Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: ("AT stands for "animal tested" or "animal testing").

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • I wouldnft take AT (whatever the animal)medicine/treatments even if my life depended on it.

    0 0%
  • I would take AT (whatever the animal) medicine/treatments if my life depended on it.

    10 52.63%
  • I would take AT medicine/treatments if I was in great discomfort but my life wasnft at stake.

    8 42.11%
  • I would any AT medicines/treatments if I felt I needed them.

    10 52.63%
  • I wouldnft support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments even if they needed it badly.

    0 0%
  • I would support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments if they needed it badly.

    9 47.37%
  • I would support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments depending on the situation.

    10 52.63%
  • I wouldnft use AT animal hygiene products whatever they were- would rather live in dirt.

    4 21.05%
  • I would only use some AT hygiene products but only if I really needed them.

    7 36.84%
  • I would use any AT hygiene products If they were good/I needed them.

    4 21.05%
  • I wouldnft support AT for warfare/weapons even if my countries survival depended on them.

    6 31.58%
  • I would support some AT for warfare/weapons if they would save loads of my peoples lives in war.

    9 47.37%
  • I would support AT for warfare/weapons if it enabled us to kick the enemies ass.

    2 10.53%
  • I would support any AT for warfare/weapons.

    0 0%
  • All AT is wrong whatever the animal involved.

    3 15.79%
  • Most of AT is wrong whatever the animal involved.

    3 15.79%
  • AT is only wrong if the animal is intelligent(like an ape).

    1 5.26%
  • Most AT is ok, but sometimes wrong.

    7 36.84%
  • AT is generally ok in my opinion.

    5 26.32%
  • Otherc

    1 5.26%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 156

Thread: Animal testing, your feelings?

  1. #26
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States





    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.

  2. #27
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    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.


    "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
    --Albert Einstein

  3. #28
    The Pirate King Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Thunderthief's Avatar
    Join Date
    18-03-06
    Location
    Illinois
    Age
    32
    Posts
    17


    Ethnic group
    Caucasian, mostly German to be specific
    Country: United States



    Better to test on animals than a human, and testing has to be done for science to progress.

  4. #29
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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.

  5. #30
    Mikawa Ossan
    Guest


    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.

  6. #31
    DON'T PANIC! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tsuyoiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-05
    Posts
    979


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Mikawa Ossan
    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/hottopi...ts/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.

  7. #32
    Exiled Warrior Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    08-06-05
    Posts
    13


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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.
    We`ve 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 don`t cover every possible scenario does not mean it should lead us to use animals. In fact, even animals can`t cover every possible scenario -- but that doesn`t 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.

  8. #33
    DON'T PANIC! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tsuyoiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-05
    Posts
    979


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Ermac
    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"

  9. #34
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Ermac
    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 don`t 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.

  10. #35
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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

  11. #36
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    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 testersf 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 haven`t learned anything from your experiments.

    T. Edison: On the contrary. I`ve learned a thousand ways that don`t work.


    lol. While fine for inanimate objects, I don`t think children would like to be one of the thousand ways they`ve let someone know something isn`t working when that has resulted in organ damage and disfigurement.

  12. #37
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    And let`s 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. Let`s make sure they shatter somewhere inside living tissue. No, no, no, a pumpkin, hardened silicone, or some other subsitute would not do. Hey, let`s 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. Don`t take my word for the depravity that it is. Look at the video titled gLemas Ltd Shoots Live Pigsh found here.

  13. #38
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    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.

  14. #39
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    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

  15. #40
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko
    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.

  16. #41
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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...)

  17. #42
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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 don`t 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.

  18. #43
    DON'T PANIC! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tsuyoiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-05
    Posts
    979


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    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!

  19. #44
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    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.



    Britches with bandages over head and eyes with sonar device grafted to head.


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

  20. #45
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Reiku's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-08-04
    Location
    Pismo Beach, CA
    Posts
    138


    Country: United_States



    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.

    [edit] 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.
    Last edited by Reiku; 29-03-06 at 03:13.
    Baka ningen.

  21. #46
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Reiku, I am almost tempted to engage you with a discussion, but I have found in the past that you can`t control yourself. I guess I am saying I don`T 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.


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

  22. #47
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Good post Reiku, a mature approach to a sensitive subject and the meaning of "monster"/inferior .
    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 onefs 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 thatfs the wrong conceptioncResentment because of grievances may be let out, because then it is finishedcConstant 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.

    The paradox of self-interest;
    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.

  23. #48
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    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.

  24. #49
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Reiku
    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?

  25. #50
    Exiled Warrior Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    08-06-05
    Posts
    13


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko
    Imagine if Martin Luther King had said "apartheid will continue to be a way of life long after I'm gone"
    I don't see how you can compare lab animals to MLK......

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-03-19, 14:12
  2. Animal Rights
    By Tsuyoiko in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 20-10-13, 22:41
  3. Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty
    By strongvoicesforward in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 17-06-06, 15:28
  4. Animal speech
    By RockLee in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22-05-06, 09:06

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •