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’t 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’t at stake.

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

    10 52.63%
  • I wouldn’t 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’t 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’t 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…

    1 5.26%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 156

Thread: Animal testing, your feelings?

  1. #126
    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 Tokis-Phoenix
    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 don`t know. I always thought slavery was a relationship in which one benefitted more that the other through exploitation. They don`t bring me a beer when I want one. They don`t 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 didn`t 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 animal`s 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 wouldn`t 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 wouldn`t 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 don`t 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.
    Weren`t 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 another`s 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 country`s or region of people' view/morality is often times based on one`s 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 doesn`t cut across the spectrum.


    "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

  2. #127
    旅人 Achievements:
    1 year registered
    RockLee's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-04-04
    Location
    Belgium, Limburg
    Age
    36
    Posts
    356


    Ethnic group
    european
    Country: Belgium



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    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.
    小豆研ぐか、人取ってくおか、ショキショキ〜♪
    Azuki togu ka, hito totte kuo ka, shoki shoki〜♪

  3. #128
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    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.

  4. #129
    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
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    lol. I don`t know. I always thought slavery was a relationship in which one benefitted more that the other through exploitation. They don`t bring me a beer when I want one. They don`t 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.
    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&lr=&cr=countryUK|countryGB&defl=en&q= define:slavery&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=titl e
    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
    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...UK%7CcountryGB
    A guardian is basically somone who holds responsability over somone or somthing, but does own them;
    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...UK%7CcountryGB
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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/ne...00/4180572.stm
    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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 ;) .
    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Animal ethologists. We need not know the complete intricate inner workings of an animal`s 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    So what? Are you saying because a mouse wouldn`t 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 wouldn`t 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 don`t 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Weren`t 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.
    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Being equal in ability is a strange argument to rest on for consideration to not violate the integrity of another`s 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 country`s or region of people' view/morality is often times based on one`s 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 doesn`t 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?

  5. #130
    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



    Strongvoices forward asked:
    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, “take them to the experimental room”?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    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 “yes” and maybe “no” in regards to testing on retarded children. “Yes” and “No” cancel each other out and that leaves us with “maybe,” which your answer is an affirmative “Yes” 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 “terms of rent for tenants” 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.
    In general, i'm not one for answering vague/broad questions though, so please be more specific.
    The analogy is not vague. It is quite clear and specific. And because you started the hypothetical “if” question with a “vague/broad” question without any “evidence to back it up” (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 “avoid” the “if” 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 “looking a dying person in the eyes and tell them they must protect the rights of a mouse”:

    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 “true example” “backed-up” “with evidence” that has “actually happened”:

    Who would you rather survived; one mouse or your mother?"
    Where are your “true examples backed up with evidence” Tokis-Pheonix that these choices have come to someone? Do you have an example of a doctor coming into a room and saying, “Mr. 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?”

    Of course you can`t -- BECAUSE they are hypothetical!

    You see, that is what happens when you get into playing hypothetical “if” 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 “HYPOTHETICAL,” but then it is even more rude (not to mention discourtious to ignore the others’ “if” 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?

  6. #131
    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



    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, doesn`t 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 “exchange” my life for an animal`s 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]).

  7. #132
    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
    Then maybe “yes” and maybe “no” in regards to testing on retarded children. “Yes” and “No” cancel each other out and that leaves us with “maybe,” which your answer is an affirmative “Yes” 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 “terms of rent for tenants” 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 “if” question with a “vague/broad” question without any “evidence to back it up” (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 “avoid” the “if” 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 “looking a dying person in the eyes and tell them they must 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 “true example” “backed-up” “with evidence” that has “actually happened”:
    Where are your “true examples backed up with evidence” Tokis-Pheonix that these choices have come to someone? Do you have an example of a doctor coming into a room and saying, “Mr. 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?”
    Of course you can`t -- BECAUSE they are hypothetical!
    You see, that is what happens when you get into playing hypothetical “if” 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 “HYPOTHETICAL,” but then it is even more rude (not to mention discourtious to ignore the others’ “if” 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?

  8. #133
    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



    Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward:
    And don`t 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. Don`t 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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis=Phoenix
    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 didn`t 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 don`t 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 don`t 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 “hyothetical” -- which your “if” question cases ARE NOT REAL case scenarios. Whether it is a fairy tale or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the “romanticising” of actions which is what YOU objected to. If “real events” are what you are concerned with, then why bring them up when you wrote “You can pretend ...” “Pretend” 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 doesn`t 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.

  9. #134
    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=strongvoicesforward]
    Quote Originally Posted by 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, doesn`t 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 “exchange” my life for an animal`s 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).

  10. #135
    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



    So, SVF, please can you answer these questions;

    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?

  11. #136
    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=Tokis-Phoenix]
    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Can you give any evidence that animal rights activists actually risk their lives in their cause?
    Tokis-Phoenix, I don`t 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 don`t 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 doesn`t 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 can`t 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.

  12. #137
    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=strongvoicesforward]
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    Tokis-Phoenix, I don`t 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 don`t 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.



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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 can`t 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.

  13. #138
    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



    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.
    So, SVF, please can you answer these questions;

    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?

  14. #139
    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 Tokis-Phoenix
    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 aren`t very self aware? Why not if they don`t 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 today`s 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.

  15. #140
    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



    What does fatali accompli mean?
    Plus, i have answered all of your questions, you have not answered highly relevant questions i made pages ago which leads me to believe that your views/opinions are not well thought through/flawed (please prove me wrong).

  16. #141
    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
    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 ;) .

  17. #142
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    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.

  18. #143
    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 Tokis-Phoenix
    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.

  19. #144
    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=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.


    Plus, i have answered all of your questions, you have not answered highly relevant questions i made pages ago which leads me to believe that your views/opinions are not well thought through/flawed (please prove me wrong).
    I don`t 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.

  20. #145
    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 sabro
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    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 , 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.

  21. #146
    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=strongvoicesforward]
    Quote Originally Posted by 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 don`t 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Ouch. Harsh and not very civil.
    Whats uncivil about making a point like that?

  22. #147
    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



    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.

  23. #148
    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 Mycernius
    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 hasn`t 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 Orwell`s 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 Maciamo`s 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 bear’s 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 someone`s 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 “equal” not appropriate in describing the rights of animals to integrity of body for another`s gain?

    Because “equal” 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 “what if advanced beings more than us came here?” 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 “more than equals’” laboratories. Who would?

    Furthermore, the word “equal” 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 can`t 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 don`t 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 another`s 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 one`s 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 “equal” 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 don`t 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.

  24. #149
    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
    Hi Mycernius. I have answered the questions but she hasn`t 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 Orwell`s 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 Maciamo`s 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 bear’s 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 someone`s 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 “equal” not appropriate in describing the rights of animals to integrity of body for another`s gain?
    Because “equal” 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 “what if advanced beings more than us came here?” 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 “more than equals’” laboratories. Who would?
    Furthermore, the word “equal” 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 can`t 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 don`t 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 another`s 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 one`s 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 “equal” 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 “equal” 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).

  25. #150
    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 Tokis-Phoenix
    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?
    I have already qualified that answer above.

    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 another`s 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 statement`s 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 “equal” 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.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-03-19, 15:12
  2. Animal Rights
    By Tsuyoiko in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 20-10-13, 23:41
  3. Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty
    By strongvoicesforward in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 17-06-06, 16:28
  4. Animal speech
    By RockLee in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22-05-06, 10:06

Posting Permissions

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