Amazing...
-
-
Neat result but I'm uncomfortable with deliberately blinding animals to do research.
-
Neat result but I'm uncomfortable with deliberately blinding animals to do research.
-
Neat result but I'm uncomfortable with deliberately blinding animals to do research.
viaduct wrote:
I'm uncomfortable with deliberately blinding animals to do research.
Ack!
viaduct wrote:
Neat result
And Brian did it 2000 years ago. :) ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game
-
Because they could use you. :-D ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game
-
Because they could use you. :-D ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game
It was a serious question: I have trouble understanding people's reluctance to use animals for medical research. The benefits to be derived from this particular research could be far-reaching, helping many people and whilst I personally hate the thought of hurting animals for any reason I can see why this is necessary. Unless you could suggest an alternative way of conducting this research that would enable the same advances to accrue? www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
It was a serious question: I have trouble understanding people's reluctance to use animals for medical research. The benefits to be derived from this particular research could be far-reaching, helping many people and whilst I personally hate the thought of hurting animals for any reason I can see why this is necessary. Unless you could suggest an alternative way of conducting this research that would enable the same advances to accrue? www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
I have trouble understanding people's reluctance to use animals for medical research.
Suppose it hadn't worked? We'd have had to pay for life-long care and support for a blind hamster. Where would you draw the line - would it be acceptable to blind 10 or 100 or 1,000 or 1,000,000 hamsters in the pursuit of this line of research? Suppose you maimed all those animals and it turned out to be a blind alley and they had been abused for no gain?
-
It was a serious question: I have trouble understanding people's reluctance to use animals for medical research. The benefits to be derived from this particular research could be far-reaching, helping many people and whilst I personally hate the thought of hurting animals for any reason I can see why this is necessary. Unless you could suggest an alternative way of conducting this research that would enable the same advances to accrue? www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comAnimals are used to test makeup and many medicine where it's not necessary to hurt or kill animals. In most cases it's even more efficient and meaningful to use human cells. In cases of nerves to re-grew it's most times enough to test with human cells. In a special case (perhaps like this) it might be necessary to test with animals. Of course you are right. When a medicine or complementary medicine can't be found without the use of animal experiments I won't argue against them, anyway the most experiments aren't necessary. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game
-
digital man wrote:
I have trouble understanding people's reluctance to use animals for medical research.
Suppose it hadn't worked? We'd have had to pay for life-long care and support for a blind hamster. Where would you draw the line - would it be acceptable to blind 10 or 100 or 1,000 or 1,000,000 hamsters in the pursuit of this line of research? Suppose you maimed all those animals and it turned out to be a blind alley and they had been abused for no gain?
Good point. There's another one. It's a German proverb, I try to translate it: things you don't want to be done with you, you shouldn't do with others. (Original text: Das du nicht willst, das Dir man tu, das füg auch keinem andern zu) Maybe someone will argue now: ok they are just animals and humans life is more precious - well if some aliens would come or a higher race will grew on earth, do you like to be an "human test animal" for them? They might be higher developed and so they will take humans for animals. Quotation from Bloodhound gang: You and me baby ain't nothin' but mammals... :) Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game -- modified at 7:31 Tuesday 14th March, 2006
-
digital man wrote:
I have trouble understanding people's reluctance to use animals for medical research.
Suppose it hadn't worked? We'd have had to pay for life-long care and support for a blind hamster. Where would you draw the line - would it be acceptable to blind 10 or 100 or 1,000 or 1,000,000 hamsters in the pursuit of this line of research? Suppose you maimed all those animals and it turned out to be a blind alley and they had been abused for no gain?
I gave you a 5 for a very funny riposte: well put! www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
Animals are used to test makeup and many medicine where it's not necessary to hurt or kill animals. In most cases it's even more efficient and meaningful to use human cells. In cases of nerves to re-grew it's most times enough to test with human cells. In a special case (perhaps like this) it might be necessary to test with animals. Of course you are right. When a medicine or complementary medicine can't be found without the use of animal experiments I won't argue against them, anyway the most experiments aren't necessary. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game
Most animal test are carried out because of legislation. I would however mention thalidomide. The tigress is here :-D
-
Neat result but I'm uncomfortable with deliberately blinding animals to do research.
Is it better if you eat them afterwards? They probably make good kebabs. Personaly, I would sacrifice a million rodents to restore the sight of a single human being. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Is it better if you eat them afterwards? They probably make good kebabs. Personaly, I would sacrifice a million rodents to restore the sight of a single human being. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Another good point with which I whole-heartedly agree. Maybe barring the hamster eating part. Maybe they're like soft-shelled crabs and you just pop a cooked one in your mouth, bite and swallow? Did try hedgehog once. Not bad. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
Another good point with which I whole-heartedly agree. Maybe barring the hamster eating part. Maybe they're like soft-shelled crabs and you just pop a cooked one in your mouth, bite and swallow? Did try hedgehog once. Not bad. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comWell it's one point to eat animals giving them a death free from pain. But it's another point to hurt a living being. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game
-
Is it better if you eat them afterwards? They probably make good kebabs. Personaly, I would sacrifice a million rodents to restore the sight of a single human being. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Personaly, I would sacrifice a million rodents to restore the sight of a single human being.
Would you ask this single human being whether they wanted a million animals killed in their name before setting out on your gore-fest?
-
Well it's one point to eat animals giving them a death free from pain. But it's another point to hurt a living being. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game
5. Otherwise we might as well perform painful experiments on cows and sheep and pigs and poultry before sending them off to the abattoir.
-
Another good point with which I whole-heartedly agree. Maybe barring the hamster eating part. Maybe they're like soft-shelled crabs and you just pop a cooked one in your mouth, bite and swallow? Did try hedgehog once. Not bad. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
Did try hedgehog once. Not bad.
Cool, that's one on my list. I was raised a vegetarian, so my part of my adolescent rebellion was to start eating meat. I'm now determined to consume as many different species of animal as possible before I snuff it, sort of like a noah's ark project. Must go squirrel hunting soon, though will have to be careful as I live in a neighbourhood full of hippies and the only things permitted to eat meat are their cats :) Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
Personaly, I would sacrifice a million rodents to restore the sight of a single human being.
Would you ask this single human being whether they wanted a million animals killed in their name before setting out on your gore-fest?
If it was so simple in real life, yep. Nothing better than forcing animal rights types to stick their life (or that of their children) where their mouth is. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
Well it's one point to eat animals giving them a death free from pain. But it's another point to hurt a living being. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ PROST Roleplaying Game
ihoecken wrote:
Well it's one point to eat animals giving them a death free from pain.
Erm, getting electrocuted and your throat cut is probably quite painful, certainly not my idea of a nice peaceful death. More so if you are unfortunate enough to be butchered in conformance with Halal or Kosha laws. Meat is murder. Ryan
"Michael Moore and Mel Gibson are the same person, except for a few sit-ups. Moore thought his cheesy political blooper reel was going to tell people how to vote. Mel thought that his little gay SM movie about his imaginary friend was going to help him get to heaven." - Penn Jillette
-
It was a serious question: I have trouble understanding people's reluctance to use animals for medical research. The benefits to be derived from this particular research could be far-reaching, helping many people and whilst I personally hate the thought of hurting animals for any reason I can see why this is necessary. Unless you could suggest an alternative way of conducting this research that would enable the same advances to accrue? www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
The benefits to be derived from this particular research could be far-reaching, helping many people and whilst I personally hate the thought of hurting animals for any reason I can see why this is necessary.
It's interesting how you combine words like "necessary" and "helping" of one species when talking about cruelty to another. Just because a hamster doesn't say "ow" or "no, nice mister scientist, I would prefer not to be blinded" makes it somehow ok. There are a lot of prisoners who've committed heinous crimes sitting on death row, why not experiment on those? Hmmm? What about all the retarded people in the world? They won't notice, right? What about people you might hate, like Jews? Oh wait, been there, done that.
digital man wrote:
Unless you could suggest an alternative way of conducting this research that would enable the same advances to accrue?
Ah yes, the "if you're so smart..." comeback. Ridiculous. If scientists had any scruples, they *would* find different solutions. But animals are cheap, easy, and numerous. Why worry about the animal? After all, it's in the Bible, that God gave us all the animals to rule over. X| Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures