed lot beef endeavors to be the best beef possible- like Charlie the Tuna in the commercials. Or perhaps they lack the intelligence to figure out what is occuring. Either way, I still fell like it is better to use a few animals to ensure human safety than to increase the risk of human suffering just to save them. This is definitely a value judgement.

strongvoicesforward
27-03-06, 16:58
Once in a while a hiccup of truth escapes from some part of the status quo. That is how it was in 1988 when a representative from the American Medical Association testified at a congressional hearing on drug testing and animal models for those tests: gfrequently animal studies prove little or nothing and are very difficult to correlate to humans.h -- The Newsmagazine of Veterinary Medicine, June 1988

strongvoicesforward
27-03-06, 17:17
John Hopkins university has a centre devoted to such research: http://caat.jhsph.edu/.

They get it. From the page above:

We believe the best science is humane science. Our programs seek to provide a better, safer, more humane future for people and animals.

It is the more humane person and org that can be inclusive with their doling out of compassionate ethics. Exclusive compassion has lead to some ugly chapters in the history of the world.

No-name
27-03-06, 19:15
They get it. From the page above:
We believe the best science is humane science. Our programs seek to provide a better, safer, more humane future for people and animals.

I can agree with that.

(although my ethics do tend to greatly favor humans over other species...)

Tokis-Phoenix
27-03-06, 19:28
Things sure do not happen overnight -- especially when changing perceptions of ethics in regards to animals is going against thousands of years of traditional use and exploitation. Look at how many thousands of years it took for slavery to get wiped out -- errrrrr, actually it is still around in some forms. ARists have no illusions about the tough fight ahead. We live in reality and therefore just dont sit around and wish for things to happen. We organize an act on our convictions with multi-pronged approaches and strategies, always being dynamic adopting the new and the old which has been tried and tested in history.

Despite your strong held veiws, i think you are just like the rest of us.
If you life was ever on the line and your survival depended on taking animal tested treatments, i think you would take those treatments rather than die. If a loved one you knew was in the same situation, i think you'd be fine with them taking animal tested treatments for the sake of saving their life.
If our country was invaded by north korea tomorrow(highly unlikely i know, but just an example), and we all faced living in a highly corrupt hell hole of a country with millions of people dying of starvation and execution every year, i'm sure you'd be ok with animal tested weapons saving your country and millions of peoples and animals lives and keeping it nice and wealthy-western.

If we banned animal testing and animal tested products tomorrow, millions of people would die- and animals too! Where do you think those medicines to treat those injured zebra or pregnant cows in distress came from? Even animal medicines are animal tested- we aern't just talking about human products here, animals themselves have benefetted from animal tested treatments in many ways. Many highly infectious killer animal deseases have been dealt and detroyed with animal tested treatments.

So the big question is, if you were going to die, but you could be saved from taking animal tested treatments, would you take them? Because overall, i think you would. Many of your animal rights buddies will more than happily argue against the use of animal tested medicines and treatments, even if banning them would mean the deaths of millions of other people they don't know, but i'm sure if any of them ever came into the situation where they desperatly needed them themselves, i'm sure they'd more than easily take the descision of supporting the sacrifice of a few thousand lab rats to save their own sorry lives.

Tsuyoiko
28-03-06, 11:34
So the big question is, if you were going to die, but you could be saved from taking animal tested treatments, would you take them? Because overall, i think you would. I don't think most of us would even have to be at risk of dying. Although it would make me very uncomfortable, I would take AT drugs to improve my quality of life. I'm sure paracetamol were tested on animals at some point, but I will take them for bad pain. Sometimes one has to sacrfice one's principles to be able to continue to fight for those principles!

strongvoicesforward
28-03-06, 15:46
Britches the monkey was rescued in a raid on an animal testing lab. His eyes had been sewn shut so that researchers could study the effects of sudden sight after being deprived of it since birth.

To take a being from birth and make it so that it is deprived of a sense given to it as its own, so that it serves our selfish purposes makes monsters out of those who would do such a thing. Kind of reminds me of the chills I had when watching the old Ulyses movie where Cyclops keeps Ulyses and his men corralled for the pleasure of satisfying his appetite pleasures. The exploited always see the exploiter as a monster. The monster stops being a monster when it can truly reflect on its horrendous acts and reform itself in such a way where it no longer causes fear and cowering in others at its approach.

Nice to know Britches was taken from the clutches of the monsters.

http://www.novivisezione.org/mostra/images/foto01.jpg
Britches with bandages over head and eyes with sonar device grafted to head.

Britches liberated and bandages and device removed. Eyelids still sewn shut.

Reiku
28-03-06, 18:04
Personally, I'm more concerned with the intent than anything else. In general, I really don't have a problem with animal testing--even if it puts the animals through something cruel--so long as that's not why you're doing it.

If you wanted to test the safety of a new medicine or medical procedure, for example, I wouldn't have a proplen with animal testing even if it meant alot of animals ended up dying a horrible death. You have to test and practice things like that, and it's better than trying it out on people until you get it right.

It's not that the human animal is inheirantly more valuable than any other animals, just that our priority--like every other creature's--should be to the benifit of our own species.

 Regarding SVC's post above me, while I don't neccesarily agree with what was done to that animal--particularly if it was just for mere curiosity--I have to disagree with your use of the term "monsters".

From my experience, what we call a "monster" is just something we refuse to find any common ground with--it's basically a term of bigotry.

The cyclops in Homer's Odyessy is considered a monster, but when you consider his actions, he was just following his nature. We humans do similar things to cattle and sheep--in fact, the Cyclops himself was a sheperd. If he had a rather barbaric means of keeping and slaughtering his livestock, that's only because he was limited by the knowlege and resources available to him--humans at that time didn't treat their animals much better.

Or is it because the Cyclops was eating humans, instead of what we would consider an "acceptable" life form?

That shows the crux of the problem right there, because one person will argue that eating animals is okay, while others will say that only non-intelligent animals are "ok" to eat, and another will say only plants, and so on.

I suppose to vegitarians--and especially to vegans--I am a monster, because of my fondness for various meat and dairy products.

Something I've been reminded of recently is why it's so hard to be truly toerant of other people:

Some of the core beliefs about what's "right" and "wrong" vary from person to person.

A Christian who agressively tries to convert others believes he's saving people's souls, and when I preach self interest I beleive I'm doing the same thing...

...saving people's souls from firey damnation, saving people's souls from a grasping Deity--we both thing we're doing what's right against a terrible evil...

...but to Christians, I'm the evil--and to me they are.

It's the same way with the treatment of animals.

Were the surviving members of the Donner party evil for eating peaple to stay alive?

Though we don't usually think of it this way, life is essentially a race against death--and one that we inevitably lose.

Is it evil to to whatever we can to prolong and enrich the short time we have before we die?

It is a matter of survival after all.

This is why I try to judge a person's intent rather than their actions:

If a Christian is trying to save people's souls, then that is a good and noble (if misguided, IMO) goal.

If the people who did that to "Britches" were honestly trying to gain knowlege for the betterment of mankind, then that is also a good and noble goal--even if I don't like what they had to do to get that knowlege.

That's assuming the best of course--somthing I don't often do with humanity.

I'm more inclined to beleive that they're bastards who chose to sew a monkey's eyelids shut because they thought it was funny.

Ultimately, I don't have any basis for either oinion, except my of prejudices--and neither do an of you, I think.

strongvoicesforward
29-03-06, 17:46
Reiku, I am almost tempted to engage you with a discussion, but I have found in the past that you cant control yourself. I guess I am saying I donT want to be called a "Hitler" again (a monster I think we would all agree on) and have someone hope for animals to "rip me to pieces."

But, I do think I remember you posting in your one thread that in other dimensions or universes (Abandon Reason or was it Sanity or something like that, To All Who Enter Here) -- we are all right and that everything is possible. So, I guess I am right, too.

*Its been a while since I visited that thread, so -- sorry if my paraphrase is wrong.

Tokis-Phoenix
29-03-06, 18:15
Good post Reiku, a mature approach to a sensitive subject and the meaning of "monster"/inferior :cool: .
I would like to add some things though;

Take action;
No one can afford to assume that someone else will solve our problems. Every individual has a responsibility to help guide our human family in the right direction. Good wishes are not sufficient.

The moral code;
Irrespective of wether we are a believer or an agnostic, wether we believe in God or karma, moral ethics is a code which everyone is able to pursue.

The moral perspective;
To pursue growth properly, we need to renew out commitment to human values in many fields. Political life, of course, requires an ethical foundation, but science and religion as well should be pursued from a moral basis.

Take responsibility for those in need;
It is the nature of human beings to yearn for freedom, equality and dignity. If we accept that others have a right to peace and happiness equal to our own, do we not have a responsibility to help those in need?

The root of all problems;
Anger, attachment, jealousy, hatred...These are the real enemy.

Negativity is never the solution;
Anger, jealousy, impatience and hatred are the real troublemakers; with them problems cannot be solved. Though one may have temporary success, ultimately onefs hatred and anger will create further difficulties.

No good ever came of anger;
Anger may seem to offer and energetic way of getting things done, but such a perception of the world is misguided. The only certainty about anger and hatred is that they are destructive.

Two kinds of anger;
Anger I think can be of two types; hatred with ill-feeling is one while another anger, with compassion as the basis of concern- may be positive.

Keep anger in check;
Usually people consider that anger is part of the mind, and that it is better to show it, to let it come. I think thatfs the wrong conceptioncResentment because of grievances may be let out, because then it is finishedcConstant anger- that, I think, it is better to check.

Violence is self-perpetuating;
If you succeed through violence at the expense of others rights and welfare, you have not solved the problem, but only created the seeds for another.

If we adopt a self-centered approach to life by which we attempt to use others for our own self interest, we might be able to gain temporary benefit, but in the long run we will not succeed in achieving even our personal happiness.

Purity of intention;
Once you have pure and sincere motivation, all the rest follows. You can develop this right attitude towards others on the basis of kindness, love and respect, and on the clear realisation of the oneness of all human beings.

Give and take;
By showing concern for other people's welfare, sharing other peoples suffering, and helping other people, ultimately one will benefet. If one thinks only of oneself and forgets about others, ultimately one will lose.

Optimism achieves greatness;
An optimistic attitude is the key factor for sucess. Right from the beginning, if you hold a pesimistic attitude even small things may not be acheived.

Teaching by example;
Before teaching others, before changing others, we ourselves must change. We must be honest, sincere, kind-hearted.

Self-importance;
Tolerance and patience with courage are not signs of failure but signs of victory...Actually, if you are too important, thats a real failure.

No-name
29-03-06, 18:17
Yeah Reiku!
You horrible horrible human being! How could you ever compare someone to a Nazi! It's not like the guy is a Christian or anything! After all, he a VEGETARIAN for cripes sake! (This is sarcasm meant to imply that Mr Forward is guilty of exactly the same thing and correction of this sort comming from him is laughable.)

The thought that all opinions are equally valid is known as a variation of the relativistic fallacy.

We should be careful at who we compare to Nazis and Hitler.

KrazyKat
29-03-06, 18:32
Personally, I'm more concerned with the intent than anything else. In general, I really don't have a problem with animal testing--even if it puts the animals through something cruel--so long as that's not why you're doing it.
This is why I try to judge a person's intent rather than their actions:
If a Christian is trying to save people's souls, then that is a good and noble (if misguided, IMO) goal.
If the people who did that to "Britches" were honestly trying to gain knowlege for the betterment of mankind, then that is also a good and noble goal--even if I don't like what they had to do to get that knowlege.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here Reiku. I'm not going to argue here against animal testing, but against your idea of, how I see it as, the 'intent' justifiying the means.

This is because the same argument could be used to justify horrible acts like
suicide bombings in Israel/palistine. An independant, free, Palistinian state is certainly a noble goal, but I would no way see that as justifying those acts of terrorism.
Stability and democracy in the Middle East is certainly a noble goal, but does that justify the invasion of Iraq?
Preventing exploitation of animals is certainly a noble goal, but does that justify the acts by ALF?

Eventually you will likely reach a point where the sacrifices for the goal are acceptable, but this does not mean that any sacrifice is acceptable if the goal is noble. With your example of the Christians, exactly how far would you allow them to go in trying to save souls before you stop seeing them as performing good (if misguided acts)? Knocking on people's doors? Forced conversions? Death penalty for those that leave the religion?

Ermac
29-03-06, 19:45
Imagine if Martin Luther King had said "apartheid will continue to be a way of life long after I'm gone" :okashii:

I don't see how you can compare lab animals to MLK......

strongvoicesforward
29-03-06, 19:59
I don't see how you can compare lab animals to MLK......

Tsuyoiko is not comparing lab animals to MLK. She is comparing the logic of accepting futility, the status quo -- or the decision to accept or not actively agitate for change just because something will be a long hard struggle through activism.

*If I am wrong by what you meant by your post, Tsuyoiko, please let me know. Dont mean to speak for you. Feel free to add to my interpretation of what you meant.

Logic is not a monopoly contained in one entity. It cuts through every thing and is not dependent upon man for its existence. If A=B=C=A** on Earth, then it will be so on the moon, Mars, etc... as well.

**Hope my memory of Formal Reasoning in university is right, here.

No-name
29-03-06, 20:21
What if we said: I doubt the technology and science to replace animal testing will be perfected before I die.

Mitsuo
29-03-06, 20:24
I would believe you. (^_^)

Reiku
30-03-06, 00:08
I'm going to have to disagree with you here Reiku. I'm not going to argue here against animal testing, but against your idea of, how I see it as, the 'intent' justifiying the means.
This is because the same argument could be used to justify horrible acts like
suicide bombings in Israel/palistine. An independant, free, Palistinian state is certainly a noble goal, but I would no way see that as justifying those acts of terrorism.
Stability and democracy in the Middle East is certainly a noble goal, but does that justify the invasion of Iraq?
Preventing exploitation of animals is certainly a noble goal, but does that justify the acts by ALF?
Eventually you will likely reach a point where the sacrifices for the goal are acceptable, but this does not mean that any sacrifice is acceptable if the goal is noble. With your example of the Christians, exactly how far would you allow them to go in trying to save souls before you stop seeing them as performing good (if misguided acts)? Knocking on people's doors? Forced conversions? Death penalty for those that leave the religion?

>Sigh<

Can't a guy say anything these days without being accused of supporting terrorism? :blush:

You miss my point, I'm not saying the ends justify the means--I'm saying that a person who does something we consider evil is not nessecarily a bad person.

To bring up SVF's little jab at me earlier: No, I don't agree that Hitler was a monster--I think he was honestly trying to do what he thought was right and good...

...I also think he was dead wrong, but being mistaken does not make you a monster--it just makes you an idiot. :blush:

That's what scares me, you see: Many people would consider me an abominable monster if they knew some of my opionions and beliefs--I'm basicly one slip aways from having pitchforks at my door--so I really can't advocate attacking someone for acting on their beliefs.

If their beleifs lead them to attack you first, then by all means kick their ass--but do it because they attacked you, not because they're somehow "evil" for believing that you should die--otherwise you're doing the exact same thing they are: Attacking someone based on your judgement of their beliefs.

What I'm saying is that if a person is trying to do what they think is right, you shouldn't call them a monster just because their idea of right seems wrong to you.

If it is their intent to be evil, then they're evil--otherwise they're just misguided. :D

...and while I'm at it, here's a list of beliefs that could get me shot: :evil:

Good post Reiku, a mature approach to a sensitive subject and the meaning of "monster"/inferior :cool: .
I would like to add some things though;

Take action;
No one can afford to assume that someone else will solve our problems. Every individual has a responsibility to help guide our human family in the right direction. Good wishes are not sufficient.

I disagree. Helping the species is a bonus, nor a requirement--and very few people if any are wise enough to do anything other than force their values on everyone if they try.

I say leave people alone.

If I want to eat meat, drink booze, have lots of sex and just generally wallow in sin and vice, I say find me a group of like minded people and let us go about our buisness--we'll be too preocupied to bother you.

The moral code;
Irrespective of wether we are a believer or an agnostic, wether we believe in God or karma, moral ethics is a code which everyone is able to pursue.

True, but everyone's moral code is different.

Some say "thou shalt not kill", some say "hang the bastard"--some say both at the same time, which is very entertaining IMO. :blush:

Personally, I believe in vengeance killing--good old fasioned samurai style "I have come for your head!" stuff--I don't even care what your reasons are, if it was bad enough to make you want to kill the guy, that's good enough for me.

I personally believe this is a right and moral thing to do, some people disagree with me--thus we have problems. :D

The moral perspective;
To pursue growth properly, we need to renew out commitment to human values in many fields. Political life, of course, requires an ethical foundation, but science and religion as well should be pursued from a moral basis.

Again, who decides what's moral and ethical?

A majority vote doesn't tell you who's right, just who's in the majority. Ultimately there's no way for us to accurately judge right and wrong, we each have to go by our own feelings and prejudices.

Take responsibility for those in need;
It is the nature of human beings to yearn for freedom, equality and dignity. If we accept that others have a right to peace and happiness equal to our own, do we not have a responsibility to help those in need?

No.

Nononononononnononononono!

90% of the trouble we get into is by trying to "help" people.

Our idea of happiness is not nessecarily going to make them happy, in fact, their idea of happiness is not necessarily going to make them happy--it's something we each have to discover on our own.

If you want to help someone, and they want your help, fine--but it's not a requirement.

Heck, some people actually like fighting through their own problems--us downtrodden aren't all helpless and lazy, you know. :blush:

The root of all problems;
Anger, attachment, jealousy, hatred...These are the real enemy.
Negativity is never the solution;
Anger, jealousy, impatience and hatred are the real troublemakers; with them problems cannot be solved. Though one may have temporary success, ultimately onefs hatred and anger will create further difficulties.
No good ever came of anger;
Anger may seem to offer and energetic way of getting things done, but such a perception of the world is misguided. The only certainty about anger and hatred is that they are destructive.
Two kinds of anger;
Anger I think can be of two types; hatred with ill-feeling is one while another anger, with compassion as the basis of concern- may be positive.
Keep anger in check;
Usually people consider that anger is part of the mind, and that it is better to show it, to let it come. I think thatfs the wrong conceptioncResentment because of grievances may be let out, because then it is finishedcConstant anger- that, I think, it is better to check.
Violence is self-perpetuating;
If you succeed through violence at the expense of others rights and welfare, you have not solved the problem, but only created the seeds for another.
If we adopt a self-centered approach to life by which we attempt to use others for our own self interest, we might be able to gain temporary benefit, but in the long run we will not succeed in achieving even our personal happiness.

The root of all problems is someone deciding they know what the root of all problems is--and taking a bottle of roundup to it.

Personally, I enjoy being angry--a lot.

I really have to agree with the Chinese on that whole yin-yang, negative-positive thing, balance is what's needed in the world--not all of one and none of the other.

You make a lot of judgements in that one bsed on your own personal feelings--or maybe just some pretty words you heard somewhere and decided to agree with without really thinking it over.

Some people enjoy using or hurting others--not me personally, at least not unless they've pissed me off--but some do and a selfless, goody-goody world would make them want to kill themselves.

You're first reaction might be to say that evil people like that shouldn't be in the world--replace the word "evil" with "black" or "Jewish" and see how you feel about saying that.

"But that's different!" You cry...

...that's just what the KKK says. :blush:

"Evil" is just a label we use for people we think it's okay to destroy--more often than not they feel the same way about us, and I'm okay with that.

Purity of intention;
Once you have pure and sincere motivation, all the rest follows. You can develop this right attitude towards others on the basis of kindness, love and respect, and on the clear realisation of the oneness of all human beings.

Yeah, but love and peace aren't the only pure intentions out there--hatred can be quite pure as well.

Once again you're deciding you know what is right and wrong--your intentions may be pure, but some of us human beings like a little conflict to break up our oneness every once in a while.

Give and take;
By showing concern for other people's welfare, sharing other peoples suffering, and helping other people, ultimately one will benefet. If one thinks only of oneself and forgets about others, ultimately one will lose.
Optimism achieves greatness;
An optimistic attitude is the key factor for sucess. Right from the beginning, if you hold a pesimistic attitude even small things may not be acheived.

Not true.

My life became a lot better once I became a pessimistc, selfish bastard.

To quote a few lines from a song I wrote:

I tried
To save this wretched world
I tried
But my heart just filled with hurt
I tried
To do all that I could
I tried
To care more than I should!

I guess I'll find
Another way

I guess I'll find...

>wailing guitar<

I'll be an anti-hero!

I'll step back
And watch you burn!

You're gonna' feel your blood flow
But it's a lesson we all must learn...

Get learnin'. :evil:

Teaching by example;
Before teaching others, before changing others, we ourselves must change. We must be honest, sincere, kind-hearted.
Self-importance;
Tolerance and patience with courage are not signs of failure but signs of victory...Actually, if you are too important, thats a real failure.

This doesn't always work. Witness the hippy movement and the sudden rise of selfish yuppies in the next generation--or the current "liberal backlash" my country is in the middle of. :blush:

So anyway yeah, bring your pichforks--I've got my katana's and I always love a good fight. :cool:

Tokis-Phoenix
30-03-06, 01:09
>Sigh<
I disagree. Helping the species is a bonus, nor a requirement--and very few people if any are wise enough to do anything other than force their values on everyone if they try.
I say leave people alone.
If I want to eat meat, drink booze, have lots of sex and just generally wallow in sin and vice, I say find me a group of like minded people and let us go about our buisness--we'll be too preocupied to bother you.
I agree, forcing one's values on another is not good, as inner peace shall only come from within and not from the outside, like from from money or power. But real peace, tranquillity, should come from within.
If you disagree with my views/statements, then that is fine with me, i apologise if i was appearing to force anything upon you at all. Helping the species isn't a "requirement" either. You can do what you want in your life, and i will never judge you.
But human beings are social creatures, and a concern for each other is the very basis of our life together. Do as you would be done by- since the very beginning and end of our lives we are so dependant on other's kindness, how can it be that in the middle ne neglect kindness towards others.

True, but everyone's moral code is different.
Some say "thou shalt not kill", some say "hang the bastard"--some say both at the same time, which is very entertaining IMO. :blush:
Personally, I believe in vengeance killing--good old fasioned samurai style "I have come for your head!" stuff--I don't even care what your reasons are, if it was bad enough to make you want to kill the guy, that's good enough for me.
I personally believe this is a right and moral thing to do, some people disagree with me--thus we have problems. :D

Everyone's moral code can be different. Personally i believe that anger, hatred and violence are destructive and if you live your way of life that way, you will only cause destruction to not just others but yourself as well. Things have a ripple effect- you live or aim to live your life by compassion, love, peace and kindness then you will reap the benefets. If you live your life by anger, hatred and violence you will only surely end up hurting yourself?
Love is always appropriate- love and kindness are always appropriate. Wether or not you believe in rebirth, you will need love in this life. If we have love, there is hope to have real families, real brotherhood, real equanimity, real peace. Every one of us has the capacity for kindness- the development of a kind heart, or feelings of closeness for all human beings, does not involve any kind of religiosity we normally associate with it...It is for everyone, irrespective of race, religeon or any political affiliation.

Again, who decides what's moral and ethical?
A majority vote doesn't tell you who's right, just who's in the majority. Ultimately there's no way for us to accurately judge right and wrong, we each have to go by our own feelings and prejudices.
You have to decide yourself what is moral and ethical, you cannot expect others to solve your own problems. Wether others agree with you or not is another matter.

No.
Nononononononnononononono!
90% of the trouble we get into is by trying to "help" people.
Our idea of happiness is not nessecarily going to make them happy, in fact, their idea of happiness is not necessarily going to make them happy--it's something we each have to discover on our own.
If you want to help someone, and they want your help, fine--but it's not a requirement.
Heck, some people actually like fighting through their own problems--us downtrodden aren't all helpless and lazy, you know. :blush:
Nothing good can come of selfishness, if we never tried to help anyone in our lives we would just be a consumer, and never leave the world better for our existance. You choose how you want to live your existance, but you will realise that every human alive at least some point in their own existance has wanted to be happy, then you will begin to realise the oneness of all human beings- i guess some of it is also what you percieve as "true happyness".
90% of the trouble we get into is from is not from trying to "help" other people but from unsincere motives, selfishness, anger, hatred, greed, jealousy etc- true compassion and love cannot be born out of these things.

The root of all problems is someone deciding they know what the root of all problems is--and taking a bottle of roundup to it.
Personally, I enjoy being angry--a lot.
I really have to agree with the Chinese on that whole yin-yang, negative-positive thing, balance is what's needed in the world--not all of one and none of the other.
You make a lot of judgements in that one bsed on your own personal feelings--or maybe just some pretty words you heard soewhere and decided to agree with without really thinking it over.
Some people enjoy using or hurting others--not me personally, at least not unless they've pissed me off--but some do and a selfless, goody-goody world would make them want to kill themselves.
You're first reaction might be to say that evil people like that shouldn't be in the world--replace the word "evil" with "black" or "Jewish" and see how you feel about saying that.
"But that's different!" You cry...
...that's just what the KKK says. :blush:
"Evil" is just a label we use for people we think it's okay to destroy--more often than not they feel the same way about us, and I'm okay with that.
Yeah, but love and peace aren't the only pure intentions out there--hatred can be quite pure as well.

I've never used the word "evil", "evil" is often a term applied to what we believe as our "enemies". I believe i have no true enemies, the only real enemies i have are the ones inside me- when you kill another person, you are not killing your enemy, but just another human being like yourself. Hatred cannot be overcome by hatred...Hatred will only generate more problems. Fear arises when we veiw everyone else with suspicion. The only certainty about hatred and anger is that they are destructive.

Once again you're deciding you know what is right and wrong--your intentions may be pure, but some of us human beings like a little conflict to break up our oneness every once in a while.
[u]Not[u] true.
My life became a lot better once I became a pessimistc, selfish bastard.
To quote a few lines from a song I wrote:
I tried
To save this wretched world
I tried
But my heart just filled with hurt
I tried
To do all that I could
I tried
To care more than I should!
I guess I'll find
Another way
I guess I'll find...
>wailing guitar<
I'll be an anti-hero!
I'll step back
And watch you burn!
You're gonna' feel your blood flow
But it's a lesson we all must learn...
Get learnin'. :evil:
This doesn't always work. Witness the hippy movement and the sudden rise of selfish yuppies in the next generation--or the current "liberal backlash" my country is in the middle of. :blush:
So anyway yeah, bring your pichforks--I've got my katana's and I always love a good fight. :cool:
Violence is self perpetuating- if you succeed through violence at the expense of others rights and welfare, you have not solved the problem, but only created seeds for another. I don't lnow "the truth" or the meaning to life or anything like that, i don't even claim to, i don't force my beliefs on others. But this is a conversation, where we hear others opinions- how you lead your life is completely you choice. I have no pitchfork. I have no sword, no gun. Cut me down if you want, that is your choice. But i personally don't think you'll gain any true happyness from my misfortune.

No-name
30-03-06, 01:35
My only divergences from the last two posts are that I do believe that there is a common core of values all human society shares, that we can generalize a basic set of positive characteristics that all cultures strive for, and that it problable serves these values to be highly idealistic and to act as if things matter.

I do believe people like Hitler are more than just a little misguided. I do believe that some people are evil, and that regardless of their end motives, they have accepted the evil that they are doing. It is not a case of good ends justifying bad means, but of evil means and evil ends. When people accept that it is okay to inflict suffering on others or to gain pleasure in the suffering of others...I believe they are evil.

I also think that we can make some generalities about peace and violence, right and wrong, love, hate and truth that are universals. That golden rule thing: do unto others... I believe is one of those universals.

The mistake among the animal rights people is that I believe they are attempting to extend these values to include not just humanity, but every living creature on the planet. I don't think this is a good idea at all.

KrazyKat
30-03-06, 01:47
>Sigh<
Can't a guy say anything these days without being accused of supporting terrorism? :blush:
You miss my point, I'm not saying the ends justify the means--I'm saying that a person who does something we consider evil is not nessecarily a bad person.

OK, sorry. I thought you would going for more of an end justifies the means thing than a morality is subjective thing. I haven't got time to read all of everyone's replies there just now, I should be asleep,, but i'll just make one comment. How I see morality is all I have to judge what is good or bad, so thats what I will use to judge people's actions, but i would try to keep an open mind about what actually is good or bad and try to bear in mind that my opinion may change when I judge someon'es actions.

I also agree with you completely over wether a person is good or bad depends on their intent, but I would judge an action as good or bad depending on the result.

Tokis-Phoenix
30-03-06, 01:48
My only divergences from the last two posts are that I do believe that there is a common core of values all human society shares, that we can generalize a basic set of positive characteristics that all cultures strive for, and that it problable serves these values to be highly idealistic and to act as if things matter.
I do believe people like Hitler are more than just a little misguided. I do believe that some people are evil, and that regardless of their end motives, they have accepted the evil that they are doing. It is not a case of good ends justifying bad means, but of evil means and evil ends. When people accept that it is okay to inflict suffering on others or to gain pleasure in the suffering of others...I believe they are evil.
I also think that we can make some generalities about peace and violence, right and wrong, love, hate and truth that are universals. That golden rule thing: do unto others... I believe is one of those universals.

I agree in general with that :cool: .

The mistake among the animal rights people is that I believe they are attempting to extend these values to include not just humanity, but every living creature on the planet. I don't think this is a good idea at all.

I think the mistake that many or some animal rights activists do is acting out of violence or hatred. Animal rights activists that go around setting fire to scientists property or vandilising it, or sending threats to those who are involved in animal testing in a negative way, do nothing positive to their own cause in the long run. It just creates and sows the seeds for more difficulties and more problems. I've heard of some animal rights activists burning down peoples homes for the sake of animal rights, but surely they are just taking away the rights of their own kind? Wouldn't that be like trashing a sparrows nest? I don't think hatred should be a motivational factor for action, as all human actions are done by motivation, and if our motivation is hatred and anger then i personally don't think anything good can come of it in the long run.
Applying human rights to animals though? Its a tricky and complicated subject/issue. Where do you start and where do you stop? Many animal right activists do not for example, apply the rights they fight for to say, fish or insects, because they themselves do not believe they are as worthy or important life forms as say mammals- but isn't a one-inch fish still an animal? Isn't a worm still animal? Would it suddenly seem insane to start applying animal rights to creatures like worms, or would it suddenly make sense and appear civilised?

No-name
30-03-06, 02:27
In the trade offs and hard economics of real life we have to make compromises and set priorities in allocating resources and time. Decisions that are life or death-- how to allocate food, water, who gets what, how many, how much, when, where and how... We build cars a bit safer to save a life and it raises the cost of the car. We build a factory and lose the field for agriculture. Collectively the six billion people living on the planet have collective decisions that effect our resources, the environment, and each other.

The reason that I mention all that is that it isn't just a question of means and motives. It is not just that the motives Animal rights people may have are wrong or that their methods are ineffective or bad. The trade off in animal testing is that we all collectively benefit from the exploitation and suffering of other species. We could end testing collectively if we change what the majority of the people in the world think and feel about this, but we would have additional costs and losses of benefits. When we begin to consider all life equally- every individual organism worthy of equal protection and consideration, the trade offs are impractical to implement and prohibitively enormous. I doubt this will happen. Any methods used in this cause that are violent or that potentially harm people or their property is unjustifiable. Equating human rights with animal rights is an illogical, impractical, and untenable position.

You cannot equate human suffering with the suffering of animals. I believe that most humans are like myself and value human life more than that of animals. Although it is common to consider the suffering and humane treatment of animals, the exploitation and use of animals for research, medical testing, food and consumer products is widely accepted throughout the world. I believe this to be not only the popular perspective, but also the valid perspective.

Tokis-Phoenix
30-03-06, 02:58
In the trade offs and hard economics of real life we have to make compromises and set priorities in allocating resources and time. Decisions that are life or death-- how to allocate food, water, who gets what, how many, how much, when, where and how... We build cars a bit safer to save a life and it raises the cost of the car. We build a factory and lose the field for agriculture. Collectively the six billion people living on the planet have collective decisions that effect our resources, the environment, and each other.
The reason that I mention all that is that it isn't just a question of means and motives. It is not just that the motives Animal rights people may have are wrong or that their methods are ineffective or bad. The trade off in animal testing is that we all collectively benefit from the exploitation and suffering of other species. We could end testing collectively if we change what the majority of the people in the world think and feel about this, but we would have additional costs and losses of benefits. When we begin to consider all life equally- every individual organism worthy of equal protection and consideration, the trade offs are impractical to implement and prohibitively enormous. I doubt this will happen. Any methods used in this cause that are violent or that potentially harm people or their property is unjustifiable. Equating human rights with animal rights is an illogical, impractical, and untenable position.
You cannot equate human suffering with the suffering of animals. I believe that most humans are like myself and value human life more than that of animals. Although it is common to consider the suffering and humane treatment of animals, the exploitation and use of animals for research, medical testing, food and consumer products is widely accepted throughout the world. I believe this to be not only the popular perspective, but also the valid perspective.

Some scientists are now saying that some animal tested drug tests are 'insufficient', not because they were gone about incorrectly or without enough caution and care, but because the bodies of certain animals are too different to people to compare things like the human imune system;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4821732.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4817178.stm

Our goals i think should be to improve animal testing and make it more efficient so less animals are wasted(partly because i doubt the need for it will disapear within the next 50yrs, so we might as well try and perfect it and make it better while its still around), but i think we should play more emphasis on human testing. It says in the first article;

"Animals are the best models we have for humans, but we all know they aren't absolutely perfect.

True, animals, particually mammals, are very similar to us(particually genetically), but humans are still the best models for humans- animals are simply the most disposable for humans. Where would we get people willing to have chemicals injected on them and the such like? Hmm, maybe people on death row in places like america should be given this option? Heh, but then i guess you'd get "human rights" activists.

No-name
30-03-06, 03:26
We can't even agree on embryonic stem cell research. Ethics is a tough field...almost entirely semantics.

Reiku
30-03-06, 08:31
Well, the problem isn't semantics--the problem is some of us honestly see the world in radically different ways.

For example, I'm trying not to get annoyed at Tokis-Phoenix for his continued attacks on my beliefs. I know he doesn't mean it as an attack, that's why I'm trying not to get annoyed--but when someone tells me that I can't know "true" happiness because what makes me happy is different from what makes them happy, I get pretty offended.

So for the record:

Yes, anger can lead to destruction--not everybody sees destruction as a bad thing.

However, anger can also inspire creation--it's not as common, but it does happen. I know an artist who does her best work when she's angry, channeling that passionate emotion into her art and creating award-winning works.

Anger works for some people, for others it doesn't.

Likewise, insisting that people can only find happiness from peace and love and harmony is crap. I tried that, but it didn't work--I am most happy when in conflict, testing myself against others. I first fell away from Christianity because I realized I woud find the vision of heaven that they offered unbearably boring.

No conflict?

No challenges?

No thrill of a hard-won victory?

No pain of defeat to drive me to improve myself?

How can I know happiness without knowing sorrow?

Without one, the other is meaningless.

It's so arrogant and bigoted to assume that your kind of happiness is the only true kind of happiness--it infuriates me.

But I like being angry, feeling the fire and the adrenaline racing through my veins, the sense of power--it's what I like about Dragon Ball Z: I know what it feels like to go "Super Saiyan". To be so filled with rage and passion and the power those emotions bring--it's like erupting in golden fire, transforming into something great and terrible.

I suppose it's similar to the emotional fix horror fans seek--fear triggers the same adrenaine release that anger does.

I can't understand how someone can enjoy being scared, but I've learned that most people can't understand how I enjoy being angry--so through that, I have some idea of what they feel like.

You don't have to understand that some people are simply wired differently, but fighting with you over it has been great fun, Tokis-Phoenix--so I'll continue trying to make you understand untill it ceases to be enjoyable.

I'll get a good conflict out of the deal, and maybe you'll get a better understanding of humanity.

Tsuyoiko
30-03-06, 16:24
Reiku, you have read too much Nietzsche :D

Tokis-Phoenix
30-03-06, 17:52
Reiku, you have read too much Nietzsche :D

What does "Nietzsche" mean?

Tsuyoiko
30-03-06, 17:58
Nietzsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche) was a German philosopher.

Tokis-Phoenix
30-03-06, 18:19
Nietzsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche) was a German philosopher.

Ahh...Thanks for the link Tsuyoiko :cool: !

Reiku
31-03-06, 04:53
Reiku, you have read too much Nietzsche :D

Actually, I've never read Nietzsche--although I have heard his oft-quoted "God is dead, and we killed him" bit.

Personally, I disagree. I think god is a jerk--and we're just like him. :blush:

Nietzsche was German? I thought he was Russian for some reason...

As for animal testing, what I said has direct bearing on the subject: It is a disscusion which hinges on each person's beleifs of what is and is not "ethical".
Some say animals exist only for our use, others consider the needs of animals more important than the needs of humans--and most people fall somewhere in between.

Tokis-Phoenix
01-04-06, 23:06
Actually, I've never read Nietzsche--although I have heard his oft-quoted "God is dead, and we killed him" bit.
Personally, I disagree. I think god is a jerk--and we're just like him. :blush:
Nietzsche was German? I thought he was Russian for some reason...
As for animal testing, what I said has direct bearing on the subject: It is a disscusion which hinges on each person's beleifs of what is and is not "ethical".
Some say animals exist only for our use, others consider the needs of animals more important than the needs of humans--and most people fall somewhere in between.

I think the people who say "animals exist only for our use" are extremely arrogant and narrow minded- plus such a statement doesn't make sense as we are very a recent species evolutionaly wise, and trillions of creatures existed for us etc.
Although it certainly cannot be applied to all living creatures, the vast majority of living creatures above microscopic critters and insects and things we know can feel pain, feel/enjoy happyness and depression and see the world clearly etc. Rats and mice are particually popular subjects with scientists not because they are very disposable creatures(well they are, but thats not the point i'm making here primarily), but because they are very similar to us not just genetically and how their genetics and DNA work, but because they share a huge amount of things in common with us other than that, like emotion.
I think a lot of animal testing is extremely wasteful and often unesarsary, a lot of the pain is only caused due to low budgets and pressure to bring results, and of course demand. But say a scientist is finding a cure for cancer using extremely painful experiments on rats(which i assume you would feel fine about), and he ended up slowly killing 2000 lab rats in a single experiment(which i assume you would also feel fine about because you agree with the cause/aim)...But lets say 1000 of those could have been spared if the scientist had been given a better budget and resources, would you still feel so great about the morality of the situation?
You believe in god though? I'm just curious, as to say we are just like "him" must mean that you believe in some sort of higher being or entertain the concept/idea? As for me, i'm honestly not much of a religeous person, i live for today and tommorrow and so forth. I honestly don't know if there's an afterlife life or not, and i'm not counting on there being one or anything. Ah well.
PS: i am a "she" and not a "he" by the way.

Maciamo
18-05-06, 21:50
Tokis-Phoenix, when you talk of animal tested hygene products, do you mean that they tried shampoo on a dog to see if it washes well before releasing it on the market ? I don't see any problem with that (except if they knew the dog was allergic to one of the ingredient, as lost all its hairs as a results !).

Tokis-Phoenix
18-05-06, 22:54
Tokis-Phoenix, when you talk of animal tested hygene products, do you mean that they tried shampoo on a dog to see if it washes well before releasing it on the market ? I don't see any problem with that (except if they knew the dog was allergic to one of the ingredient, as lost all its hairs as a results !).

Yes that sort of thing, hygene products like shampoo & conditioner, soaps, deodrant, shaving cream etc...It doesn't sound that bad, but its not just a case of dowsing the animal in the product- they'll put it into things like its eyes or in its ears or make it consume it etc...Hygene product testing can have some pretty bad effects on animals, but people need to know the general effects of such things.
You don't want people taking you to court because they were permanently blinded when they got your companys shampoo in their eyes.
When they bring out "tear-free" shampoo for kids you know that its been in a lot of furry animals eyes.

strongvoicesforward
19-05-06, 15:22
One thing we sure have learned through ganimal testingh is: We sure do know how to cause rats to get cancer.

Since we have declared war on cancer we have spent billions of dollars on cancer research and still have not found a cure. I am not saying that we never will or would never be able to (though it is not guaranteed we will) by using animals, but that money could go, or have gone further in preventing more misery from cancer by focusing on prevention rather than cure. More and more we are learning that diet and lifestyle can be or may be the over-riding determinants of cancer forming cells. If those billions of dollars over the last 4 decades were spent on educating and promoting healthier choices in lifestyles, perhaps we would not have the ever increase in cancer rates/deaths.

Strange, isnt it? -- cancer research on animals and dollars into it keep rising, but so do cancer rates.

Food for thought. ;-)

Tokis-Phoenix
19-05-06, 15:42
One thing we sure have learned through ganimal testingh is: We sure do know how to cause rats to get cancer.
Since we have declared war on cancer we have spent billions of dollars on cancer research and still have not found a cure. I am not saying that we never will or would never be able to (though it is not guaranteed we will) by using animals, but that money could go, or have gone further in preventing more misery from cancer by focusing on prevention rather than cure. More and more we are learning that diet and lifestyle can be or may be the over-riding determinants of cancer forming cells. If those billions of dollars over the last 4 decades were spent on educating and promoting healthier choices in lifestyles, perhaps we would not have the ever increase in cancer rates/deaths.
Strange, isnt it? -- cancer research on animals and dollars into it keep rising, but so do cancer rates.
Food for thought. ;-)

So are you implying that you believe the cancer research people are doing is essentially useless? You can only prevent cancer to a certain extent, even if you are the healthiest person on earth you may still get genetic cancer or cancer from an accident/injury. Diet, although it does sound promising at times, is not the solution to everything cancer-related.
Even food products are animal tested.

strongvoicesforward
19-05-06, 16:04
Hi Tokis-Phoenix. Its been a while. Have you missed me?

Oh well, to the point of the matter...

So are you implying that you believe the cancer research people are doing is essentially useless?

I thought I quite clearly implied that the billions of dollars could be used more efficiently and that more efficiency would mean less suffering. I am all for decreasing suffering as much as possible as efficiently as possible with all the scarce funds that are available.

You can only prevent cancer to a certain extent,...

Well...when we have people smoking and dying from lung cancer or cancer induced through high animal fat products, I would say we havent reached that "certain extent" yet. Do you think we have?

...even if you are the healthiest person on earth you may still get genetic cancer

Sure. But then focusing on the lesser possibility of contracting cancer is not being efficient in the funds available to prevent as many cases as possible. To me "efficiency" is important because it will mean more lives saved and less suffering.

... or cancer from an accident/injury.

What cancers are normally caused by normal accidents or injuries?

I can imagine x-ray technicians not being careful or exposure to nuclear plant meltdown of some kind -- but to spend large funds on anomalies is not being efficient.

Diet, although it does sound promising at times, is not the solution to everything cancer-related.

I doubt if there will ever be a "solution" to every-thing "cancer-related." Rather than expect that, we should expect and demand efficiency.

Even food products are animal tested.

You mean my brocali is repeatedly being tested?!!!

Tokis-Phoenix
19-05-06, 16:34
I thought I quite clearly implied that the billions of dollars could be used more efficiently and that more efficiency would mean less suffering. I am all for decreasing suffering as much as possible as efficiently as possible with all the scarce funds that are available.
Well...when we have people smoking and dying from lung cancer or cancer induced through high animal fat products, I would say we havent reached that "certain extent" yet. Do you think we have?

So you disagree with people finding a cure for cancer because you think the money could be spent elsewhere? I can think of nothing wrong with finding a cure for cancer. I do not disagree with people working on preventation for cancer either, but then again a lot of our knowledge of cancer came abou via animal testing anyway.
We may not have found a complete cure for cancer, but we have vastly improved out knowledge of cancer and treating it via animal testing- many millions of people would be dead if it weren't for such research and the knowledge it has given us.

Sure. But then focusing on the lesser possibility of contracting cancer is not being efficient in the funds available to prevent as many cases as possible. To me "efficiency" is important because it will mean more lives saved and less suffering.
What cancers are normally caused by normal accidents or injuries?

I knew a guy once- really healthy guy, ate sensibly, didn't smoke, drink or take drugs, went jogging every other day etc...
One day he was playing cricket and the ball hit him really badly in the knee.
A massive bruise developed. A month or so later it still wasn't going away so he saw a doctor about it.
A month or so after that the bruise actually started getting larger, so the doctor took some scans and found out that the bruise had gone cancerous.

Anyway, long story short, he ended up dying 'cos the cancer spread to the rest of the body- i think this owuld be a good example of cancer coming about via injury.

I doubt if there will ever be a "solution" to every-thing "cancer-related." Rather than expect that, we should expect and demand efficiency.

Well then you can stop expecting people to do such a thing, in the mean time, i will continue to expect a cure for cancer. I doubt people will ever stop animal testing, do you stop fighting against it?

You mean my brocali is repeatedly being tested?!!!

No, i am not talking about vegetables that have been eaten for yonks.
A lot of new recipes that come every year that contain new ingredients are animal tested, like when people first invented hydronated vegetable oil, that would have had to have been animal tested to make sure it was safe for human consumption. The same goes for a lot of preservatives, flavorings, e-numbers etc.

strongvoicesforward
19-05-06, 16:53
Since 1971, the year President Nixon declared war on cancer, in the U.S. alone 400 billion dollars has been spent on cancer research. However, since then and despite those billions of dollars, there has been a 73% increase in the death rate of cancer.

That is telling us that causing rats to get cancer has not been a very efficent means of warring against cancer.

But, we read stories like Lance Armstrongs or other high profile people and we are duped into thinking we are winning the war. We are not winning and the numbers show that and animal testing as it has risen has not reversed the overall rate.

And very interesting:

...simple behavioral changes such as quitting smoking have helped lower the incidence of deadly lung cancer. More important, with the help of breast self-exams and mammography, PSA tests for prostate cancer, and other testing, we're catching more tumors earlier. Ruth Etzioni, a biostatistician at Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, points out that when you break down the Big Four cancers (lung, colon and rectal, breast, and prostate) by stage\that is, how far the malignant cells have spread\long-term survival for advanced cancer has barely budged since the 1970s. -- Why We are Losing the War on Cancer, Clifton Leaf, Fortune Magazine

Full story here: Why We're Losing the War on Cancer\and How to Win It

Tokis-Phoenix
19-05-06, 16:54
Do you have anything to say directly to my last post though?

strongvoicesforward
19-05-06, 17:00
Researchers know how to get money from government grants and foundations. Use lots of mice with conclusions that read, gmore research neededh -- of course after giving some ray of hope for future treatment built on this innitial research. Get published in a scientific journal and get that reputation machine in gassed up. The system is built on that and mice are the fuel.

From the same source above in Fortune Magazine:

...the cancer community has published an extraordinary 150,855 experimental studies on mice, according to a search of the PubMed database. Guess how many of them have led to treatments for cancer? Very, very few. In fact, if you want to understand where the War on Cancer has gone wrong, the mouse is a pretty good place to start.

Tokis-Phoenix
19-05-06, 17:08
Um yeah, SVF, but what do you have to say directly to my second last post?

strongvoicesforward
19-05-06, 17:09
Do you have anything to say directly to my last post though?

Sure. You caught me between posts again. You should learn to give people some time before assuming they are avoiding your posts. I would say 20 to 30 mins is quite acceptable.
-------------------------------------------

I have nothing wrong with people finding a cure for cancer -- so long as the funds are used as efficiently as possible and do not violate the integrity of unwilling beings which suffer and feel pain.

As for your personal anecdote about your friend -- personally I doubt it is or was as you described. Of course I have no access to his personal records and I dont think you can provide them -- so I cant give it credence. Sorry.

The other parts of your post are touched on/addressed in my #75 and #77.

Tokis-Phoenix
19-05-06, 17:16
Sure. You caught me between posts again. You should learn to give people some time before assuming they are avoiding your posts. I would say 20 to 30 mins is quite acceptable.
-------------------------------------------
I have nothing wrong with people finding a cure for cancer -- so long as the funds are used as efficiently as possible and do not violate the integrity of unwilling beings which suffer and feel pain.
As for your personal anecdote about your friend -- personally I doubt it is or was as you described. Of course I have no access to his personal records and I dont think you can provide them -- so I cant give it credence. Sorry.
The other parts of your post are touched on/addressed in my #75 and #77.

So you are against animal testing for cancer research, despite it providing the large bulk or the medicines and knowledge we have today to treat cancer. So you basically value animal life over human life when one could be saved with the other.

"A lot of new recipes that come every year that contain new ingredients are animal tested, like when people first invented hydronated vegetable oil, that would have had to have been animal tested to make sure it was safe for human consumption. The same goes for a lot of preservatives, flavorings, e-numbers etc."

So thats my answer to your ignorance of animal testing on food products. Yes it does happen, even on vegetarian foods. Not everything vegetarian, or even vegan, is animal friendly u'know.
And i don't have time to wait 20 to 30mins for you to answer, otherwise i'd be here night and day to wait upon you, which like most people, i see as unesarsary.

Hey SVF, if you were dying of cancer, would you accept animal tested cancer treatments to cure you if they were you only chance of getting rid of the desease?

RockLee
19-05-06, 19:05
So you are against animal testing for cancer research, despite it providing the large bulk or the medicines and knowledge we have today to treat cancer. So you basically value animal life over human life when one could be saved with the other.

Why should you value human life over animal life? Do you think you are better than animals because you can talk?

"A lot of new recipes that come every year that contain new ingredients are animal tested, like when people first invented hydronated vegetable oil, that would have had to have been animal tested to make sure it was safe for human consumption. The same goes for a lot of preservatives, flavorings, e-numbers etc."
So thats my answer to your ignorance of animal testing on food products. Yes it does happen, even on vegetarian foods. Not everything vegetarian, or even vegan, is animal friendly u'know.To show YOUR ignorance...You said "when people FIRST invented". Do you know when that "first" was? Do you know what happens in every vegetarian-food manufacturing company? Posting a random article isn't actually a good reference you know.

And i don't have time to wait 20 to 30mins for you to answer, otherwise i'd be here night and day to wait upon you, which like most people, i see as unesarsary.If you are that impatient it's your problem, others don't have to be like you, do they?

No-name
20-05-06, 01:01
I value human life over animal life. The talking, thinking, sentient, self aware, tool using, bipods get all the bonus points... all the priveleges and all the marbles in the jar. Do I need a reason? My reason is somewhat proximal because I identify with members of my species. It is our frame of reference... how we arange and direct our resources and how we as a species set our priorities.

Maciamo
20-05-06, 10:40
I value human life over animal life. The talking, thinking, sentient, self aware, tool using, bipods get all the bonus points...

This raises an interesting point for discussion. If we were to come into contact with a more intelligent species (e.g. from another planet), who also had more elaborate language and reasoning, deeper feelings, more self-awareness, better technology, etc., would you value their life more than a human life, despite being a human ? Or is what you mentioned above just bs and the real reason you value human life over animal life is because your are a human (and that's it) ?

No-name
20-05-06, 19:06
This raises an interesting point for discussion. If we were to come into contact with a more intelligent species (e.g. from another planet), who also had more elaborate language and reasoning, deeper feelings, more self-awareness, better technology, etc., would you value their life more than a human life, despite being a human ? Or is what you mentioned above just bs and the real reason you value human life over animal life is because your are a human (and that's it) ?

//If// that happens, we would have to decide then... I'm not certain that a more elaborate language and reasoning, deeper feeling and more self awareness is what makes our species superior. They would definitely cause greater consideration for that species. Better technology however, may make the point moot. I would however probably continue to be "human-centric" in my thinking. It is a common value system among my species as evident in our laws, customs and diets.

I do not consider the life of a plant equivalent to the life of my cat... or a bug equal to a bird. Nor do I consider the value of the life of my dog equal to that of my son. There is a certain species superiority present in this chain of thinking that I feel strongly about-- don't dispatch an ambulance when a dog gets hit, in favor of the human for whom it is intended. If there was an epidemic killing humans and birds and a vaccine that would prevent it- I would favor giving the vaccine only to the humans and possibly destroying hundreds if not thousands of birds to protect the human population. It may just be because I am human that I believe this way, but that does not invalidate this value system that most of humanity shares.

Tokis-Phoenix
20-05-06, 21:23
Why should you value human life over animal life? Do you think you are better than animals because you can talk?

Well if i was stuck on a desert island and there was some guy and a rabbit and i was starving to death and they were the only things i could eat, i would eat the rabbit without any question. Perhaps you would eat the guy, because you see no difference in human and animal life, but i would definately go for the rabbit.
If you were in a burning house and there was a dog and a woman inside, who would you pull out first if you were the only person who could and it was a life or death situation?
Just because i believe human life is more valuable over animal life does not mean i think we can do whatever we want to animals, but if one can be saved with the other, i think human life is more valuable.

To show YOUR ignorance...You said "when people FIRST invented". Do you know when that "first" was? Do you know what happens in every vegetarian-food manufacturing company? Posting a random article isn't actually a good reference you know.

"The first patent for the hydrogenation process was in 1903 by William Norman. The first patent for hydrogenated cottonseed oil was in 1911. This is the same year that Proctor and Gamble came out with Crisco oil. Crisco was acombination of hydrogenated palm and cottonseed oil, mixed with lard and animal fats. People then were not purchasing it, so P&G started giving it away, literally. The patent was purchased by a major food producing company. In 1937, a new patent was filed by a Dr. Ellis working for a major oil company. He improved the process by separating certain fats for commercial use. Since then, additional patents have been filed for different methods of these processes. These patents from 1976 to present can be found at the U.S. Office of Patents and Trademarks on the internet. Prior to 1976, patent searches must be done to find the original patents.";

http://www.dldewey.com/columns/hydroilf.htm

Hydrogenated vegetable oil is often used as a preservative in foods. Food preservatives are animal tested.

If you are that impatient it's your problem, others don't have to be like you, do they?

Rocklee, rocklee...

"Animal testing to find a cure could save billions of lives.

Who is more important; one hamster or a billion people?

Finally, think of this - could you honestly look a dying person in the eyes and tell them they must die to protect the rights of a mouse?

Who would you rather survived; one mouse or your mother?"

The kid makes a good point;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4090000/newsid_4095600/4095612.stm

KrazyKat
20-05-06, 21:38
I believe that more human lives can be improved and saved by spending money on drugs that already exist for curable diseases in third world countries (or disaster relief etc.) than by spending it on research(animal or not) on predominantly western diseases.

I also believe that more animal lives can be improved and saved by opposing factory farming rather than animal testing. And infact that visible protests against animal testing can have the reverse effect.

Tokis-Phoenix
20-05-06, 22:05
I believe that more human lives can be improved and saved by spending money on drugs that already exist for curable diseases in third world countries (or disaster relief etc.) than by spending it on research(animal or not) on predominantly western diseases.

I also believe that more animal lives can be improved and saved by opposing factory farming rather than animal testing. And infact that visible protests against animal testing can have the reverse effect.

Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like measles, rabies and mumps.

Drugs to fight the effects of HIV and cancer rely on animal tests.

Operations on animals helped to develop organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques.

Animal testing ironically has also help create medicines for animals.

If it weren't for animal testing, then i wonder how many of us would be here right now on this forum...Perhaps quite a few of us wouldn't be here. You also have to consider that a lot of the current drugs we have to cure us of our deseases and things are animal tested, and if people like SVF were in charge they wouldn't be there at all.

I wonder what he feels about animal testing for the benefet of animals (like finding cures for animal illnesses and things).

RockLee
20-05-06, 22:39
Well if i was stuck on a desert island and there was some guy and a rabbit and i was starving to death and they were the only things i could eat, i would eat the rabbit without any question. Perhaps you would eat the guy, because you see no difference in human and animal life, but i would definately go for the rabbit.What use if I would die afteral? The rabbit would only be a small meal, and after that I'd die from hunger anyways. Also, who says the other guy wouldn't try and kill me to get the rabbit?

If you were in a burning house and there was a dog and a woman inside, who would you pull out first if you were the only person who could and it was a life or death situation?Honestly, I wouldn't know. I don't know how I would act in that situation, do you?

Just because i believe human life is more valuable over animal life does not mean i think we can do whatever we want to animals, but if one can be saved with the other, i think human life is more valuable. I don't value animal life over human life, I think animals should be treated as nature intended to. We eat them for survival, I can agree with that. But I think animal testing is downright cruel and should be stopped. There are other ways to test medicines, etc.

"The first patent for the hydrogenation process was in 1903 by William Norman. The first patent for hydrogenated cottonseed oil was in 1911. This is the same year that Proctor and Gamble came out with Crisco oil. Crisco was acombination of hydrogenated palm and cottonseed oil, mixed with lard and animal fats. People then were not purchasing it, so P&G started giving it away, literally. The patent was purchased by a major food producing company. In 1937, a new patent was filed by a Dr. Ellis working for a major oil company. He improved the process by separating certain fats for commercial use. Since then, additional patents have been filed for different methods of these processes. These patents from 1976 to present can be found at the U.S. Office of Patents and Trademarks on the internet. Prior to 1976, patent searches must be done to find the original patents.";
http://www.dldewey.com/columns/hydroilf.htm
Hydrogenated vegetable oil is often used as a preservative in foods. Food preservatives are animal tested.How can u say that for certain? Don't you think that using animals to test vegetarian food would be the opposite of their purpose?

Rocklee, rocklee...Yes?

"Animal testing to find a cure could save billions of lives.
Who is more important; one hamster or a billion people?
Finally, think of this - could you honestly look a dying person in the eyes and tell them they must die to protect the rights of a mouse?
Who would you rather survived; one mouse or your mother?"
The kid makes a good point;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4090000/newsid_40956004095612.stmBut then again, it couldn't. So I guess it's just human nature to look for excuses and use the "but if..."

I think 1 hamster should have the same rights as a billion people because it is as we are a living being. We should not deny another living creature the same rights we have.

The kid is a kid, if he could think or reason at a more adult level he would see he is wrong. If that person is dying, nothing can save him imho.

Tokis-Phoenix
20-05-06, 22:51
Honestly, I wouldn't know. I don't know how I would act in that situation, do you?

Yep, while you were thinking over who you are going to save first, i would be saving the woman.

I don't value animal life over human life, I think animals should be treated as nature intended to. We eat them for survival, I can agree with that. But I think animal testing is downright cruel and should be stopped. There are other ways to test medicines, etc.

Oh, so you think its fine if somone eats an animal for survival, but they are not allowed to use it to find a cure to help them survive a desease for example?
Nature intended us to kill and eat animals, thats the way we are evolved- we are also evolved to do whats best for our species, and if that means saving human lives via animals then so be it.

How can u say that for certain? Don't you think that using animals to test vegetarian food would be the opposite of their purpose?

Not all vegetarians are vegetarians because they disagree with the way animals are treated, some people like my fiance simply don't like the way meat tastes for example, so no, it doesn't really oppose the point of vegetarianism depending on what you are in it for.

But then again, it couldn't. So I guess it's just human nature to look for excuses and use the "but if..."
I think 1 hamster should have the same rights as a billion people because it is as we are a living being. We should not deny another living creature the same rights we have.
The kid is a kid, if he could think or reason at a more adult level he would see he is wrong.

What is wishful thinking? We have already proven that animal testing works numerous times.
Your wishful thinking is that a hamster should have the same rights as a billion people.

If that person is dying, nothing can save him imho.

If somone is dying then there can be plenty of things done to save their life depending on what they are dying of, and with more animal testing and better technology we can cure even more things that can kill people.
If you were dying before your time, and your life could be saved via treatments that had been animal tested, would you take it?

strongvoicesforward
21-05-06, 07:36
Hey SVF, if you were dying of cancer, would you accept animal tested cancer treatments to cure you if they were your only chance of getting rid of the desease?

Tokis-Pheonix, are you going to start playing personal hypothetical gifh game questions? If so, are you going to give me the same courtesy of answering mine? I dont mind a little gquid pro quoh so long as we both agree to play.

First off, what if I answer gnoh to your question above? Does it change anything from your perspective? You wouldnt be able to confirm anyway what I would or would not do in my personal life.

Now, what if I answer gyesh? At worst, I am a hypocrite. But that still does not change the truth that to violate the integrity of a beings body or to cause them pain and suffering for ones own benefit is wrong. My personal answer is independent of the message that it is wrong to cause suffering based on gmight makes right.h

Here is my hypothetical question for you: Many, if not most German companies that have survived from WW2 up to the present had benefitted from slave labor forced upon the Jews of that era. So, is everyone a hypocrite who professes to be against slavery but purchases, or in some way has a dealing with German companies who benefited from slavery in the past?

Yes, they may be hypocrites, along with any animal rightist who takes an aspirin to soothe a headache -- but there is the concept of gfatali accomplih which relieves people from the burdens of trying to be so idealistic that they need not try to change everything in the past that was wrong.

Sure, the contracts that the U.S. or colonial powers used to steal the American Indiansf lands were wrong and done under coercion or deceptive manners -- but the U.S. is not going to legislate itself out of existence, or the colonial powers are not going to empty their coffieurs to pay the compensation that is rightfully due. Why? Because of the concept of gfatali accompli.h

But, back to the gifh game:

If I had cancer and a cure or treatment for it could only be found by me pointing a finger at 100 monkeys in a breeding farm and command that they be tested on to create medicine for me -- I would not do so because I dont think we personally have the right to make those decisions on other living beings.

Here is your gifh question (quid pro quo): If 100 retarded children diagnosed to not live beyond age two could be experimented on for treatments to save 100,000 fully normal mind functioning cognitive children of 9 years old -- who if found a cure for their disease from these retarded children -- would live to a normal life span -- would you point the finger and say, gtake them to the experimental roomh?

Remember... just the two of us playing hypothetical gifh games.

-------------------------------------------
*Btw, thanks this time for being patient for my answer in coming. You didnt rush me this time. I purposely didnt post for a while so that others could come into the discussion and give a chance for Q&A without break-ins from me. I could see that it was going to turn into a "You and I" discussion, of which I think is less valuable compared to having more participants.

Mycernius
21-05-06, 15:03
I'd eat the rabbit and the guy, and then take up fishing

Tokis-Phoenix
21-05-06, 17:10
Tokis-Pheonix, are you going to start playing personal hypothetical gifh game questions? If so, are you going to give me the same courtesy of answering mine? I dont mind a little gquid pro quoh so long as we both agree to play.
First off, what if I answer gnoh to your question above? Does it change anything from your perspective? You wouldnt be able to confirm anyway what I would or would not do in my personal life.
Now, what if I answer gyesh? At worst, I am a hypocrite. But that still does not change the truth that to violate the integrity of a beings body or to cause them pain and suffering for ones own benefit is wrong. My personal answer is independent of the message that it is wrong to cause suffering based on gmight makes right.h

If you would accept animal tested treatments to save your lfie then you are very hypocritical. On the one hand, you would more than happily deny dying people of animal tested treatments if you could save the rights of animals, on the other hand you would take those very treatments yourself to save your own life.
Sure you could lie and say different in this post, but i think you are like most other people in this world, and if you were dying you would support animal death if it could save your life. In fact, i think animal rights protesters like you should be denied medicines and treatments and things that have been animal tested- even if you die slowly and suffering for your cause, there's no point in preaching to others if you don't or wouldn't change yourself.
Despite the many animal rights activist people here who are strongly against animal testing, not a single one of you have voted you would rather die than take animal tested treatments- if you are really honest about what you are in this for, maybe you should make an honest example to the rest. But i don't think you will, because deep down, you value your own life more than a rats.

Remember... just the two of us playing hypothetical gifh games.

Ah, no "if game", just making a point :cool:

No-name
21-05-06, 17:18
Last night I was driving home up a winding mountain road when a field mouse darted across the road. I may have hit it, but I hope I didn't. I continued driving and quickly forgot and went to sleep.

Had it been a human crossing my path-- I would have stopped to make certain that he or she was okay. The law would have required me to stop and render aid if a human was injured and to stay on the scene, but beyond that I would have had an ethical and moral duty to do so. A great number of costly resources would have been put into action involving dozens of people and expensive equipment. In spite of the fact that it would not have been my fault, I would have gotten no sleep.

I do not give this field mouse equal consideration. I don't consider animals the equal of humans and I certainly place a significantly higher value on human life than on that of one mouse or a hundred mice. We kill mice every day to protect our food sources and as vector control for disease, and many others simply as an accidental by-product of human activity. If the death of a few dozen mice can actually improve the lives of humans, I would certainly support it.

RockLee
21-05-06, 18:29
If you would accept animal tested treatments to save your lfie then you are very hypocritical. On the one hand, you would more than happily deny dying people of animal tested treatments if you could save the rights of animals, on the other hand you would take those very treatments yourself to save your own life.
Sure you could lie and say different in this post, but i think you are like most other people in this world, and if you were dying you would support animal death if it could save your life. In fact, i think animal rights protesters like you should be denied medicines and treatments and things that have been animal tested- even if you die slowly and suffering for your cause, there's no point in preaching to others if you don't or wouldn't change yourself.Stop assuming things. You don't know what other people think.

Despite the many animal rights activist people here who are strongly against animal testing, not a single one of you have voted you would rather die than take animal tested treatments- if you are really honest about what you are in this for, maybe you should make an honest example to the rest. But i don't think you will, because deep down, you value your own life more than a rats.Again, who do you think you are? You should stop making assumptions.

RockLee
21-05-06, 18:35
Last night I was driving home up a winding mountain road when a field mouse darted across the road. I may have hit it, but I hope I didn't. I continued driving and quickly forgot and went to sleep.

Had it been a human crossing my path-- I would have stopped to make certain that he or she was okay. The law would have required me to stop and render aid if a human was injured and to stay on the scene, but beyond that I would have had an ethical and moral duty to do so. A great number of costly resources would have been put into action involving dozens of people and expensive equipment. In spite of the fact that it would not have been my fault, I would have gotten no sleep.If it was a dog or a cat, would you not have gone back and checked either?

I do not give this field mouse equal consideration. I don't consider animals the equal of humans and I certainly place a significantly higher value on human life than on that of one mouse or a hundred mice. We kill mice every day to protect our food sources and as vector control for disease, and many others simply as an accidental by-product of human activity. If the death of a few dozen mice can actually improve the lives of humans, I would certainly support it.It's not only mice that are used for tests. Do you agree on running tests on people then? Like history showed us, people used to do all kind of experiments on humans. Do you approve of this? An animal has feelings too, and emotions. It experiences pain, just like humans. But I doubt you'd approve on running tests on humans, the way they are done on animals.

No-name
21-05-06, 18:46
A dog or a cat on our mountain road would be an anomoly, but I probably would not. I saw a black bear struck by a car and pulled over and then thought, "What the heck am I doing?" Either the bear was dead, in which case I was stopping for nothing, or it was alive... in which case I didn't need to stop.

You are quite correct, I would not approve of running tests on humans the way they have are done on animals. And I already said that I do not consider humans and animals equally. I have no problem in general with using animals for tests. I do think a strong code of ethics needs to be applied. I do have a problem testing on humans, significantly more care needs to be taken. We do test on humans, but usually after animal trials are finished and with significantly more stringent safeguards and limits.

I don't know if animals have feelings and emotions "just like humans." They do seem to have some faculty, but it is difficult to know if I am anthropomorphizing and reading more into their responses than is really there.

Tokis-Phoenix
21-05-06, 18:48
Stop assuming things. You don't know what other people think.

I'm not assuming anything, thats why i started trhe post with a big "If"- i am simply voicing my opinions, do you have an issue with freedom of speach?

Again, who do you think you are? You should stop making assumptions.

Who do you think you are to judge what i can and cannot say to somone in my own thread? Who put you on your high horse?
I am sure SVF has the ability stick up for him self in a debate like an adult and does not need you to nanny him.

It's not only mice that are used for tests. Do you agree on running tests on people then? Like history showed us, people used to do all kind of experiments on humans. Do you approve of this? An animal has feelings too, and emotions. It experiences pain, just like humans. But I doubt you'd approve on running tests on humans, the way they are done on animals.

It depends on what types of experiments were done on humans, some experiments i suppose i would agree with while i others i would not i guess.
I don't approve of all animal experimentation, and i suppose the same goes for people too.

No-name
21-05-06, 18:51
If I hit a dog or a cat in a city, I would probably stop because it is likely to be someone's pet. It might have tags and numbers and there almost certainly would be a place to treat a wounded animal nearby. Picking up any animal in the mountains however would probably be ill advised.

Also hitting a larger mammal would probably be a bit more disturbing and might give me a much greater pause. Small rodents, especially squirrels are quite common on our mountain roads and get hit every day. Neither contemporary social morals or California law require that we stop in such cases.

Tokis-Phoenix
21-05-06, 18:56
If I hit a dog or a cat in a city, I would probably stop because it is likely to be someone's pet. It might have tags and numbers and there almost certainly would be a place to treat a wounded animal nearby. Picking up any animal in the mountains however would probably be ill advised.

Also hitting a larger mammal would probably be a bit more disturbing and might give me a much greater pause. Small rodents, especially squirrels are quite common on our mountain roads and get hit every day. Neither contemporary social morals or California law require that we stop in such cases.

If i hit a mouse in my car i may stop to move it to the side of the road (to prevent scavengers getting hit by cars trying to eat it in the middle of the road), but to be honest a mouse isn't going to survive a car going over it even at 10mph.

If i hit a dog or a cat it would have more chance of surviving a car accident (although still pretty minimal), but as you said somone might own it and would appreiciate having it back instead of finding it flattened on the tarmac a week later.

No-name
21-05-06, 19:00
I have never stopped to move a dying or dead rodent off of the road. We do have bald eagles that scavenge, and perhaps I should think of them.

Tokis-Phoenix
21-05-06, 19:13
I have never stopped to move a dying or dead rodent off of the road. We do have bald eagles that scavenge, and perhaps I should think of them.

Hmm yeah it is somthing to take into consideration, i never really thought about until one day i saw a dead flattend pheasant on the road- the next day there was a dead flattened fox next to it.
Fox's are the only animals over here that i can think of at the top of my head that scavenge and eat dead animals, but you do see a lot of dead ones on the road because of this (plus they often live near populated areas now days).

RockLee
21-05-06, 22:26
I'm not assuming anything, thats why i started trhe post with a big "If"- i am simply voicing my opinions, do you have an issue with freedom of speach?I don't have any problem with you voicing your opinion. But you are assuming things.

->
Sure you could lie and say different in this post, but i think you are like most other people in this world, and if you were dying you would support animal death if it could save your life.

But i don't think you will, because deep down, you value your own life more than a rats.If that's not assuming, than what is it?

Who do you think you are to judge what i can and cannot say to somone in my own thread? Who put you on your high horse?
I am sure SVF has the ability stick up for him self in a debate like an adult and does not need you to nanny him. Who says I nanny SFV? You are making assumptions again. I suggest you stop doing that. What you can and can't is up to the forum rules, and with the personal attacking you are doing lately you are walking on thin ice.

It depends on what types of experiments were done on humans, some experiments i suppose i would agree with while i others i would not i guess.
I don't approve of all animal experimentation, and i suppose the same goes for people too.Suppose they'd inject humans with all kinds of chemicals to see how their body reacts to it (even with the possibility of death) , would you still tolerate it?

Mycernius
21-05-06, 22:29
Hmm yeah it is somthing to take into consideration, i never really thought about until one day i saw a dead flattend pheasant on the road- the next day there was a dead flattened fox next to it.
Fox's are the only animals over here that i can think of at the top of my head that scavenge and eat dead animals, but you do see a lot of dead ones on the road because of this (plus they often live near populated areas now days).
Crows, Magpies and the like will take roadkill. Plus they seem to have enough sense to move out of the way. I very rarely see dead crows. As for peasants, they are remarkably stupid birds. I have had several dive infront of my truck instead of going the shorter route to the hedge.

Tokis-Phoenix
21-05-06, 22:40
I don't have any problem with you voicing your opinion. But you are assuming things.
->
If that's not assuming, than what is it?
Who says I nanny SFV? You are making assumptions again. I suggest you stop doing that. What you can and can't is up to the forum rules, and with the personal attacking you are doing lately you are walking on thin ice.

If the mods see me posting things they see as inapropriate, they'll delete them, as for now why don't you leave the moderating and running of the forum to those responsable for that- if you have any continued issues with my posts then you can pm the mods about it.
Personally i don't think i am doing anything wrong, plus looking at the poll for this thread i think it is safe to assume so far that there are no people here that would refuse animal tested treatments if their lives depended on them.

Suppose they'd inject humans with all kinds of chemicals to see how their body reacts to it (even with the possibility of death) , would you still tolerate it?

Well, i don't know of any cases of people legally doing that sort of experiment to people, so it would be another of those "if" games" as SVF would put it ;) .

Tokis-Phoenix
21-05-06, 22:48
Crows, Magpies and the like will take roadkill. Plus they seem to have enough sense to move out of the way. I very rarely see dead crows. As for peasants, they are remarkably stupid birds. I have had several dive infront of my truck instead of going the shorter route to the hedge.

Yeah i agree pheasants are very stupid, once when i was a kid i was been driven back from school and we saw a pheasant standing in the middle of the road, so we slowed down the car and expected it to go away. It didn't, so we stopped the car and shooed it off the road; we had to come back the same way again later, and what to you know, it was back there in the middle of the road, so we had to shoo it off again.
The next day there was a dead pheasant in the middle of the same road.

I dunno, maybe they just have a really, really short memory, but they have no fear of cars. Crows and magpies seem to be far brighter, ravens and jackdaws are very intelligent scavenger birds as well.

RockLee
22-05-06, 01:08
If the mods see me posting things they see as inapropriate, they'll delete them, as for now why don't you leave the moderating and running of the forum to those responsable for that- if you have any continued issues with my posts then you can pm the mods about it.
Personally i don't think i am doing anything wrong, plus looking at the poll for this thread i think it is safe to assume so far that there are no people here that would refuse animal tested treatments if their lives depended on them.I AM a mod, but not on this forum. :) So if there is something on this forum, I talk to the other mods about it.

Well, i don't know of any cases of people legally doing that sort of experiment to people, so it would be another of those "if" games" as SVF would put it ;)My point is, would you bother if those experiments were conducted on animals? It's no "IF-game", it's just a question I ask you. Would you mind when it happens on humans, but don't care when it happens on animals?

Tokis-Phoenix
22-05-06, 01:22
My point is, would you bother if those experiments were conducted on animals? It's no "IF-game", it's just a question I ask you. Would you mind when it happens on humans, but don't care when it happens on animals?

It depends what the circumstances are ;) . Legislation protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment in England, few animals feel any pain as they are killed before they have the chance to suffer according to the BBC website;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/teachers/citizenship_11_14/subject_areas/human_rights/newsid_3430000/3430169.stm

Would you give your life/die to save, say, the lives of rats?

strongvoicesforward
22-05-06, 02:47
Well, it appears Tokis-Phoenix does not have the courtesy to reciprocate answering "if" questions, and like Rock-Lee says does go off on assumptions.

In the post above she makes the statements:

Legislation protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment in England,...

Legislation, while good and can be a protector of abuse, is not a guarantee of protection. Show us some government study that says ALL lab animals are protected from cruelty and mistreatment. What does that mean? Are you saying there is no animal suffering in labs in England simply because some legislation is on the books purporting to protect animals?

I know there is anti discrimination legislation in the U.S., but it still happens.

Dont get me wrong. I am not bashing England. England is the hot bed of strong animal rightists and direct action for animals is a great export they have been successful in spreading throughout Europe and to the U.S.

few animals feel any pain as they are killed before they have the chance to suffer according to the BBC website;

Another assumption.

As for the link you provided above -- that is just a list of pro-reasons for the argument for animal testing. It is not factual. Anyone can make a list and the antithesis exists which could be cited as fact, too -- although to do so would be erronious also. Or, are you assuming again that lists you cite on a BBC site are just factual information?

Show us a study Tokis-Phoenix that supports your point and not just a list of reasons for pro-animal testing.

strongvoicesforward
22-05-06, 03:41
Would you give your life/die to save, say, the lives of rats?

I know this question was asked to RockLee, but I will answer it, too -- despite the fact that Tokis-Pheonix is only good at asking hypothetical questions and not answering them -- or is afraid or lacks the courtesy to do so even when she fires them off.

Would I exchange my life for an animals life where the outcome was a sure thing -- I die and it lives? No.

Would I willingly risk my life for an animal? Yes.

In fact many animal rightists/liberationists who engage in direct action do so. To raid an animal breeding farm that supplies animals to labs is risking serious injury when suppliers employ razor wire that needs to be scaled or when a farmer has loaded weapons in their homes. Anytime a liberationist is caught by police or private security that has weapons, they are at serious risk to bodily injury that could result in death.

---------------------------------
*btw, has anyone else noticed Tokis-Pheonix' ability to ask the hypothetical "if" questions, but not answer them?

strongvoicesforward
22-05-06, 06:54
In cancer research, one of the most heavily funded programs utilizing perhaps the most number of animals for testing, millions of mice have died since 1971, the year President Nixon declared war on it. From previous posts I have listed the numbers that show this stark reality and utter failure. Cancer rates continue to rise. Animal models, particularly the mouse which is the most widely used animal in research, has suffered because they are the most manipulative of all animals -- but the cancer we cause and cure in them have not lead to lower cancer rates or lower deaths from cancer because the mouse is not a good model for humans.

A mouse gene may be very similar to a human gene, but the rest of the mouse is very different.

The fact that so many cancer researchers seem to forget or ignore this observation when working with "mouse models" in the lab clearly irks Robert Weinberg. A professor of biology at MIT and winner of the National Medal of Science for his discovery of both the first human oncogene and the first tumor-suppressor gene, ...

... preclinical models," Weinberg explains. "And it's been well known for more than a decade, maybe two decades, that many of these preclinical human cancer models have very little predictive power in terms of how actual human beings\actual human tumors inside patients\will respond.

...tumors that arise in each, with the same flip of a genetic switch, are vastly different. Excerpts from Fortune Magazine, Clifton Leaf

See full article here: Why We're Losing the War on Cancer\and How to Win It (http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,598425-1,00.html)

RockLee
22-05-06, 13:03
Legislation protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment in England, few animals feel any pain as they are killed before they have the chance to suffer according to the BBC website;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/teachers/citizenship_11_14/subject_areas/human_rights/newsid_3430000/3430169.stmI think SFV pretty much summed it up :?

Would you give your life/die to save, say, the lives of rats?No, I wouldn't. But I'd help anywhere possible, if it was in my power to do so.

It depends what the circumstances are ;)Note that that was a reply to the question about if you would bother tests being run on humans with death as a result. So according to you, in some circumstances it would be tolerable? (Not making assumptions, just asking wether you would or not)

No-name
22-05-06, 16:44
Just a reminder that we kill rats for no reason other than they are a disease vector and a threat to food stores. A single rat can shut a restaurant down. These large number of health and nuisance rodent deaths profit us nothing in the way of knowlege. Lab rats, we hope, are teaching us something valuable.

I would not favor testing on humans if death was a possible result. Again, I believe that human life is significantly more valuable.

Tokis-Phoenix
22-05-06, 17:16
Well, it appears Tokis-Phoenix does not have the courtesy to reciprocate answering "if" questions, and like Rock-Lee says does go off on assumptions.

What "if" questions that were clearly defined have i not answered? Plus you don't have to keep repeating that (in bold) when i'm not even logged on- and you accused me of posting when you couldn't reply

In the post above she makes the statements:
Legislation, while good and can be a protector of abuse, is not a guarantee of protection. Show us some government study that says ALL lab animals are protected from cruelty and mistreatment. What does that mean? Are you saying there is no animal suffering in labs in England simply because some legislation is on the books purporting to protect animals?
I know there is anti discrimination legislation in the U.S., but it still happens.
Dont get me wrong. I am not bashing England. England is the hot bed of strong animal rightists and direct action for animals is a great export they have been successful in spreading throughout Europe and to the U.S.
Another assumption.

Maybe it cruelty does happen in labs, but thats just an assumption. For now, England has some of the best and most rigorously kept laws against animal cruelty in the world.
Saying it cruelty might go on, and thats a reason to put a stop to animal testing, is like saying there are people in this country who have badly treated their pet dogs amoungst the many thousands of good dog owners, and thus we must put a stop to the keeping of dogs just in case somone mistreats them.

As for the link you provided above -- that is just a list of pro-reasons for the argument for animal testing. It is not factual. Anyone can make a list and the antithesis exists which could be cited as fact, too -- although to do so would be erronious also. Or, are you assuming again that lists you cite on a BBC site are just factual information?
Show us a study Tokis-Phoenix that supports your point and not just a list of reasons for pro-animal testing.

It is factual- there are laws against animal cruelty in England, we have found many cures for deseases/illnesses, animal testing has helped us come along in strides in surgery etc- if you cannot face the facts, then deal with it.
Oh, and by the way, it is a study. Why don't you show me an accurate and up to date study that says otherwise?

Would I exchange my life for an animals life where the outcome was a sure thing -- I die and it lives? No.

Would I willingly risk my life for an animal? Yes.

Ah, so, i wasn't wrong in assuming that you would not give your life to save the lives of animals (would you do it for a 100 monkeys, heh?).

In fact many animal rightists/liberationists who engage in direct action do so. To raid an animal breeding farm that supplies animals to labs is risking serious injury when suppliers employ razor wire that needs to be scaled or when a farmer has loaded weapons in their homes. Anytime a liberationist is caught by police or private security that has weapons, they are at serious risk to bodily injury that could result in death.

I certainly wouldn't call climbing over a barb wire fence "risking your life"- i've been doing it since i was a little kid and the worst thing that ever happened to me was a torn sleeve on my jumper.
And if you break into somone's property, wether its somones home or workplace, and they have a right to protect themselves from tresspassers, you are breaking the law and to be honest, they have every right IMHO to shoot you if you break into their home and scare the hell out of them.
No farmer will murder or injure somone just taking a stroll on their land unless they are inflicting serious damage to their property or refusing to go or brandishing weapons themselves.

You might try to romantasize the fact you support criminal activities, and you believe you are honestly risking your life, but really when you break into other peoples properties illegally or steal or threaten/injure people, you are just a common criminal and deserve to be behind bars. You give a bad name to your cause.

Oh yes, and the cancer thing- well i think its really ironic that the guys very own life was saved via cancer treatments when he would have died for sure otherwise without them.
People are getting cancer more and more now days, but we are not losing the war so to speak on cancer itself as we have come along in strides in medical treatments and research, yes the survival rates for somone in advanced cases of cancer are pretty much the same, but treating and curing cancer on people, the survival rates have gone up a lot. The guy who wrote the article would not have even survived if it wern't for those treatments developed since the 70's.

A mouse gene may be very similar to a human gene, but the rest of the mouse is very different.

The fact that so many cancer researchers seem to forget or ignore this observation when working with "mouse models" in the lab clearly irks Robert Weinberg. A professor of biology at MIT and winner of the National Medal of Science for his discovery of both the first human oncogene and the first tumor-suppressor gene, ...

... preclinical models," Weinberg explains. "And it's been well known for more than a decade, maybe two decades, that many of these preclinical human cancer models have very little predictive power in terms of how actual human beings\actual human tumors inside patients\will respond.

...tumors that arise in each, with the same flip of a genetic switch, are vastly different.

"And to be sure, cancer is a challenge like no other. The reason is that this killer has a truly uncanny ability to change its identity. "The hallmark of a cancer cell is its genetic instability," says Isaiah "Josh" Fidler, professor and chair of the department of cancer biology at Houston's M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. The cell's DNA is not fixed the way a normal cell's is. A normal cell passes on pristine copies of its three-billion-letter code to every next-generation cell. But when a cancer cell divides, it may pass along to its daughters an altered copy of its DNA instructions\and even the slightest change can have giant effects on cell behavior. The consequence, says Fidler, is that while cancer is thought to begin with a single cell that has mutated, the tumors eventually formed are made up of countless cellular cousins, with a variety of quirky traits, living side by side. "That heterogeneity of tumors is the major, major obstacle to easy therapy," he says.

Harold Varmus, president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, agrees. "I just think this is a very tough set of problems," says Varmus, who has seen those problems from more angles than just about anybody. He shared a Nobel Prize for discovering the first oncogene (a normal gene that when mutated can cause cancer) in 1976. That crucial finding, five years into the War on Cancer, helped establish that cancers are caused by mutated genes. Later Varmus served as NIH director under Bill Clinton, presiding over a period of huge funding increases. "Time always looks shorter in retrospect," he says. "I think, hey, in 30 years mankind went from being almost completely ignorant about how cancer arises to being pretty damn knowledgeable."

By the way, the article you posted is not anti animal testing.

Tokis-Phoenix
22-05-06, 17:23
Just a reminder that we kill rats for no reason other than they are a disease vector and a threat to food stores. A single rat can shut a restaurant down. These large number of health and nuisance rodent deaths profit us nothing in the way of knowlege. Lab rats, we hope, are teaching us something valuable.
I would not favor testing on humans if death was a possible result. Again, I believe that human life is significantly more valuable.

Yeah same here, although i might agree with testing on people who are on death row and are gonna die anyway because they've done somthing horrible in their lives, and i do agree with people who volunteer for testing. But overall, i think people's lives are more valuable than animals lives, certainly rodents, whom 85% of animal testing is done on;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4177200.stm

But yeah, people kill rats and mice in their millions every month- as far as i see it, we might as well put them towards somthing useful like saving animal and human lives. I agree with animal testing as long as it is towards somthing good like saving people's lives and finding cures for horrible deseases and things etc.

strongvoicesforward
23-05-06, 03:13
What "if" questions that were clearly defined have i not answered?

Here is your gifh question (quid pro quo): If 100 retarded children diagnosed to not live beyond age two could be experimented on for treatments to save 100,000 fully normal mind functioning cognitive children of 9 years old -- who if found a cure for their disease from these retarded children -- would live to a normal life span -- would you point the finger and say, gtake them to the experimental roomh?

Maybe it cruelty does happen in labs, but thats just an assumption.

I would say it is cruel to beat a being to death with a baseball bat -- even if I loaded them up with novacaine or pain blockers before I started.

I would say it is cruel to violate the integrity of a beings body when they are unwilling participants in an action directed at them -- despite any attempt at trying to make them feel comfortable during the violation.

Its not an assumption -- unless you think those two examples above are not cruel just because pain may be blocked.

No matter how comfortable I made a being feel or made it so they didnt feel pain, it would be cruel of me to deprive it of its life for my own selfish purposes to benefit myself.

For now, England has some of the best and most rigorously kept laws against animal cruelty in the world.

Its good that they do. But I am not so naive to say that those prevent animal suffering. Just being in a sterile environment without enrichment for mental stimulation has a maddening affect on animals.

The U.S. has some of the best and most rigorously kept laws against racial discrimination, but I am not so naive to think people are not discriminated against based on their race.

strongvoicesforward
23-05-06, 03:49
Saying it cruelty might go on, and thats a reason to put a stop to animal testing, is like saying there are people in this country who have badly treated their pet dogs amoungst the many thousands of good dog owners, and thus we must put a stop to the keeping of dogs just in case somone mistreats them.

In due time...in due time.

I am all for ending the pet trade in the form it is now. Beings should not be bread for entertainment or ownership out of profit by sales from breeders and pet shops. Too bad that a few bad apples spoil the bunch and should cause the whole pet trade to go under. I guess heavy smokers with their overburdening of health care causes insurance premiums to go up for all of us in some form or another.

If someone wants to be a guardian of a displaced or homeless animal then fine. But acting as a guardian for the safety and well being of an animal is much different than wearing a white lab coat and pumping the animal you are responsible for with toxic agents and then vivisect it. Or, do you think they are the same?

If you were a being with the two possibilities staring at you to choose, which environment would you choose to placed in -- at benevolent guardians home, or with a white coated lab technician in a laboratory?

Oh, and yes, you can assume you will have pain killers while you are being vivisected on or forced to ingest things to toxic amounts.

strongvoicesforward
23-05-06, 04:31
Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
As for the link you provided above -- that is just a list of pro-reasons for the argument for animal testing. It is not factual. Anyone can make a list and the antithesis exists which could be cited as fact, too -- although to do so would be erronious also. Or, are you assuming again that lists you cite on a BBC site are just factual information?
Show us a study Tokis-Phoenix that supports your point and not just a list of reasons for pro-animal testing.

I think SFV pretty much summed it up

Yes, I did. Thank you, RockLee, for pointing that out to Tokis-Pheonix.

It is factual- there are laws against animal cruelty in England, we have found many cures for deseases/illnesses, animal testing has helped us come along in strides in surgery etc- if you cannot face the facts, then deal with it.

Toks-Phoenix, are you actually going to say that just because there are laws on the book that cruelty and pain and suffering doesnt happen in animal testing labs in the U.K.? Again, remember my racial discrimination analogy, please, and that should point you in the direction that just because something is legislated against, in no way is that like a magic wand that makes the reality dissappear.

If numbers of successes in preventing as little suffering and deaths as possible is the goal, then the billions of dollars used for animal testing could have been more efficiently used for promoting prevention. Efficiency of fund use and recourses dictates that funds should be used in a way which would save the most people. Again (as just one example), the hundreds of billions of dollars we have used in causing mice to have cancer and cure cancer in mice could have gone a lot further in saving lives through promoting prevention and better lifestyle choices.

Oh, and by the way, it is a study. Why don't you show me an accurate and up to date study that says otherwise?

No, the link you provided are pros for the reason to animal test. Look at it again. It is not a study.

Ah, so, i wasn't wrong in assuming that you would not give your life to save the lives of animals (would you do it for a 100 monkeys, heh?).

Another "if" question cleverly disguised. I dont mind them. But you are still behind in not answering mine. So, I will wait for your answer.

I certainly wouldn't call climbing over a barb wire fence "risking your life"- i've been doing it since i was a little kid and the worst thing that ever happened to me was a torn sleeve on my jumper.

Did I say "barbed wire"? I thought I said "razor wire." That is usually the coiled stuff with razors on it -- not barbs. "Barbed" wire is the stuff usually farmers use -- razor wires is usually the stuff prisons and the military use. Razor wire can catch you up much more easily than barbed wire and cut you up really bad -- rusted razor wire could be a death knell if you dont have your shots and infection sets in. Havent you seen it before?

Besides, did I say that (i.e. climbing barbed wire) was the actual threat to your life? I think I said:

In fact many animal rightists/liberationists who engage in direct action do so. To raid an animal breeding farm that supplies animals to labs is risking serious injury when suppliers employ razor wire that needs to be scaled or when a farmer has loaded weapons in their homes. Anytime a liberationist is caught by police or private security that has weapons, they are at serious risk to bodily injury that could result in death.

And if you break into somone's property, wether its somones home or workplace, and they have a right to protect themselves from tresspassers, you are breaking the law and to be honest, they have every right IMHO to shoot you if you break into their home and scare the hell out of them.

A different topic. But, I dont disagree with you. Like I said, and now you have acknowledged -- animal liberationists do risk their lives in these direct actions.

No farmer will murder or injure somone just taking a stroll on their land unless they are inflicting serious damage to their property or refusing to go or brandishing weapons themselves.

Well, I sure should hope not. Again, you agree that liberationists do risk their lives in saving animals.

You might try to romantasize the fact you support criminal activities, and you believe you are honestly risking your life, but really when you break into other peoples properties illegally or steal or threaten/injure people, you are just a common criminal and deserve to be behind bars. You give a bad name to your cause.

lol. Yes, the status quo says that, too. I guess the Sons of Liberty who threw all the tea in the Boston Harbor were just all common criminals. To the British they may have been, but to the colonists, they were patriots. I guess in the end the side who has victory will decide if it were rather romantic or not, huh? Until victory or defeat is decisive, the status quo does get to label and prosecute according to their laws.

Though, I do like your countrys contribution to the world on direct action against injustice -- Robin Hood. What a common criminal he was doing all that "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor."

What more poor being is there than that being which does not have the ownership of its own life? He who commands them by the thousands is most often rich in blood money. And here comes little poor old activist relieving them of their beings, giving back to the beings the ownership of their life. You go Merry Band of Robin Hoods! The U.K. has created you as a part of their legend. Romantic indeed.

But, the storytellers of the future will have the final say in it, wont they?

strongvoicesforward
23-05-06, 05:29
Oh yes, and the cancer thing- well i think its really ironic that the guys very own life was saved via cancer treatments when he would have died for sure otherwise without them.

lol. Yes, he does admit to being a little "ungrateful." To use what has been deveoloped goes back to the concept of "fatali accompli" -- which you still have not addressed with my analogy of German products etc...

He certainly did not say that "all" animal tested medicine has not helped anyone. The point of his article is that the return for the investment has been very little and that those funds could be better used in more efficient ways. If saving as many people as possible were the goal, why wouldnt you want to use funds as most efficiently as possible? The mouse has not been a model of success.

People are getting cancer more and more now days, but we are not losing the war so to speak on cancer itself...

Sounds like the Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield gang. Soldiers and civilians' body counts are going up, but we are not losing the war so to speak in Iraque itself...

Sounds like Orwellian doublespeak to me.

But, in case you missed the part of the article that said:

"...we are far from winning the war."

and again:

...the annual death toll has risen 73%\over one and a half times as fast as the growth of the U.S. population.

That doesnt sound like winning to me -- unless you are Bush and the gang doing the spin dance.

... as we have come along in strides in medical treatments and research, yes the survival rates for somone in advanced cases of cancer are pretty much the same, but treating and curing cancer on people, the survival rates have gone up a lot.

Excerpt from Fortune Magazine: The War on Cancer:
Survival gains for the more common forms of cancer are measured in additional months of life, not years. The few dramatic increases in cure rates and patient longevity have come in a handful of less common malignancies\including Hodgkin's, some leukemias, carcinomas of the thyroid and testes, and most childhood cancers. (It's worth noting that many of these successes came in the early days of the War on Cancer.) Thirty-three years ago, fully half of cancer patients survived five years or more after diagnosis. The figure has crept up to about 63% today.

Those numbers do not give the image of large "strides."

Btw, what of the most common cancers that kill the most are you referencing "a lot" with. Could you show us some numbers?

Are you saying we should keep testing on 85% of the lab animals (i.e. mice), numbering in the millions when it has been shown that they are a poor model? Using those large funds on an animal that has resulted in very little return for the investment?

The guy who wrote the article would not have even survived if it wern't for those treatments developed since the 70's.

And that is when all the major advances were made, and since then the mice as given us little for all that investment in funds. Whether he is a hypocrite or not (see Germany analogy above anf fatali accompli which I have been waiting for your address on) is irrelevant to the message.

By the way, the article you posted is not anti animal testing.

Never said it was -- did I? It is clearly critical of mice for our models and points that out as one of the reasons for us losing the war on cancer. In this regard, animal testing is failing us. Its other main criticism is the inefficient usage of funds and recourses. In this regard animal testing is hurting us. I am all for efficiency if it means that 85% of lab animals (mice) are no longer subjected to cruel testing as models that are innappropriate.

Tokis-Phoenix
23-05-06, 17:04
Basically, you do not have any solid evidence that all animals that are tested on are subjected to cruelty, even even a large percentage. In fact, you have given no solid evidence for any of the explicit examples of animal cruelty in labs.
So, you are against animal testing because some animals are or may be (to be more accurate for now) cruely treated.
Some pets are cruely treated. Thus, you must be against the keeping of pets as well, it doesn't matter wether you may treat your pets well, that fact of the matter is that many thousands of pets are cruely treated everyday and by keeping pets you are encouraging others to have them and thus encouraging more animals to be bred and exposed to people.

If your reasoning that you are against animal testing is because some lab animals may be cruely treated, then you must be against all forms of keeping animals where they are also somtimes cruely treated.
It doesn't matter if you keep your dogs well, some scientists keep their animals well, you are against any situation where the animal may be mistreated and thus you must put an end to that situation.
If you put an end to animal testing, thousands of animals will be put down regardless.

As you said, america is against discrimination, but it sure still goes on- you seem to see this as reasoning enough for being against lab animals, so you must also be against the keeping of pets.
Your pet dog is essentially your slave, even if you don't personally see it that way.

By the way, the article is primarily against the funding issues over cancer research and not the way the mice were used- there are hundreds of scientists, and many in that article, that backed up the use of mice in cancer research. You may try to pretend that the guy cares more about the mice than his own sorry life, but unfortunatly thats not the case.
I agree, funding over the decades for cancer cures, as for cancer preventation (where there are also millions of dollars have been spent on) has not always been used efficiently at times, but that does not change the fact mice as still a very valuable way of finding cures for cancer amoungst other illnesses.

I have also already said i value human life over animal life many a time, so as for your "if" question/game thing, i thought to somone with your IQ it would be obvious what the answer would be due to this.
A human being can give consent to testing, an animal cannot (who's to say what goes on in the mind of a mouse though), because a human being has the ability to give consent they must be asked if they want to do somthing.

A human being is also capable of morality, there is practically no solid evidence of animals showing morality towards other animals. A mouse would never intentially save my live.
The rat does not care if it eats the starving mans last peice of food while he is asleep.
The lion does not care if the zebra is still alive and screaming when it rips out its guts and licks up the blood.
The fat pig does not care if it eats its dead owner, who cared for it with all his heart before he died.

Animals are less equal than human beings if only for their complete lack of awareness or ability of morality concerned animals that they do not know personally. This may be one of the main reasons why animals are not equal to human beings.
Human beings are capable of morality, and thus we should practice it when we can, but and animal life is not equal to a human life, so when one must be used to save the other, human life is more valuable.

Now, will you do me the honors of answering my questios throughout this thread?

strongvoicesforward
23-05-06, 17:54
Now, will you do me the honors of answering my questios throughout this thread?

lol.

You still are behind in answering mine.

I answered your "if" question and you still have not reciprocated the courtesy of answering my question about the retarded children or the fatali accompli in regards to German companies that had profitted from Jewish slave labor.

-- not to mentioned you misquoted me with your "barb wire" comment. But, it was nice to see you finally acknowledged that ARists who engage in liberationist activities do risk their lives.

And dont forget to comment on the 'criminals' who damaged propertery during the American Revolutionary war -- all that tea in the harbor and all their illegal acts of going against English authority. Dont forget -- the victors write and choose who the romantics are and who were right. But even the loosers still get portrayed as right and romantic at times -- errrr Willam Wallace. Lots of heroes die and lose.

And then there is still Robin Hood you should brand as a criminal and not 'romantic' even though countless writers have bestowed his criminal activities with the mantle of hero/do gooder -- and the many fictional characters who have been penned/modeled after him.

Tokis-Phoenix
23-05-06, 18:06
lol.
You still are behind in answering mine.
I answered your "if" question and you still have not reciprocated the courtesy of answering my question about the retarded children or the fatali accompli in regards to German companies that had profitted from Jewish slave labor.
-- not to mentioned you misquoted me with your "barb wire" comment. But, it was nice to see you finally acknowledged that ARists who engage in liberationist activities do risk their lives.

I honestly don't know about the retarded children in some respects, its a completely different topic, i do value human life more than animal life though and there would be some forms of experimentation that do agree with on people which already happens, so it depends on the circumstances- if you can kindly give me a true example of animal testing (with evidence to back it up that it actually happens in a civilised country like england) and ask me if i would agree to such a thing on people, then go ahead.

-- not to mentioned you misquoted me with your "barb wire" comment. But, it was nice to see you finally acknowledged that ARists who engage in liberationist activities do risk their lives.

Climbing over razor wire is neither a deadly experience either- you know how you get over it without any scrapes? Get a thick sheet of rubber and put it over the fence and then climb over the rubber (pond liner should be sufficient). It doesn't take a lot of brains to work than one out, tried and tested method by many people over time.

And dont forget to comment on the 'criminals' who damaged propertery during the American Revolutionary war -- all that tea in the harbor and all their illegal acts of going against English authority. Dont forget -- the victors write and choose who the romantics are and who were right. But even the loosers still get portrayed as right and romantic at times -- errrr Willam Wallace. Lots of heroes die and lose.

I hardly know anything about the American Revolutionary war, wasn't really one of those subjects i remember learning at school, but if you can give me a specific example then i may be able to answer it.

And then there is still Robin Hood you should brand as a criminal and not 'romantic' even though countless writers have bestowed his criminal activities with the mantle of hero/do gooder -- and the many fictional characters who have been penned/modeled after him.

Robin Hood is a fairy tale, a myth- please distinguish between real events and fairy tales. I suppose you will try and use king arthur or somthing next ;) .

RockLee
24-05-06, 10:31
Seems you are desperately trying to find something to reply; You still didn't answer my last question either. I'd like it if you actually use arguements, not return the questions.

Tokis-Phoenix
24-05-06, 18:43
Seems you are desperately trying to find something to reply; You still didn't answer my last question either. I'd like it if you actually use arguements, not return the questions.

Nope, not "desperately trying to find something to reply" at all, rather enjoying this thread with the guy who thinks a hamster should have the same rights as a billion people (i can't even start to write what is wrong with that, unless you really want me to) and the animal rights activist who just came back from an operation (what troubled you that caused you needed an operation by the way dear SVF?).
I'm not just returning questions either, i've used plenty of arguements (like the fact that many animals themselves cannot use morality at all which makes them less equal to us). If you can argue against that statement, like an animal like a rat can feel and show morality towards beings that don't directly personally interest it, then please go ahead.
Also, i have answered your question- if you want me to go deeper into it with you with have to give a particular circumstance, as i have mentioned to SVF, i'm generally not one for answering vague/broad questions that could apply to thousands of thinge etc...

No-name
24-05-06, 19:55
Tokis-Phoenix-
I'm not certain that I am completely following the flow of this discussion. I too believe that humans are significantly more valuable than animals. I also have a heirarchy of which animals are worth more than others. As Maciamo's last post pointed out, there seems to be little reasoning for this value system, but I am still of the opinion that any human life is more valuable than Hamtaro the Hamster. Not only am I willing to test on animals to preserve human life, I am willing to allow it for our safety and certain conveniences as well. This is definitely a topic worth exploring.

Mycernius
24-05-06, 22:14
In most peoples minds small, cuddly animals hold a higher rank above less cute animals.
Rabbits=cute and so more people object to testing on them
Rats= not so cute so less people care about them
Fruit fies=Ugly little brutes which nobody really cares, but are one of the most used animals for testing on, mainly because of their life cycle speed.

It isn't really down to moral objections for a lot of people, more down to looks and the 'Awww' factor. Sounds cynical doesn't it. but that is the real truth about it.

strongvoicesforward
25-05-06, 03:16
Some pets are cruely treated. Thus, you must be against the keeping of pets as well, it doesn't matter wether you may treat your pets well, that fact of the matter is that many thousands of pets are cruely treated everyday and by keeping pets you are encouraging others to have them and thus encouraging more animals to be bred and exposed to people.

I am against ownership of beings. What we own we may destroy. I may destroy my piano if I so wish. My neighbors may not destroy their children -- because their children are not owned by them. Their children are merely in their parents' guardianship.

If your reasoning that you are against animal testing is because some lab animals may be cruely treated, then you must be against all forms of keeping animals where they are also somtimes cruely treated.
It doesn't matter if you keep your dogs well, some scientists keep their animals well, you are against any situation where the animal may be mistreated and thus you must put an end to that situation.

I am opposed to animal testing because it is a violation of the integrity of body and cruelty and suffering is a result of that. Violation of the integrity of body is the tool/activity which is a necessity for testing. Guardianship of children or animals in a family situation does not require and is not the overriding tool/activity which is necessary to have in those situations.

Your attempt at analogical parallels in these cases are off.

If you put an end to animal testing, thousands of animals will be put down regardless.

In what sense are you referring to?

As you said, america is against discrimination, but it sure still goes on- you seem to see this as reasoning enough for being against lab animals, so you must also be against the keeping of pets.

Tokis-Pheonix, I brought up the American discrimination analogy because YOU were the one who was so high on waving the banner that animal cruelty does not happen in England because of strong legislation protecting animals. You were insinuating that legislation in and of itself is the predeterminant factor that makes for cruelty to not exist -- saying that they are put down, or destroyed (just say killed to be honest) -- before they begin to suffer or feel pain (paraphrased).

Your pet dog is essentially your slave, even if you don't personally see it that way.

lol. I dont know. I always thought slavery was a relationship in which one benefitted more that the other through exploitation. They dont bring me a beer when I want one. They dont even play with me when I want to play. I guess they are lazy slaves and they cause me to lose money every month. If all salvery were based on this model -- I am not sure it would have such a bad rap. lol.

No, they are not my slaves. They are beings that fall under my guardianship -- akin to a mentally undeveloped child who has been adopted by guardians who promise to care for the well being of the child. Is this child a slave?

By the way, the article is primarily against the funding issues over cancer research and not the way the mice were used-

The article cleary states that mice are not an appropriate model for cancer research.

...there are hundreds of scientists, and many in that article, that backed up the use of mice in cancer research.

Many? I think I may have counted two names that supported it. What is your definition of "many"?

Yes, and as the article pointed out, the many researches on mice cancer have done little for us (Perhaps because we are not mice). The article clearly states are losing the war on cancer and that if you want to see where we went wrong -- the mice is the best place to look -- and then it goes on to explain that the mice is a poor model.

You may try to pretend that the guy cares more about the mice than his own sorry life, but unfortunatly thats not the case.

Huh!? Where did I ever imply that? Do you have some privy access to my inner thoughts to know that I am pretending something? My posts have clearly put forth the position that he has been critical of the use of mice in modeling for human cancer.

I agree, funding over the decades for cancer cures, as for cancer preventation (where there are also millions of dollars have been spent on) has not always been used efficiently at times, but that does not change the fact mice as still a very valuable way of finding cures for cancer amoungst other illnesses.

More lives could be saved if the mice were relieved of its duties in syphoning funds because they (i.e. the funds) are not being used efficiently.

I have also already said i value human life over animal life many a time, so as for your "if" question/game thing,

You are the hypothetical "if game" innitiator, not me. Remember that. I entered into it after you launched one and then you didnt have the courtesy to take your turn until much later -- even after firing more "if game" questions off. Like I said, I will play "quid pro quo" but you seem to not understand that or have ignored it -- at least until prodded, and even then not fully.

i thought to somone with your IQ it would be obvious what the answer would be due to this.

Ouch! Rude, personal insinuation, uncalled for.

A human being can give consent to testing, an animal cannot (who's to say what goes on in the mind of a mouse though),...

Animal ethologists. We need not know the complete intricate inner workings of an animals mind to grant them integrity of body. We do know that the state of pain is a state that is not pleasant and one in which we move away from when the stimulus causing it comes near. Animals display the same behaviour, and if their physiology allows them to, they will cry out as we do, too (albeit in the form of yelping or whining or screeching, etc...).

...because a human being has the ability to give consent they must be asked if they want to do somthing.

So, are you saying if a being cannot give consent then it is ok to cause them to have cancer so that we can experiment on them and vivisect them or other things we do to animals now? If "consent" is one of your markers, then many mentally impaired people are readily available for our white coated researchers and pharmies.

A human being is also capable of morality, there is practically no solid evidence of animals showing morality towards other animals. A mouse would never intentially save my live.

So what? Are you saying because a mouse wouldnt save your life you can cause it to suffer? I am sure there are a lot of people in this world who are so selfish that they wouldnt save your life -- does that mean you can cause them suffering?

The rat does not care if it eats the starving mans last peice of food while he is asleep.

So what? There are people like that, too. Does that give you the right to cause them suffering? That is also the nature of the rat. Are you saying the nature of man is to have a morality that is steeped in causing suffering for his own benefit?

I dont think that could be the "nature" of man, because there are many ARists and some others who do not agree with that sentiment, and since we are a part of mankind, it is strange that this "nature" is easily thwarted by us.

The lion does not care if the zebra is still alive and screaming when it rips out its guts and licks up the blood.

So what? We are not lions. Are you saying we should adopt the lion mentality?

The fat pig does not care if it eats its dead owner, who cared for it with all his heart before he died.

Werent you the one who further up says, "real world example please, I am not much for vagueness"(paraphrased).

Please follow your exhortation and supply us with an example, in fact more than a few to show us that "pigs cared for with all the heart of its owner ate its dead owner"?

Animals are less equal than human beings if only for their complete lack of awareness or ability of morality concerned animals that they do not know personally. This may be one of the main reasons why animals are not equal to human beings.

Being equal in ability is a strange argument to rest on for consideration to not violate the integrity of anothers body. All humans are not equal in those abilities or practices, but I would not rest my logic on yours and make that to cause me support violating certain humans' integrity of body.

Human beings are capable of morality, and thus we should practice it when we can, but and animal life is not equal to a human life, so when one must be used to save the other, human life is more valuable.

Some humans are capable of more morality than others. Are those therefore more valuable and therefore have the right to use the lesser moral people to save themselves? Morality or a countrys or region of people' view/morality is often times based on ones religion. A saudi textbook will say that the apes are Jews and the swine are Christians.

Apparantly morality has some thrashing out to do and your use of it doesnt cut across the spectrum.

RockLee
25-05-06, 13:46
ps: the only one desperate enough to be like that would be one to say somthing like that ;) .I suggest you stop with the personal attacks.

i thought to somone with your IQ it would be obvious what the answer would be due to this.Another personal attack.

No-name
25-05-06, 17:36
It is nice to see a call for respect and courtesy. Thank you.

RockLee- for personal attacks, these are rather mild compared to what some have been subjected to in the past. I appreciate your call for civility and the fact that you are being specific, but in all truth, your first example was in direct response to you calling TP "desperate." She simply responded in kind. I'm certain that the smiley was some attempt to mitigate and take the edge off by communicating that she was not serious about the "attack"- hence the wink. The second one- I'm not clear on the sequence or context, but in essence she is questioning your reasoning the same as charging that she was assuming things and not answering your questions. I'm certain she could be more civil about it, but calling it a personal attack seems out of proportion.

Some people enjoy and defend what they consider an edgy style or witticisms that apparently are simply discourteous, uncivil, rude and disrespecful. We could all be a bit more polite, civil and respectful... in that respect I appreciate your post. Perhaps more people would post and there would be a far greater diversity of opinion if we all followed your lead.

Tokis-Phoenix
25-05-06, 18:10
I am against ownership of beings. What we own we may destroy. I may destroy my piano if I so wish. My neighbors may not destroy their children -- because their children are not owned by them. Their children are merely in their parents' guardianship.
I am opposed to animal testing because it is a violation of the integrity of body and cruelty and suffering is a result of that. Violation of the integrity of body is the tool/activity which is a necessity for testing. Guardianship of children or animals in a family situation does not require and is not the overriding tool/activity which is necessary to have in those situations.
Your attempt at analogical parallels in these cases are off.
In what sense are you referring to?

lol. I dont know. I always thought slavery was a relationship in which one benefitted more that the other through exploitation. They dont bring me a beer when I want one. They dont even play with me when I want to play. I guess they are lazy slaves and they cause me to lose money every month. If all salvery were based on this model -- I am not sure it would have such a bad rap. lol.
No, they are not my slaves. They are beings that fall under my guardianship -- akin to a mentally undeveloped child who has been adopted by guardians who promise to care for the well being of the child. Is this child a slave?
The article cleary states that mice are not an appropriate model for cancer research.
A basic definition of slavery= The ownership of a person by another individual.
A basic definition of ownership=All rights, benefits and privileges under life insurance policies are controlled by their owners. Policy owners may or may not be the insured. Ownership may be assigned or transferred by written request of current owner
A guardian is basically somone who holds responsability over somone or somthing, but does own them;
A parent would not say they are the guardian of their children because that would imply somthing completely different. If you adopt a child or animal you would be a guardian, but if you bought them you would own them- you do not own a child because you cannot legally buy children, on the other hand, you can buy animals so people who have pets and bought them are "owners". If i referred to my pet fish i would say i owned them, rather than i was their guardian (except posibly in the case of the two goldfish i adopted).
If you are against ownership of animals you are against the owning of pets, which the majority of pet owners do.
Also, in a lose sense, your pets are your slave if you bought them as they are under you ownership.

Tokis-Pheonix, I brought up the American discrimination analogy because YOU were the one who was so high on waving the banner that animal cruelty does not happen in England because of strong legislation protecting animals. You were insinuating that legislation in and of itself is the predeterminant factor that makes for cruelty to not exist -- saying that they are put down, or destroyed (just say killed to be honest) -- before they begin to suffer or feel pain (paraphrased).
So what do you plan to do about discrimination that makes it relevant to animal cruelty?

Many? I think I may have counted two names that supported it. What is your definition of "many"?
Since its only an article, how about 500 scientists and doctors who actually voted for the continuation of animal testing;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4180000/newsid_4180500/4180572.stm

Yes, and as the article pointed out, the many researches on mice cancer have done little for us (Perhaps because we are not mice). The article clearly states are losing the war on cancer and that if you want to see where we went wrong -- the mice is the best place to look -- and then it goes on to explain that the mice is a poor model.
Its just an article, a real study on mice an cancer research, amoungst the many breakthroughs in such a thing, has used mice not only to help find a cure for cancer but also a preventation;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1191334.stm
If you do a quick search on the BBC website for "mice cancer research" you will over 28 pages of articles and find dozens of breakthroughs in cancer research, you americans may be failing in cance research but we aern't ;) .

My posts have clearly put forth the position that he has been critical of the use of mice in modeling for human cancer.
see above.

Ouch! Rude, personal insinuation, uncalled for. Yeah sorry about that, i meant to say that perhaps you would have noticed, looking at the general trend of my posts, that an answer would have been pretty easy to work out.

Animal ethologists. We need not know the complete intricate inner workings of an animals mind to grant them integrity of body. We do know that the state of pain is a state that is not pleasant and one in which we move away from when the stimulus causing it comes near. Animals display the same behaviour, and if their physiology allows them to, they will cry out as we do, too (albeit in the form of yelping or whining or screeching, etc...).
You assuming a huge amount that because a creature displays similar behavior to us it must feel/think/work the same way as us. This is not true.

So, are you saying if a being cannot give consent then it is ok to cause them to have cancer so that we can experiment on them and vivisect them or other things we do to animals now?
This is another of the questions you have not answered, please give a speicific true example of cruel animal research/testing methods relevant to cancer research that actually goes on in civilised countries today.

So what? Are you saying because a mouse wouldnt save your life you can cause it to suffer? I am sure there are a lot of people in this world who are so selfish that they wouldnt save your life -- does that mean you can cause them suffering?
So what? There are people like that, too. Does that give you the right to cause them suffering? That is also the nature of the rat. Are you saying the nature of man is to have a morality that is steeped in causing suffering for his own benefit?
I dont think that could be the "nature" of man, because there are many ARists and some others who do not agree with that sentiment, and since we are a part of mankind, it is strange that this "nature" is easily thwarted by us.
So what? We are not lions. Are you saying we should adopt the lion mentality?
Actaully its not "so what?"- i am pointing out to you some of the major differences in animals and human beings which make us very different as species/creatures and thus not equal.

Werent you the one who further up says, "real world example please, I am not much for vagueness"(paraphrased).
Please follow your exhortation and supply us with an example, in fact more than a few to show us that "pigs cared for with all the heart of its owner ate its dead owner"?
There aern't any online sites i know of at the mo, but i know that my father did not farm pigs when we were children because a local farmers child was eaten by his pigs when the child went to change a light bulb in their stable and was shocked and went unconscious, only to be consumed by the pigs.
But you have provided minimal study or research for a lot of the things i have asked of you so i don't think you should be throwing your weight around here- perhaps if you show a little more soild evidence for the loud claims you are making i will make a littel more effort for you.

Being equal in ability is a strange argument to rest on for consideration to not violate the integrity of anothers body. All humans are not equal in those abilities or practices, but I would not rest my logic on yours and make that to cause me support violating certain humans' integrity of body.
Some humans are capable of more morality than others. Are those therefore more valuable and therefore have the right to use the lesser moral people to save themselves? Morality or a countrys or region of people' view/morality is often times based on ones religion. A saudi textbook will say that the apes are Jews and the swine are Christians.
Apparantly morality has some thrashing out to do and your use of it doesnt cut across the spectrum.
This a differences in having the ability to have morality and not having it at all- as you said, it is a rats nature to steal from a starving man while he is asleep, so technically speaking it is evil by nature. Would you call a rat or fruit fly your equal?
Do you agree with animal testing for the benefet of finding medicines/cures for animal illnesses/deseases?

strongvoicesforward
25-05-06, 18:55
If 100 retarded children diagnosed to not live beyond age two could be experimented on for treatments to save 100,000 fully normal mind functioning cognitive children of 9 years old -- who if found a cure for their disease from these retarded children -- would live to a normal life span -- would you point the finger and say, gtake them to the experimental roomh?

I honestly don't know about the retarded children in some respects, its a completely different topic, i do value human life more than animal life though and there would be some forms of experimentation that do agree with on people which already happens, so it depends on the circumstances...

Then maybe gyesh and maybe gnoh in regards to testing on retarded children. gYesh and gNoh cancel each other out and that leaves us with gmaybe,h which your answer is an affirmative gYesh for 50% of the time. Of course my analogy/hypothetical question is in the paradigm of testing that causes suffering and eventually death because that is the purview of this discussion in the recent series of posts.

And, of course it is a different topic! It is an analogy!! Analogies jump topics because it is their parallelisms that outline strong or falty logic. Logic is supposed to cut across the spectrum of prejudice and topics -- hence the construct of analogies do not need to be in the same topic.

Look:

The Bible is a covenant between Bible God and his believers. Agree to the covenant and you will be granted permission into his Kingdom.

The gterms of rent for tenantsh is a contract between people seeking to rent an apartment and the building owner. Agree to the terms and you will be granted permission to rent from the building owner and enter into an apartment.

Different topic but an analogical parrallel.

- if you can kindly give me a true example of animal testing (with evidence to back it up that it actually happens in a civilised country like england) and ask me if i would agree to such a thing on people, then go ahead.

The analogy is not vague. It is quite clear and specific. And because you started the hypothetical gifh question with a gvague/broadh question without any gevidence to back it uph (i.e. like: would you give your life to save a mouse? What evidence have you proffered that any situation like that has ever looked someone in the eyes to be confronted with?), you now think you can conveniently gavoidh the gifh game by asking for things that are not vague (of which the situation posed to you is not vague) because it shows your logic to be lacking in the application of it.

And more of your questions which you asked of RockLee which you have not provided any evidence that someone was ever faced with the prospect of glooking a dying person in the eyes and tell them they must protect the rights of a mouseh:

Finally, think of this - could you honestly look a dying person in the eyes and tell them they must die to protect the rights of a mouse?

Cite the instance that scenario has ever happened or presented itself?

and

you wrote to RockLee another scenario we are waiting for you to provide a gtrue exampleh gbacked-uph gwith evidenceh that has gactually happenedh:

Who would you rather survived; one mouse or your mother?"

Where are your gtrue examples backed up with evidenceh Tokis-Pheonix that these choices have come to someone? Do you have an example of a doctor coming into a room and saying, gMr. Jones, your mother is dying. But first I need to know if you would rather have us save her or this mouse we have in this cage over here?h

Of course you cant -- BECAUSE they are hypothetical!

You see, that is what happens when you get into playing hypothetical gifh games. It is ok to do so, but once you start asking to play the game it is unfair to then ask for evidence to support them because they are gHYPOTHETICAL,h but then it is even more rude (not to mention discourtious to ignore the othersf gifh questions) to demand evidence when you yourself throw out scenarios left and right with no evidence that they have ever happened of what you are putting forth.

And here is the one you still have not answered that was addressing your view of hypocracy and that of the concept of fatali accompli:

Many, if not most German companies that have survived from WW2 up to the present had benefitted from slave labor forced upon the Jews of that era. So, is everyone a hypocrite who professes to be against slavery but purchases, or in some way has a dealing with German companies who benefited from slavery in the past?

strongvoicesforward
25-05-06, 19:00
Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
-- not to mentioned you misquoted me with your "barb wire" comment. But, it was nice to see you finally acknowledged that ARists who engage in liberationist activities do risk their lives.

[quote=Tokis-Phoenix]Climbing over razor wire is neither a deadly experience either- you know how you get over it without any scrapes? Get a thick sheet of rubber and put it over the fence and then climb over the rubber (pond liner should be sufficient). It doesn't take a lot of brains to work than one out, tried and tested method by many people over time.

lol. Yes, that does work nicely, doesnt it?

Besides the point -- exits and entries are not always the same when an emergency arises that requires the quickest exit be in a straitline to the nearest fence wall, and liberationists, depending on the situation, just cannot or are not going to carry another tarp around with them once they scale razor wire (if they even use that manner of entry).

Anyway, you have already acknowledged the potential deadliness of the situation with the gun comments and damage to property. That is enough to make make my point of the threat that exists to life due to physical harm via security measures.

Yes, I would risk my life to save an animal. Those are real world examples that exist. No, I would not gexchangeh my life for an animals life -- that is not a real world situation (i.e. no evidence of having happened -- unless you can name some? Your evidence and examples, please.) that has come up (since you have suddenly and conveniently become so high on real world situations [lets you avoid questions directed back at you after having lobbed your own]).

Tokis-Phoenix
25-05-06, 19:10
Then maybe gyesh and maybe gnoh in regards to testing on retarded children. gYesh and gNoh cancel each other out and that leaves us with gmaybe,h which your answer is an affirmative gYesh for 50% of the time. Of course my analogy/hypothetical question is in the paradigm of testing that causes suffering and eventually death because that is the purview of this discussion in the recent series of posts.
And, of course it is a different topic! It is an analogy!! Analogies jump topics because it is their parallelisms that outline strong or falty logic. Logic is supposed to cut across the spectrum of prejudice and topics -- hence the construct of analogies do not need to be in the same topic.
Look:

The Bible is a covenant between Bible God and his believers. Agree to the covenant and you will be granted permission into his Kingdom.
The gterms of rent for tenantsh is a contract between people seeking to rent an apartment and the building owner. Agree to the terms and you will be granted permission to rent from the building owner and enter into an apartment.

Different topic but an analogical parrallel.
The analogy is not vague. It is quite clear and specific. And because you started the hypothetical gifh question with a gvague/broadh question without any gevidence to back it uph (i.e. like: would you give your life to save a mouse? What evidence have you proffered that any situation like that has ever looked someone in the eyes to be confronted with?), you now think you can conveniently gavoidh the gifh game by asking for things that are not vague (of which the situation posed to you is not vague) because it shows your logic to be lacking in the application of it.
And more of your questions which you asked of RockLee which you have not provided any evidence that someone was ever faced with the prospect of glooking a dying person in the eyes and tell them they must protect the rights of a mouseh:
Cite the instance that scenario has ever happened or presented itself?
and
you wrote to RockLee another scenario we are waiting for you to provide a gtrue exampleh gbacked-uph gwith evidenceh that has gactually happenedh:
Where are your gtrue examples backed up with evidenceh Tokis-Pheonix that these choices have come to someone? Do you have an example of a doctor coming into a room and saying, gMr. Jones, your mother is dying. But first I need to know if you would rather have us save her or this mouse we have in this cage over here?h
Of course you cant -- BECAUSE they are hypothetical!
You see, that is what happens when you get into playing hypothetical gifh games. It is ok to do so, but once you start asking to play the game it is unfair to then ask for evidence to support them because they are gHYPOTHETICAL,h but then it is even more rude (not to mention discourtious to ignore the othersf gifh questions) to demand evidence when you yourself throw out scenarios left and right with no evidence that they have ever happened of what you are putting forth.
And here is the one you still have not answered that was addressing your view of hypocracy and that of the concept of fatali accompli:

Many, if not most German companies that have survived from WW2 up to the present had benefitted from slave labor forced upon the Jews of that era. So, is everyone a hypocrite who professes to be against slavery but purchases, or in some way has a dealing with German companies who benefited from slavery in the past?

If you want a "humble yes or no" as to the testing on retarded children then "no".
As to the german slave labor thing, i would say somone was a hypocrite if they purchased things that could only have existed in the first place if it were for slave labor or strongly supported such a thing. I do not know of any german companies though that support slave labor in todays world nor any who sell products that could only have come about by such a thing.

I would also call somone who is strongly against anti animal testing but who consumes/supports or takes animal tested products a hypocrite.

Also as to the vague question or statement thing, i mean just that. I did not said i would refuse to answer questions that had no evidence to back them up.
I also do not consider asking questions "games" as you put it, neither am i playing any games with you.
Will you answer my questions now or will you continue to avoid them?

strongvoicesforward
25-05-06, 19:11
Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward:
And dont forget to comment on the 'criminals' who damaged propertery during the American Revolutionary war -- all that tea in the harbor and all their illegal acts of going against English authority. Dont forget -- the victors write and choose who the romantics are and who were right. But even the loosers still get portrayed as right and romantic at times -- errrr Willam Wallace. Lots of heroes die and lose.

I hardly know anything about the American Revolutionary war, wasn't really one of those subjects i remember learning at school, but if you can give me a specific example then i may be able to answer it.

What do you mean???!!! -- I just gave you one: The Boston Tea Party. Look up at the red highlights. I didnt name it specifically, but the implication should be quite clear: Tea and Harbor in the context of the Revolutionary war is pretty clear without naming it directly.

If you dont know about it, I can understand. The losing side always glosses over the details of the battles they lost which caused them to lose overall. Even we Americans dont know many of the specific pitched battles that were waged in Vietnam. But, if I were a betting man, I am sure many Vietnamese know the names of a lot of them.

But, are you telling me you have never heard of The Boston Tea Party? or that that is not taught in English History? Perhaps Mycernius or Tsuyoiko could confirm that it is not taught there. Or, were you just unattentive during that specific class lesson? (I am glad I was attentive in all my history classes-- gives me the info I need for discussions -- at least the major things in world history or with relations my country had with other major powers).

Robin Hood is a fairy tale, a myth- please distinguish between real events and fairy tales.

As for real events, you are the one who began going ghyotheticalh -- which your gifh question cases ARE NOT REAL case scenarios. Whether it is a fairy tale or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the gromanticisingh of actions which is what YOU objected to. If greal eventsh are what you are concerned with, then why bring them up when you wrote gYou can pretend ...h gPretendh is not real, is it? or your hypothetical "if" questions which you have not supported with "real events." And neither are many analogies which are tools often used for in discussions. Robin Hood is an apt analogy for he broke the laws risking his life alleviating people of their property which he saw them as unfairly having.

What is relevant is that criminal actions were romanticised in a good light and that these stories have been told to all English children and many around the world-- and to boot, Robin Hood is put forth as a noble character -- not immoral. He comes out painted in a rather moral light.

I suppose you will try and use king arthur or somthing next

Why would I? Was he a criminal, too? I am not sure I recall criminal actions of his being romanticised. Remember, that is what you were talking about. I am staying focused on the words and analogies you use in regards to the discussion. King Arthur doesnt fit the analogy and I am one for respecting proper analogical usage. But, if he does fit the analogy and you would like to point it out with your knowledge of his legend, then by all means do so.

Tokis-Phoenix
25-05-06, 19:15
[quote=Tokis-Phoenix]Climbing over razor wire is neither a deadly experience either- you know how you get over it without any scrapes? Get a thick sheet of rubber and put it over the fence and then climb over the rubber (pond liner should be sufficient). It doesn't take a lot of brains to work than one out, tried and tested method by many people over time.
lol. Yes, that does work nicely, doesnt it?
Besides the point -- exits and entries are not always the same when an emergency arises that requires the quickest exit be in a straitline to the nearest fence wall, and liberationists, depending on the situation, just cannot or are not going to carry another tarp around with them once they scale razor wire (if they even use that manner of entry).
Anyway, you have already acknowledged the potential deadliness of the situation with the gun comments and damage to property. That is enough to make make my point of the threat that exists to life due to physical harm via security measures.
Yes, I would risk my life to save an animal. Those are real world examples that exist. No, I would not gexchangeh my life for an animals life -- that is not a real world situation (i.e. no evidence of having happened -- unless you can name some? Your evidence and examples, please.) that has come up (since you have suddenly and conveniently become so high on real world situations [lets you avoid questions directed back at you after having lobbed your own]).

Can you give any evidence that animal rights activists actually risk their lives in their cause?
Point one- it is not considered risking your life climbing over a razor wire fence (unless you are an idiot who does it with their bare hands in normal clothes and no equipment).
Point two- there is no evidence for any cases where animal rights activist were held at gun point with a real posibility of being shot at/killed.

Animal rights activist do not risk their lives to save animals lives unless out of complete stupidity.

I could say based on your reasoning, that there is as much evidence that scientists risk their lives for animal testing research (actually this is probably more accurate).

Tokis-Phoenix
25-05-06, 19:23

Do you agree with animal testing when it is finding cures for animal diseases/illnesses?

Would you accept animal tested treatments/medicines if your life depended on them?

Do you consider all life on this planet truly equal? If not, what forms of life do you not consider equal (this includes things like bacteria, insects, moluscs etc)?

If you had a child, would you give them vaccinations against deadly diseases?

If you had a child and they needed insulin, would you deny them it and let them die?

strongvoicesforward
25-05-06, 19:43
[QUOTE=strongvoicesforward]
Can you give any evidence that animal rights activists actually risk their lives in their cause?

Tokis-Phoenix, I dont have to give that. The situation speaks for itself. Anytime a person goes to a place with security or where someone has a gun, there is an inherant risk. You have already acknowledged that.

I dont have to give an example of people catching puffer fish getting stuck by puffers on occassion, just simply because the risk is obvious and inherent if someone decides to engage in that activity.

Point one- it is not considered risking your life climbing over a razor wire fence (unless you are an idiot who does it with their bare hands in normal clothes and no equipment).

See above.

Point two- there is no evidence for any cases where animal rights activist were held at gun point with a real posibility of being shot at/killed.

That doesnt have to have had happen. The mere potential constitutes a risk.

Animal rights activist do not risk their lives to save animals lives unless out of complete stupidity.

lol. Ok, Tokis -- if that makes you happy to believe so, then I will leave you to that thought. But, only a handful of them have ever been caught and the ones that have, have usualy taken police and federal agents a long time to apprehend. They have caused millions of dollars to be wasted by those engaged in the exploitation of animals in the process of their liberations. Sounds like the police are more stupid than them if they cant snuff out their direct action activities. Most get away and police have very few leads and prosecuters have only a handful of convictions in comparison to the large number of direct actions done by them.

I could say based on your reasoning, that there is as much evidence that scientists risk their lives for animal testing research (actually this is probably more accurate).

Take it and use it if you like. I am not selfish in trying to monopolize reason. Feel free. Scientists risking their lives to do whatever has no bearing on whether activists do or not.

Tokis-Phoenix
25-05-06, 19:54
[QUOTE=Tokis-Phoenix]
Tokis-Phoenix, I dont have to give that. The situation speaks for itself. Anytime a person goes to a place with security or where someone has a gun, there is an inherant risk. You have already acknowledged that.
I dont have to give an example of people catching puffer fish getting stuck by puffers on occassion, just simply because the risk is obvious and inherent if someone decides to engage in that activity.

I never acknoledged that animal rights activist risk their lives to save animals, if you cannot give any evidence to back up your claims then i have no reason to acknoledge such a thing and neither do you have any logical reason to believe such a thing other than your own fantasies.

lol. Ok, Tokis -- if that makes you happy to believe so, then I will leave you to that thought. But, only a handful of them have ever been caught and the ones that have, have usualy taken police and federal agents a long time to apprehend. They have caused millions of dollars to be wasted by those engaged in the exploitation of animals in the process of their liberations. Sounds like the police are more stupid than them if they cant snuff out their direct action activities. Most get away and police have very few leads and prosecuters have only a handful of convictions in comparison to the large number of direct actions done by them.
Take it and use it if you like. I am not selfish in trying to monopolize reason. Feel free. Scientists risking their lives to do whatever has no bearing on whether activists do or not.

If it makes you happy to believe loud claims without any evidence to back them up them that is your choice- unfortunatly you are not going to move my opinion but just repeatedly saying/implying "But they do risk their lives to save animals!" with no proof of any such situations.
Saying animal rights activist risk their lives to save animals by breaking into other peoples properties is like me saying i risk my life when i do a waterchange in my fish tanks because there is always a chance i may get electricuted- basically, such a statement is not true.

Tokis-Phoenix
25-05-06, 19:56
SVF, if your mission is to convert as many people to your cause then you must not only set an honest example but show others that your views/opinion are well thought through and not flawed. One situation which you and Rocklee have both failed in this setting of example is refusing to answer major questions to the flow of such a debate.

Do you agree with animal testing when it is finding cures for animal diseases/illnesses?

Would you accept animal tested treatments/medicines if your life depended on them?

Do you consider all life on this planet truly equal? If not, what forms of life do you not consider equal (this includes things like bacteria, insects, moluscs etc)?

If you had a child, would you give them vaccinations against deadly diseases?

If you had a child and they needed insulin, would you deny them it and let them die?

strongvoicesforward
25-05-06, 19:58
If you want a "humble yes or no" as to the testing on retarded children then "no".

Why not if saving the most lives is important? Why not if they arent very self aware? Why not if they dont seem to respond to pain as normal people do?

As to the german slave labor thing, i would say somone was a hypocrite if they purchased things that could only have existed in the first place if it were for slave labor or strongly supported such a thing. I do not know of any german companies though that support slave labor in todays world nor any who sell products that could only have come about by such a thing.

Why does it have to be supported in todays world that would cause them to be "hypocrites." Are you now accepting "fatali accompli" as a principle to release the present from the burden of correcting the present because of the past?

Why does the "product itself" have to be the relevant factor? The health of the company today could be due to the fact that it survived in the past because of slave labor and if that labor had not been supplied, they would not be here operating as a company today. Why is the product the relevant factor?

Are you accepting "fatali accompli"?

I would also call somone who is strongly against anti animal testing but who consumes/supports or takes animal tested products a hypocrite.

lol. I guess that would have to qualified with fatali accompli like you have conveniently done so.

Also as to the vague question or statement thing, i mean just that. I did not said i would refuse to answer questions that had no evidence to back them up.

Well, you kept on avoiding them and making statements as if you were not going to answer them.

I also do not consider asking questions "games" as you put it, neither am i playing any games with you.

It becomes a game when one keeps witholding the courtesy to reciprocate answering when it is their turn. Almost like playing "hide and seek." I called it a game because I knew that was what you were going to do, and the recent posts bear that out.

[quit]Will you answer my questions now or will you continue to avoid them?[/QUOTE]

You mean like you?

I am very thorough in my answers and only not answer when I notice someone like you have been doing lobbing questions but not answering. Have you answered all my questions?

Do acknowledge though, that you asked a lot of non-real world scenario questions and then hedged on addressing scenarios addressed to you.

Tokis-Phoenix
25-05-06, 20:02
What does fatali accompli mean?

Tokis-Phoenix
25-05-06, 20:03
Well, you kept on avoiding them and making statements as if you were not going to answer them.
It becomes a game when one keeps witholding the courtesy to reciprocate answering when it is their turn. Almost like playing "hide and seek." I called it a game because I knew that was what you were going to do, and the recent posts bear that out.
[quit]Will you answer my questions now or will you continue to avoid them?
You mean like you?
I am very thorough in my answers and only not answer when I notice someone like you have been doing lobbing questions but not answering. Have you answered all my questions?
Do acknowledge though, that you asked a lot of non-real world scenario questions and then hedged on addressing scenarios addressed to you.
Speak for yourself hipocrite. If this is a simple matter of answering questions in turn, then you have a lot of turns to catch up on ;) .

No-name
25-05-06, 20:07
Tokis-
I believe that I agree with you in that I see tremendous value in animal testing and I do consider human life more valuable than animal life. I don't consider all life on the planet equal. I would not only accept animal testing if my life depended on it, I would accept it even if the safety of product was in question. Before you sell something, I want to know that it is safe. I have given my children vaccinations and if my child needed insulin, I would not deny it.

Some things occurred to me after reading your last two posts. I have been following half an argument and it is a bit hard to do... so forgive me if it seems like I don't have all the information, because I don't.
1. Risking your life for a cause does not make the cause just or rightous. People have died for causes that were quite evil and unjust.
2. What animal testing does discover may not lead directly to a cure or treatment of anything. But a better understanding of biology including microbiology, genetics, and biochemistry. leads to many advances including treatment and cures.
3. Bad science and weak ethics does not nullify good research and strong ethics.

This doesn't mean that I am in favor of making animals suffer and die for no significant reason or purpose or without strict ethical guidelines. If there is a reasonable option available, an animal should not be subjected to testing involving the risk of pain or death. No animal should suffer unnecessarily. Animals are indeed valuable and worthy of consideration, I just don't feel that we should give them consideration equal to that of human life.

strongvoicesforward
25-05-06, 20:14
Speak for yourself hipocrite.

Ouch. Harsh and not very civil.

Do acknowledge though, that you asked a lot of non-real world scenario questions and then hedged on addressing scenarios addressed to you.

strongvoicesforward
25-05-06, 20:23
What does fatali accompli mean?

It is more commonly referred to as "faits accompli"

fait accompli \fay-tah-kom-PLEE; fet-ah-\, noun;
plural faits accomplis \same or -PLEEZ\:
An accomplished and presumably irreversible deed or fact.

I dont mind answering questions relevant to the issue. However, my personal life is not the issue. My personal life is independent of the message that animal testing is wrong.

Tokis-Phoenix
25-05-06, 20:31
Tokis-
I believe that I agree with you in that I see tremendous value in animal testing and I do consider human life more valuable than animal life. I don't consider all life on the planet equal. I would not only accept animal testing if my life depended on it, I would accept it even if the safety of product was in question. Before you sell something, I want to know that it is safe. I have given my children vaccinations and if my child needed insulin, I would not deny it.
Some things occurred to me after reading your last two posts. I have been following half an argument and it is a bit hard to do... so forgive me if it seems like I don't have all the information, because I don't.
1. Risking your life for a cause does not make the cause just or rightous. People have died for causes that were quite evil and unjust.
2. What animal testing does discover may not lead directly to a cure or treatment of anything. But a better understanding of biology including microbiology, genetics, and biochemistry. leads to many advances including treatment and cures.
3. Bad science and weak ethics does not nullify good research and strong ethics.
This doesn't mean that I am in favor of making animals suffer and die for no significant reason or purpose or without strict ethical guidelines. If there is a reasonable option available, an animal should not be subjected to testing involving the risk of pain or death. No animal should suffer unnecessarily. Animals are indeed valuable and worthy of consideration, I just don't feel that we should give them consideration equal to that of human life.

Tokis-
I believe that I agree with you in that I see tremendous value in animal testing and I do consider human life more valuable than animal life. I don't consider all life on the planet equal. I would not only accept animal testing if my life depended on it, I would accept it even if the safety of product was in question. Before you sell something, I want to know that it is safe. I have given my children vaccinations and if my child needed insulin, I would not deny it.
Some things occurred to me after reading your last two posts. I have been following half an argument and it is a bit hard to do... so forgive me if it seems like I don't have all the information, because I don't.
1. Risking your life for a cause does not make the cause just or rightous. People have died for causes that were quite evil and unjust.
2. What animal testing does discover may not lead directly to a cure or treatment of anything. But a better understanding of biology including microbiology, genetics, and biochemistry. leads to many advances including treatment and cures.
3. Bad science and weak ethics does not nullify good research and strong ethics.
This doesn't mean that I am in favor of making animals suffer and die for no significant reason or purpose or without strict ethical guidelines. If there is a reasonable option available, an animal should not be subjected to testing involving the risk of pain or death. No animal should suffer unnecessarily. Animals are indeed valuable and worthy of consideration, I just don't feel that we should give them consideration equal to that of human life.

I strongly agree with you here :cool: , these are also some of the points i have been trying to make to SVF. I also think there is often an over-Romanticising of people during criminal acts in what they believe as a right or just cause, when this is often not the case in many respects.
Being a buddhist, i do not believe in violence as the solution to all problems- it is self-perpetuating, violence only sows the seeds for more suffering and violence.
But animal testing? I value human life more than animal life, as a matter of conduct i do not think people should cause unnesarsary suffering to any animal, but animal testing to try and find cures/medicines/treatments for deseases and illnesses (for both human and animal a like) i do see as nesarsary- a medicine may be used for hundreds of years, and more than pay back the debt in life and suffering it took to make it for example as well.
85% of animal testing last year was also done on rats and mice, which are the most favored animals for testing by scientists, which animals like monkeys making up 0.2% of research.

Finding a cure for an udder desease in cows, or parasitic internal worms in dogs, may cause suffering to the animals during the course of finding the cure, but may save many millions of animals lives and stop suffering to come in future generations of animals.
The same goes for people.
Scientists do their best not to cause the animals they are testing suffering, as that would be bad for the experiment, and also not all animal testing causes suffering to animals (for example research into genetics often just involves breeding creatures). There are very strict laws in england against cruelty in animals, and while it may go on in a few isolated cases, the cause of animal testing to better the well being of people and animals a like is still a noble and just cause- don't let a few bad apple spoil the whole bunch so to speak.

I do not agree with animal rights activists destroying or breaking into other peoples property, nor do i agree with them threatening or damaging the well being of peoples lives in their cause. One of the most successful anti-battery/intensive farming videos ever done was done by activists working legally and undercover, rather than breaking into some poor guys farm and destroying his property etc. A word of advice to animal rights activists- if you want to project a good image of your cause, don't do criminal activities or support them.

Tokis-Phoenix
25-05-06, 20:39
[QUOTE=Tokis-Phoenix]What does fatali accompli mean?
It is more commonly referred to as "faits accompli"

fait accompli \fay-tah-kom-PLEE; fet-ah-\, noun;
plural faits accomplis \same or -PLEEZ\:
An accomplished and presumably irreversible deed or fact.
I dont mind answering questions relevant to the issue. However, my personal life is not the issue. My personal life is independent of the message that animal testing is wrong.

Your personal life is not the issue, on the other hand this thread is about your opinions or actions in certain circumstances (see the poll for example), so the questions are very relevant to the debate.

Ouch. Harsh and not very civil.

Whats uncivil about making a point like that?

Mycernius
25-05-06, 21:36
Will both of you stop this bickering or this thread will be locked. Be civil.
SVF, Tokis has asked five reasonable questions, which you have avoided for the past ten posts. Just answer the questions, if not then let the subject go, they are relevant to the discussion in the thread and will help give an idea of how you really view animal testing. If you are unwilling to answer the questions then you shouldn't be discussing the subject. Put your cards on the table as others have.
Tokis, quit baiting and getting personal. You have already been asked by Rocklee to stop it.

Now the questions to be answered are:
1. Do you agree with animal testing when it is finding cures for animal diseases/illnesses?

2. Would you accept animal tested treatments/medicines if your life depended on them?

3. Do you consider all life on this planet truly equal? If not, what forms of life do you not consider equal (this includes things like bacteria, insects, molluscs etc)?

4. If you had a child, would you give them vaccinations against deadly diseases?

5. If you had a child and they needed insulin, would you deny them it and let them die?

Once answered I feel that the discussion will get out of the rut it has fallen into.

strongvoicesforward
26-05-06, 04:01
Will both of you stop this bickering or this thread will be locked. Be civil.
SVF, Tokis has asked five reasonable questions, which you have avoided for the past ten posts. Just answer the questions, if not then let the subject go, they are relevant to the discussion in the thread and will help give an idea of how you really view animal testing. If you are unwilling to answer the questions then you shouldn't be discussing the subject. Put your cards on the table as others have.

Hi Mycernius. I have answered the questions but she hasnt noticed or understood them.

Tokis, quit baiting and getting personal. You have already been asked by Rocklee to stop it.

Thank-you.

Now the questions to be answered are:

1. Do you agree with animal testing when it is finding cures for animal diseases/illnesses?

No, I do not agree with violating the integrity of another being's life for another's benefit when the one being tested on cannot grant their permission. If I did then I would also accept violating the integrity of retarded children for the benefit of other children. To me logic is important and it needs to balance out cutting across the spectrum without prejudice when it comes to pain and suffering because those are states that know being wishes to be in.

2. Would you accept animal tested treatments/medicines if your life depended on them?

Faits accompli answers that. What is done is done. What things are presently being created or on the drawing board for creation can be discontinued and that is what we have the power over to stop animal testing to put an end to ongoing and future suffering.

3. Do you consider all life on this planet truly equal? If not, what forms of life do you not consider equal (this includes things like bacteria, insects, molluscs etc)?

The question is loaded. All life is truly equal in the universal sense (unless you believe in a personal God that shows an affinity towards humans -- of which there is no proof of) in that one does not have any more right to be here than the other.

Why would the vastness of the universe care more about man on earth than a mouse? Likewise why would the universe care more about a tick than the even smaller parasites found in a tick's stomach? If your perspective is man-centric (or perhaps God centric -- again no proof), then you will view man as having more rights over anything else and "more equal" -- whatever that means. If your perspective is universal, then you will see that one life is not anymore equal than another.

Reminds me of George Orwells mocking tone of arrogance in "Animal Farm."

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." George Orwell, Animal Farm.

Sounds like spin to me and an exercise in back bending justification.

Definitely not logical and the word "equal" lends itself to prejudice and exploitation when one is asserting self interest over others. If you value logic, you will see that "buts" are the perversion of logic.

Cruelty and suffering is bad, but some cruelty and suffering is not as bad as others so long as we are not the target of it and we benefit from that which we inflict because others are not "equal" to us. But, if we find someone more intelligent than us in a variety of aspects, we would not submit ourselves to pain for their benefit even though we do not equal them in intellect or ability or any aspect which we are familar with and value (not to mention all the additional ones they have over us).

So, my question is: Does logic rest on prejudice as its foundation? Maciamo also hinted at this in his thread about "laws not being applied consistantly." They are not applied consistantly because prejudice perverts the logic. That is what was anathema to Maciamos view on the point of logic and consistant application.

The right to integrity of body when one is not violating the life of another is what we are physically and morally able to grant to others as it pertains to how we live.

Now, if a person invades a bearfs den, that bear is definitely right to kill him/her(violate the integrity of his/her body), for bears and humans do not naturally have a bond or natural tendency of close living arrangements such as this. Likewise, if a mosquito violates the integrity of someones body then that person is not wrong to protect themselves (which if they choose may be killing the mosquito).

When one is being deprived of their right to integrity of body( or feels the threat that it is imminant) from another being, then the being that is being assaulted then wields the right to protect themselves for self preservation from the one that is trying to violate its body.

We are able to apply that because we have logic, AND we should apply it because we know that the state of pain is bad and therefore should not inflict it on another being for self preservation -- other than the situation where we are immediately threatened by that being.

Going further and further down into the reductionist argument however is the one of futility. Man does not adhere to the futility of life.

So, why is gequalh not appropriate in describing the rights of animals to integrity of body for anothers gain?

Because gequalh in this case elevates a person to the level of judge and man is not the universal judge of life. Maciamo pointed out and hinted at this with his reference to gwhat if advanced beings more than us came here?h earlier in this thread (or was it the vegetarian thread -- either or, it is still applicable here). Would we then submit to the logic that we are not equal of deserving of integrity of body because we do not match up on levels that they judge on -- or even if their judgements were on the same aspects of what we judge as important and determining factors that give us what we think we have the right to do to animals here? I would not submit to that archaic logic and then march happily to the gmore than equalsfh laboratories. Who would?

Furthermore, the word gequalh is bogged down because things are just different. It is useless to talk about the equal rights of cats to have drivers licenses, because they have no need for and cant possess the ability to drive. It is also meaningless to argue for the equal rights of men to have abortions. However, men are not less equal because they dont have this right, are they?

The beings we know from science and observation which have shown us to possess the clear ability to feel pain and suffer, should not have the integrity of their bodies violated for anothers self benefit.

If logic is what one feels is something that should be consistant and cut across the spectrum then this is the view that does not contradict itself -- unless you say you would willingly march to the labs of superior intelligence beings than ones self for their benefit because "benefit" of the more equal beings trumps any suffering or pain one may feel to us who are not equal. That is what the gequalh logic based judgement will lead one to do -- again if logic is important to someone.

4. If you had a child, would you give them vaccinations against deadly diseases?

I answered this with faits accompli. What is done cannot be undone. However, I would not point a finger at any being and say take this being and violate the integrity of its body to test on to create something for another being (another being would include all beings and therefore you can assume myself or my children fall in that category).
Would you please exhort the other, and if you also feel like it, to answer my specific "why" follow up questions to the "Germany Jewish slave labor proffiting companies" analogy?

5. If you had a child and they needed insulin, would you deny them it and let them die?

Again, faits accompli applies.

-------------------------------------------------------
*btw, Mycernius, do you also not know what The Boston Tea Party is? Tokis hinted that she did not know what it was so I am trying to discern if UK schools do not touch on that as one of the starting points of direct action against British colonial rule in the Americas. I just want this information for my own reference because in the future I dont want to reference it when discussing with people from the UK if I know beforehand they are not familiar with it. If I did reference it, when I brought it up I would then go into a little more detail to bring forth knowledge on that historical act between our two countries. Thanks, in advance.

Tokis-Phoenix
26-05-06, 04:55
Hi Mycernius. I have answered the questions but she hasnt noticed or understood them.
Thank-you.
[/color]
No, I do not agree with violating the integrity of another being's life for another's benefit when the one being tested on cannot grant their permission. If I did then I would also accept violating the integrity of retarded children for the benefit of other children. To me logic is important and it needs to balance out cutting across the spectrum without prejudice when it comes to pain and suffering because those are states that know being wishes to be in.

Faits accompli answers that. What is done is done. What things are presently being created or on the drawing board for creation can be discontinued and that is what we have the power over to stop animal testing to put an end to ongoing and future suffering.

The question is loaded. All life is truly equal in the universal sense (unless you believe in a personal God that shows an affinity towards humans -- of which there is no proof of) in that one does not have any more right to be here than the other.
Why would the vastness of the universe care more about man on earth than a mouse? Likewise why would the universe care more about a tick than the even smaller parasites found in a tick's stomach? If your perspective is man-centric (or perhaps God centric -- again no proof), then you will view man as having more rights over anything else and "more equal" -- whatever that means. If your perspective is universal, then you will see that one life is not anymore equal than another.
Reminds me of George Orwells mocking tone of arrogance in "Animal Farm."

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others." George Orwell, Animal Farm.
Sounds like spin to me and an exercise in back bending justification.
Definitely not logical and the word "equal" lends itself to prejudice and exploitation when one is asserting self interest over others. If you value logic, you will see that "buts" are the perversion of logic.

Cruelty and suffering is bad, but some cruelty and suffering is not as bad as others so long as we are not the target of it and we benefit from that which we inflict because others are not "equal" to us. But, if we find someone more intelligent than us in a variety of aspects, we would not submit ourselves to pain for their benefit even though we do not equal them in intellect or ability or any aspect which we are familar with and value (not to mention all the additional ones they have over us).
So, my question is: Does logic rest on prejudice as its foundation? Maciamo also hinted at this in his thread about "laws not being applied consistantly." They are not applied consistantly because prejudice perverts the logic. That is what was anathema to Maciamos view on the point of logic and consistant application.
The right to integrity of body when one is not violating the life of another is what we are physically and morally able to grant to others as it pertains to how we live.
Now, if a person invades a bearfs den, that bear is definitely right to kill him/her(violate the integrity of his/her body), for bears and humans do not naturally have a bond or natural tendency of close living arrangements such as this. Likewise, if a mosquito violates the integrity of someones body then that person is not wrong to protect themselves (which if they choose may be killing the mosquito).
When one is being deprived of their right to integrity of body( or feels the threat that it is imminant) from another being, then the being that is being assaulted then wields the right to protect themselves for self preservation from the one that is trying to violate its body.
We are able to apply that because we have logic, AND we should apply it because we know that the state of pain is bad and therefore should not inflict it on another being for self preservation -- other than the situation where we are immediately threatened by that being.
Going further and further down into the reductionist argument however is the one of futility. Man does not adhere to the futility of life.
So, why is gequalh not appropriate in describing the rights of animals to integrity of body for anothers gain?
Because gequalh in this case elevates a person to the level of judge and man is not the universal judge of life. Maciamo pointed out and hinted at this with his reference to gwhat if advanced beings more than us came here?h earlier in this thread (or was it the vegetarian thread -- either or, it is still applicable here). Would we then submit to the logic that we are not equal of deserving of integrity of body because we do not match up on levels that they judge on -- or even if their judgements were on the same aspects of what we judge as important and determining factors that give us what we think we have the right to do to animals here? I would not submit to that archaic logic and then march happily to the gmore than equalsfh laboratories. Who would?
Furthermore, the word gequalh is bogged down because things are just different. It is useless to talk about the equal rights of cats to have drivers licenses, because they have no need for and cant possess the ability to drive. It is also meaningless to argue for the equal rights of men to have abortions. However, men are not less equal because they dont have this right, are they?
The beings we know from science and observation which have shown us to possess the clear ability to feel pain and suffer, should not have the integrity of their bodies violated for anothers self benefit.
If logic is what one feels is something that should be consistant and cut across the spectrum then this is the view that does not contradict itself -- unless you say you would willingly march to the labs of superior intelligence beings than ones self for their benefit because "benefit" of the more equal beings trumps any suffering or pain one may feel to us who are not equal. That is what the gequalh logic based judgement will lead one to do -- again if logic is important to someone.

I answered this with faits accompli. What is done cannot be undone. However, I would not point a finger at any being and say take this being and violate the integrity of its body to test on to create something for another being (another being would include all beings and therefore you can assume myself or my children fall in that category).
Would you please exhort the other, and if you also feel like it, to answer my specific "why" follow up questions to the "Germany Jewish slave labor proffiting companies" analogy?

Again, faits accompli applies.

So SVF, would i be wrong in assuming that you would give your child vacinations against deadly deseases, or insulin if they needed it? And you would accept animal tested treatments if your life depended on them because as you said, whats done is done?

"Ahem".

Using your reasoning, that whats done is done, could be used to reason wearing a fur coat while saying you hate people who wear dead animal products, or eating a mcdonalds burger while saying you despise battery farming- the animal is dead, "whats done is done" (or faits accompli as you put it).

When you take treatments or medicines that have been animal tested, you support animal testing because those medicines/treatments are still run as buisneses/companies and the money you pay for those treatments goes towards more research i.e. animal testing.
If more people consume somthing, there is more demand for it, and thus more supply to meet the demand.

Essentially you are saying you fight to put an end to all animal testing, while on the other hand you would support it in some circumstances.
One more thing though- the equality question. On one hand you seem to suggest that "all life is equal in a universal sense", on the other hand you say "Furthermore, the word gequalh is bogged down because things are just different.". You sound like george orwells quote from animal farm "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.", just written in a different way but with the same meaning.
So do you believe that all life is equal on this planet (and i do mean all life), or is some life more equal than other forms of life to you in your honest opinion? (I'm not talking about all the rights that human beings have and animals don't, if we are truly equal then we should have the same basic rights and so forth).

strongvoicesforward
26-05-06, 05:44
So SVF, would i be wrong in assuming that you would give your child vacinations against deadly deseases, or insulin if they needed it? And you would accept animal tested treatments if your life depended on them because as you said, whats done is done?

Using your reasoning, that whats done is done, could be used to reason wearing a fur coat while saying you hate people who wear dead animal products, or eating a mcdonalds burger while saying you despise battery farming- the animal is dead, "whats done is done" (or faits accompli as you put it).

IT MOST DEFINITELY COULD!

And people have to make the personal choice of where they are going to draw the line with faits accompli and that is the point of the Animal Rights Liberation movement -- to grow so that more people draw the line on as many animal products as possible. Just like others have drawn the line on willingly accepting German made products from companies and a country that profitted from Jewish slave labor -- or in America on African slaves.

The place where people draw the line is not static. It shifts within people. That is the purpose of campaigns and movements, to shift the lines of perspective and opinions and to at times change the thought of the status quo.

When you take treatments or medicines that have been animal tested, you support animal testing because those medicines/treatments are still run as buisneses/companies and the money you pay for those treatments goes towards more research i.e. animal testing.
If more people consume somthing, there is more demand for it, and thus more supply to meet the demand.

Right again!

ARists have never claimed to be perfect or not weak in violating their ethical beliefs. They most certainly do. However, in an ironic twist they do campaign for the abolition of what they do and can physically profit from. Irony is strange -- like politics makes strange bedfellows.

Their weakness however does not change the truthfulness of the message that it is wrong to violate the integrity of anothers body for self gain. The rightness or wrongness of the message can stand independent of the messenger even with all his or her personal strengths or weaknesses.

Even if a dispicable figure who caused war said, "World peace is great", the statements merit, or lack of, still stands on its own despite the person who issues it.

Essentially you are saying you fight to put an end to all animal testing, while on the other hand you would support it in some circumstances.

Fatais accompli covers that wrapped up in all the personal weaknesses of people, who while strive to high ethical standards, may still fall short of what they profess. But the message the profess is not scathed. It stands independent. The future is the point of attack.

Thomas Jefferson or some other slave holders bear truth in their message that freedom should be granted to all, despite their still holding slaves. The message that "freedom should still be granted to all" is still a truthful message even though the slaveholder refuses to release the slaves.

One more thing though- the equality question. On one hand you seem to suggest that "all life is equal in a universal sense", on the other hand you say "Furthermore, the word gequalh is bogged down because things are just different.". You sound like george orwells quote from animal farm "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.", just written in a different way but with the same meaning.

Not at all. "Equal" is not "different." Look at the cat and man/abortion qualifying analogy. My quote from Animal Farm is what wrecks your logic. Your logic can only stand in its face if you say you would submit to experimental suffering for beings who place themselves above you and you know to have higher intellect and ability in most things they value.

So do you believe that all life is equal on this planet (and i do mean all life), or is some life more equal than other forms of life to you in your honest opinion? (I'm not talking about all the rights that human beings have and animals don't, if we are truly equal then we should have the same basic rights and so forth).

What is your point of reference? The universe or God?

If you are saying "I" am the point of reference (which I am supposing you are, since you are asking my "honest opinion"), then you already know how/what I (and other ARists) believe and have judged.

Again "equal" implies some judement based on measurement and in the perview of this discussion we are debating on what is "right" or "wrong" and my view has consistantly been that animal testing is not right on animals (i.e. wrong to do) we know to have the ability to suffer.

I am not persuing the reductionist argument because it points to the futility of even trying to do things and humans do not live their lives based on futility.

I have clearly said that animals which we know to suffer from pain should clearly have the right to not have the integrity of their bodies violated. In those cases we do not have any higher right than they. We only do so based on "might makes right."

Will you address the logic applied to the aliens of higher intelligence coming? Thank you.

Tokis-Phoenix
26-05-06, 06:20

Ah, so i assumed right.

IT MOST DEFINITELY COULD!
And people have to make the personal choice of where they are going to draw the line with faits accompli and that is the point of the Animal Rights Liberation movement -- to grow so that more people draw the line on as many animal products as possible. Just like others have drawn the line on willingly accepting German made products from companies and a country that profitted from Jewish slave labor -- or in America on African slaves.
The place where people draw the line is not static. It shifts within people. That is the purpose of campaigns and movements, to shift the lines of perspective and opinions and to at times change the thought of the status quo.
Right again!
ARists have never claimed to be perfect or not weak in violating their ethical beliefs. They most certainly do. However, in an ironic twist they do campaign for the abolition of what they do and can physically profit from. Irony is strange -- like politics makes strange bedfellows.
Their weakness however does not change the truthfulness of the message that it is wrong to violate the integrity of anothers body for self gain. The rightness or wrongness of the message can stand independent of the messenger even with all his or her personal strengths or weaknesses.

On the other hand though, if you think thats perfectly acceptable behavior in animal rights activists then you are a hypocrite (this is not a personal insult, just stating the facts if you see the definition of hypocrisey).
There's a difference in "spreading a message" as you put it and trying to change the actual laws of your country though. Do you agree that before you preach to others, you must first change yourself?

Even if a dispicable figure who caused war said, "World peace is great", the statements merit, or lack of, still stands on its own despite the person who issues it.
Fatais accompli covers that wrapped up in all the personal weaknesses of people, who while strive to high ethical standards, may still fall short of what they profess. But the message the profess is not scathed. It stands independent. The future is the point of attack.

I wouldn't call wearing a fur coat while ranting on about how you hate wearing fur coats "striving to high ethical standards". Its like beating up people on a regular basis while saying you are against violence- no one would consider you spreading a message about anti-violence, they would just see you being a hypocrite.

Thomas Jefferson or some other slave holders bear truth in their message that freedom should be granted to all, despite their still holding slaves. The message that "freedom should still be granted to all" is still a truthful message even though the slaveholder refuses to release the slaves.
Not at all. "Equal" is not "different." Look at the cat and man/abortion qualifying analogy.
What is your point of reference? The universe or God?
If you are saying "I" am the point of reference (which I am supposing you are, since you are asking my "honest opinion"), then you already know how/what I (and other ARists) believe and have judged.

On one hand, you apply human rights to animals, on the other hand, you deny animals human rights which they are perfectly capable of being subjected to (unlike your male abortion anology). Could answer a "yes" or "no" question: do you consider all life on this planet equal? I want a straight answer.

Again "equal" implies some judement based on measurement and in the perview of this discussion we are debating on what is "right" or "wrong" and my view has consistantly been that animal testing is not right on animals (i.e. wrong to do) we know to have the ability to suffer.
I am not persuing the reductionist argument because it points to the futility of even trying to do things and humans do not live their lives based on futility.
I have clearly said that animals which we know to suffer from pain should clearly have the right to not have the integrity of their bodies violated. In those cases we do not have any higher right than they. We only do so based on "might makes right."
Will you address the logic applied to the aliens of higher intelligence coming? Thank you.

You have said that animals are equal to human beings in previous posts (although its now hard to say your exact opinions as you see all life as different), even Rocklee has said that a hamster should have the same rights as a billion people, so do you agree that all life on this planet is equal? If the animal does not feel pain during experimentation due to anesthetic(sp?) and thus does not suffer, would you agree to this form of experimentation?

My quote from Animal Farm is what wrecks your logic. Your logic can only stand in its face if you say you would submit to experimental suffering for beings who place themselves above you and you know to have higher intellect and ability in most things they value.

Don't assume you are wreaking anyones logic when you have not even discussed somthing with them ;) .
If aliens came this planet and their race was far more intelligent or superior to our race, and it wanted to use us for testing, then i would just have to submit to it (although not happily mind you, but you wern't asking that anyway). If it overpowered us, well then, there's nothing we can do about it- thus superior race wins the day. If their race overpowered us then that is that.
My "logic" only applies to things that evolved on this planet though, and since life as we know it has...

strongvoicesforward
26-05-06, 16:26
Ah, so i assumed right.

The qualification stands. It is well explained with faits accompli, the German model, the U.S. slavery model, and the message as independent from the messenger.

On the other hand though, if you think thats perfectly acceptable behavior in animal rights activists then you are a hypocrite (this is not a personal insult, just stating the facts if you see the definition of hypocrisey).

The German model, the U.S. slavery model, and the message as independent from the messenger. Many more examples are available for faits accompli to make hypocrites of us all. I am not so concerned with myself, and if being a hypocrite (like all of us are who pay taxes to governments who engage in policies we dont agree with) allows my voice to call for the cessation of animal testing and actually helps impact in some way, then I am fine with that.

There's a difference in "spreading a message" as you put it and trying to change the actual laws of your country though.

Do you agree that before you preach to others, you must first change yourself?

Not necessarily in all situations. The U.S. preaches that other countries should not possess nuclear weapons but still possesses its own -- as does well the U.K. Do you acknowledge that? An old lady in my neighborhood as a child who smoked herself to death still preached to us kids against smoking and I think her memory was a point that has always kept me from ever wanting to try it. Her preaching was quite effective in me and my other childhood friends in that small neighborhood. Sure, she was a hypocrite, but her message stood and stuck independent of her actions.

I wouldn't call wearing a fur coat while ranting on about how you hate wearing fur coats "striving to high ethical standards".

I dont recall ever seeing a person in a fur coat doing that. While the tactic would not be the most effective -- the message would still be accurate. The message can stand independent of the messenger. Though, for maximum effectiveness -- it is best that the actions of the messenger match the messenger's message. But sometimes, even just 90% effectiveness or even a smaller amount is important. The animals in labs benefit from whatever pittance can be thrown their way. As much as possible is better than saying, "well, since it cant be 100%, then it has to be nothing.k" That is a strategy of perfectionism which leads to frustration, abandonment of goals and ultimate failure. Activists need not be perfect, setting themselves up for dissappointment -- they need only do as best they can for as long as they can. I wouldnt call the boy sticking his thumb and most of his fingers in the dike bad while he was keeping the floodwaters out just because he couldnt or didnt stick all his fingers and toes in the dike. I would encourage him to keep doing as much as he can and pass on gratitude for as much as he has lent towards keeping the floodwaters out.

What would you do? Degrade him and call him a hypocrite just because he says he doesnt want to drown but decides to keep a few fingers out just so he can use them to do with whatever he pleases? I never demand perfection from anyone. If someone wants to try and offer perfection, then that is fine. But to demand it is wrong because people arent perfect.

Its like beating up people on a regular basis while saying you are against violence- no one would consider you spreading a message about anti-violence, they would just see you being a hypocrite.

Look at the "smoking" and other examples above -- not to mention the hypocracy of paying taxes to a government you dont agree with 100% of their policies. The message can stand independent.

On one hand, you apply human rights to animals, on the other hand, you deny animals human rights which they are perfectly capable of being subjected to (unlike your male abortion anology). Could answer a "yes" or "no" question: do you consider all life on this planet equal? I want a straight answer.

You have said that animals are equal to human beings in previous posts (although its now hard to say your exact opinions as you see all life as different),...

My answers are clearly qualified. They are there. Please go back and look.

...even Rocklee has said that a hamster should have the same rights as a billion people, so do you agree that all life on this planet is equal?

Did he actually say that, or are you taking liberties with interpreting what he said? I am almost sure RockLee is not an animal rightist (unless he has become one recently). Correct me if I am wrong, RockLee. But, I am also sure that he is looking at the issues with an open mind and not just swallowing what tradition has put forth about animals in their relationship to us. At one time, I was probably in the exact position as he was in now, and even before that, where you are now, or even others who never gave a passing glance or care for animals, but then something clicked -- a wake-up call to the vileness of violating the integrity of anothers body.

Whether RockLee ever moves on the spectrum, I can't say. But what I appreciate is that he is at least he seems to be looking at the issue with an open mind and not bent on trying to point out hypocracies because perfection is not a part of anyone.

If the animal does not feel pain during experimentation due to anesthetic(sp?) and thus does not suffer, would you agree to this form of experimentation?

No, because I would not agree to it for retarded people. My logic is consistant in that depriving a being its life for anothers benefit is wrong. I am not "man centric." I am "universal centric" and therefore my belief is that not one of us has anymore inherant right to not have adversity caused to them than another. I am able to extend the golden rule and therefore I exercise that which I can do to not spread death for my own purpose.

Are you the antithesis of that? Does you logic cut across the spectrum and is consistant, or is it premised on prejudice?

Don't assume you are wreaking[wrecking] anyones logic when you have not even discussed somthing with them ;) .
If aliens came this planet and their race was far more intelligent or superior to our race, and it wanted to use us for testing, then i would just have to submit to it (although not happily mind you, but you wern't asking that anyway).

I thought I had phrased it with "go willingly." Sorry if I am wrong but that is what I thought I said. Didn`t I use that phrasology? So, yes, that was included in the analogy.

If it overpowered us, well then, there's nothing we can do about it- thus superior race wins the day. If their race overpowered us then that is that.
My "logic" only applies to things that evolved on this planet though, and since life as we know it has...

So, do you surrender to apathy and accept that "might makes right"? It sounds like it to me. Sounds like you are saying their "might" is what makes their actions ok. Is it ok?

strongvoicesforward
27-05-06, 16:03
One of the most respected persons in recent times has been Mahatma Ghandi. Not only did his respect for life extend to man, but to animals as well -- so much in fact that he did not view the life of man any more important than an animal and did not believe the different animals of the world were here for the sake of the human body. I am glad to count myself amongst the same thought on this issue as such a great man.

To my mind the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man. --Mahatma Ghandi, The Story of My Experiment with Truth: An Autobiography

And, on scientific discoveries from the blood of innocents:

I abhor vivisection with my whole soul. All the scientific discoveries stained with innocent blood I count as of no consequence. Mahatma Gandhi

There is not "more important." There is not any who are not "equal" in deserving the integrity of body. There is only "different," and Ghandi new that the "different and the weakest" amongst us all, made it even more the responsibility of the strong to protect them. He abhored science based on innocent blood and states clearly with passion that the life of an animal is no less precious than the life of a man.

Many view Ghandi as an enlightened person of love and respect. I, too, am one who does. His circle of compassion was not a small one with only man permitted to enter. It emenated outward encompasing much more than just man and his narrow world view of self benefit at the expense of other beings. I throw my vote with the philosophy of Ghandi on lessening world suffering in all its forms.

Good on Ghandi for the gift of his wisdom he spoke bravely on.

Tokis-Phoenix
19-06-06, 20:44
A note to all the vegans and animal rights activists here on the saying that has been used in this thread "whats done is done";
a. An animal rights activist is an activist because they are active on their opinions. You cannot call yourself an animal righst activist if you are not active on your opinions (i.e. like you cannot call yourself a vicar if you never attend church, or a paleontologist if you never qualified as one etc)- if you would take animal tested products in any situation, you can hardly call yourself an activist against such a thing because in reality you would be a supporter through your actions.

b. The aim of most vegans is to remove themselves from any form of actions that may have a negative effect on any any, wether it be a bee or a cow etc. If you are a vegan and take animal tested medicines, then surely you are being incredibly contradictary to you cause? I think so.

c. The phrase "whats done is done" does not apply in this thread if you are willing to take animal tested products but at the same time are against them. There is not a single member here who would not take animal tested medicines if their life depended on it- despite them claiming that all life is equal. That must mean that all the people against animal testing here are hypocrites to their cause- that they'd rather deny someone else of animal tested medicines than deny them it to themselves, and they value their own life above hundreds/thousands of animals lives.
U'know, while there have been thousands of quitters of smokers/drinkers, or people breaking the law, i have never heard of a single animal rights activist in history who was not actually a major hypocrite in some way or another to their cause.

d. I am sure Ghandi's intention was not to deny a a dying child of animal tested medicines either or destroy a farmers property etc. Ghandi preached peace and tolerance- there is no word on his beliefs of equality of all life on earth though as far as i am aware.

Revenant
20-06-06, 06:04
The aim of most vegans is to remove themselves from any form of actions that may have a negative effect on any any, wether it be a bee or a cow etc. If you are a vegan and take animal tested medicines, then surely you are being incredibly contradictary to you cause? I think so.I'm vegan more for environmental reasons.

If one believes in protecting the more highly developed species over the less developed ones (I think on a gross scale, most people do, i.e. humans take priority over bacteria), then animal testing rather than testing on humans might be the way to go. Albeit, there is a difference between necessary life-prolonging medicine being tested on animals and simple beauty enhancing cosmetics. If one can get rid of some unnecessary suffering, then it really should be done.

Going vegan to protect animals from unnecessary suffering would have an impact on a lot of animals. Going vegan for most people wouldn't actually be detrimental to their health, and even better for some.

Just to make the above points clear, cause rereading them, I see that my point could be lost (inarticulate me). Lifesaving/pain-removing medicines are important. Animal based food for most people not necessary. Animal tested cosmetics completely unnecessary.

There is not a single member here who would not take animal tested medicines if their life depended on it- despite them claiming that all life is equal.Perhaps not here, but certainly there are some people that would.

Most people who have a cause are hypocritical to some extent. But in some cases, does one take the apathy, or the slight hypocrisy? The slightly hypocritical people may be moving in a much needed direction that others are not.

Just cause person with a cause claims he wouldn't do actions A through G, but actually under some circumstances, would do action D, doesn't mean that his not doing actions A through C, and E through G didn't have a positive impact.

No-name
20-06-06, 07:03
...and if one believes in protecting the more highly developed species over the less developed ones (I think on a gross scale, most people do, i.e. humans take priority over bacteria), then animal testing rather than testing on humans might be the way to go. Albeit, there is a difference between necessary life-prolonging medicine being tested on animals and simple beauty enhancing cosmetics. If one can get rid of some unnecessary suffering, then it really should be done... I think I fall into the "most people" category. I can't disagree with you on the rest of it. The heirarchy of values is definitely engrained in my mind although I can't cite an origin except that it is how I have always believed and it is still a value I carry. I do not believe that my cat's life and my son's life should be regarded equally.

But I can still see logic in testing consumer products for safety... I believe we could do without poisonous lead glazes, uranium and arsnic glassware, and cosmetics such as ceruse- a mixture of lead and vinegar, vermillion- mercuric sulfide, and others containing sulpher, tin ash, arsnic, mercury, and chemicals I have never heard of. Although make-up is arguably not a necessity, it is used by quite a few of us humans and it needs to be safe. The ethics should be set quite high and enforced to the letter. Just because one assumes that one specie's life has less of a value than than a human life, does not mean that it has no value.