Animals Animal testing, your feelings?

("AT stands for "animal tested" or "animal testing").

  • I wouldn?ft take AT (whatever the animal)medicine/treatments even if my life depended on it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I would take AT (whatever the animal) medicine/treatments if my life depended on it.

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • I would take AT medicine/treatments if I was in great discomfort but my life wasn?ft at stake.

    Votes: 8 42.1%
  • I would any AT medicines/treatments if I felt I needed them.

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • I wouldn?ft support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments even if they needed it badly.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I would support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments if they needed it badly.

    Votes: 9 47.4%
  • I would support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments depending on the situation.

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • I wouldn?ft use AT animal hygiene products whatever they were- would rather live in dirt.

    Votes: 4 21.1%
  • I would only use some AT hygiene products but only if I really needed them.

    Votes: 7 36.8%
  • I would use any AT hygiene products If they were good/I needed them.

    Votes: 4 21.1%
  • I wouldn?ft support AT for warfare/weapons even if my countries survival depended on them.

    Votes: 6 31.6%
  • I would support some AT for warfare/weapons if they would save loads of my peoples lives in war.

    Votes: 9 47.4%
  • I would support AT for warfare/weapons if it enabled us to kick the enemies ass.

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • I would support any AT for warfare/weapons.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • All AT is wrong whatever the animal involved.

    Votes: 3 15.8%
  • Most of AT is wrong whatever the animal involved.

    Votes: 3 15.8%
  • AT is only wrong if the animal is intelligent(like an ape).

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • Most AT is ok, but sometimes wrong.

    Votes: 7 36.8%
  • AT is generally ok in my opinion.

    Votes: 5 26.3%
  • Other?c

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • Total voters
    19
strongvoicesforward said:
lol.
You still are behind in answering mine.
I answered your "if" question and you still have not reciprocated the courtesy of answering my question about the retarded children or the fatali accompli in regards to German companies that had profitted from Jewish slave labor.
-- not to mentioned you misquoted me with your "barb wire" comment. But, it was nice to see you finally acknowledged that ARists who engage in liberationist activities do risk their lives.

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


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

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

strongvoicesforward said:
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.

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.


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


Robin Hood is a fairy tale, a myth- please distinguish between real events and fairy tales. I suppose you will try and use king arthur or somthing next ;) .
 
Seems you are desperately trying to find something to reply; You still didn't answer my last question either. I'd like it if you actually use arguements, not return the questions.
 
RockLee said:
Seems you are desperately trying to find something to reply; You still didn't answer my last question either. I'd like it if you actually use arguements, not return the questions.

Nope, not "desperately trying to find something to reply" at all, rather enjoying this thread with the guy who thinks a hamster should have the same rights as a billion people (i can't even start to write what is wrong with that, unless you really want me to) and the animal rights activist who just came back from an operation (what troubled you that caused you needed an operation by the way dear SVF?).
I'm not just returning questions either, i've used plenty of arguements (like the fact that many animals themselves cannot use morality at all which makes them less equal to us). If you can argue against that statement, like an animal like a rat can feel and show morality towards beings that don't directly personally interest it, then please go ahead.
Also, i have answered your question- if you want me to go deeper into it with you with have to give a particular circumstance, as i have mentioned to SVF, i'm generally not one for answering vague/broad questions that could apply to thousands of thinge etc...
 
Tokis-Phoenix-
I'm not certain that I am completely following the flow of this discussion. I too believe that humans are significantly more valuable than animals. I also have a heirarchy of which animals are worth more than others. As Maciamo's last post pointed out, there seems to be little reasoning for this value system, but I am still of the opinion that any human life is more valuable than Hamtaro the Hamster. Not only am I willing to test on animals to preserve human life, I am willing to allow it for our safety and certain conveniences as well. This is definitely a topic worth exploring.
 
In most peoples minds small, cuddly animals hold a higher rank above less cute animals.
Rabbits=cute and so more people object to testing on them
Rats= not so cute so less people care about them
Fruit fies=Ugly little brutes which nobody really cares, but are one of the most used animals for testing on, mainly because of their life cycle speed.

It isn't really down to moral objections for a lot of people, more down to looks and the 'Awww' factor. Sounds cynical doesn't it. but that is the real truth about it.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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?
strongvoicesforward said:
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=title
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&q=define:ownership&btnG=Search&meta=cr=countryUK|countryGB
A guardian is basically somone who holds responsability over somone or somthing, but does own them;
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=define:guardian&btnG=Search&meta=cr=countryUK|countryGB
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.
strongvoicesforward said:
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?
strongvoicesforward said:
Many? I think I may have counted two names that supported it. What is your definition of "many"?
Since its only an article, how about 500 scientists and doctors who actually voted for the continuation of animal testing;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_4180000/newsid_4180500/4180572.stm
strongvoicesforward said:
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 ;) .
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
strongvoicesforward said:
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?
 
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, ?gtake them to the experimental room?h?

Tokis-Phoenix said:
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 ?gyes?h and maybe ?gno?h in regards to testing on retarded children. ?gYes?h and ?gNo?h cancel each other out and that leaves us with ?gmaybe,?h which your answer is an affirmative ?gYes?h for 50% of the time. Of course my analogy/hypothetical question is in the paradigm of testing that causes suffering and eventually death because that is the purview of this discussion in the recent series of posts.

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

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

The ?gterms of rent for tenants?h 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 ?gif?h question with a ?gvague/broad?h question without any ?gevidence to back it up?h (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 ?gavoid?h the ?gif?h game by asking for things that are not vague (of which the situation posed to you is not vague) because it shows your logic to be lacking in the application of it.

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

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

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

and

you wrote to RockLee another scenario we are waiting for you to provide a ?gtrue example?h ?gbacked-up?h ?gwith evidence?h that has ?gactually happened?h:

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

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

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

You see, that is what happens when you get into playing hypothetical ?gif?h games. It is ok to do so, but once you start asking to play the game it is unfair to then ask for evidence to support them because they are ?gHYPOTHETICAL,?h but then it is even more rude (not to mention discourtious to ignore the others?f ?gif?h 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?
 
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.​

Tokis-Phoenix said:
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 ?gexchange?h 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]).
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Then maybe ?gyes?h and maybe ?gno?h in regards to testing on retarded children. ?gYes?h and ?gNo?h cancel each other out and that leaves us with ?gmaybe,?h which your answer is an affirmative ?gYes?h for 50% of the time. Of course my analogy/hypothetical question is in the paradigm of testing that causes suffering and eventually death because that is the purview of this discussion in the recent series of posts.
And, of course it is a different topic! It is an analogy!! Analogies jump topics because it is their parallelisms that outline strong or falty logic. Logic is supposed to cut across the spectrum of prejudice and topics -- hence the construct of analogies do not need to be in the same topic.
Look:
The Bible is a covenant between Bible God and his believers. Agree to the covenant and you will be granted permission into his Kingdom.
The ?gterms of rent for tenants?h 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 ?gif?h question with a ?gvague/broad?h question without any ?gevidence to back it up?h (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 ?gavoid?h the ?gif?h game by asking for things that are not vague (of which the situation posed to you is not vague) because it shows your logic to be lacking in the application of it.
And more of your questions which you asked of RockLee which you have not provided any evidence that someone was ever faced with the prospect of ?glooking a dying person in the eyes and tell them they must protect the rights of a mouse?h:
Cite the instance that scenario has ever happened or presented itself?
and
you wrote to RockLee another scenario we are waiting for you to provide a ?gtrue example?h ?gbacked-up?h ?gwith evidence?h that has ?gactually happened?h:
Where are your ?gtrue examples backed up with evidence?h Tokis-Pheonix that these choices have come to someone? Do you have an example of a doctor coming into a room and saying, ?gMr. Jones, your mother is dying. But first I need to know if you would rather have us save her or this mouse we have in this cage over here??h
Of course you can`t -- BECAUSE they are hypothetical!
You see, that is what happens when you get into playing hypothetical ?gif?h games. It is ok to do so, but once you start asking to play the game it is unfair to then ask for evidence to support them because they are ?gHYPOTHETICAL,?h but then it is even more rude (not to mention discourtious to ignore the others?f ?gif?h 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?
 
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.


Tokis=Phoenix said:
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 ?ghyothetical?h -- which your ?gif?h question cases ARE NOT REAL case scenarios. Whether it is a fairy tale or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the ?gromanticising?h of actions which is what YOU objected to. If ?greal events?h are what you are concerned with, then why bring them up when you wrote ?gYou can pretend ...?h ?gPretend?h 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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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 ?gexchange?h 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).
 
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?
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.



strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
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?
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
 
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).
 

This thread has been viewed 92728 times.

Back
Top