Amazing...
-
5. Otherwise we might as well perform painful experiments on cows and sheep and pigs and poultry before sending them off to the abattoir.
The point is I don't disagree that hurting ANY creature for the sake of it is unquestionalbly wrong but to conduct experiments that can prolong human life or make my children better or give me back my sight or hearing... Well that is something else altogether. I'm not saying it's right but neither will I say it is wrong and unless and until someone can show me that no animal experementation is required, at all, then it will retain my support.
viaduct wrote:
Otherwise we might as well perform painful experiments on cows and sheep and pigs and poultry before sending them off to the abattoir.
That's off point and misguided: most of the animals we eat are bred soley for that purpose: that in my mind, is far more cruel than a few experiments. However, I would not stop eating meat for any reason other than my doctor told me to. Apparently I'm having a rather nice spag-bol for dinner made with lean ground beef. Given the choice I'm sure the cow would rather be out chewing cud than lining my stomach. But that's life. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
digital 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
One must also remember that these were probably not "free range" hamsters captured in the rain forest. These specific animals were bred by humans purposely for medical experiments. (ie. they owe their lives to science). "If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done." - Peter Ustinov
-
digital 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
Blimey, where did all that come from? Perhaps you could suggest some other form of words which won't offend you in some way but allow me to convey my OPINION which I should be able to do without a vitriolic and childsih attack from you. I don't and won't deny you your point of view: why would you deny me mine?
Marc Clifton wrote:
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
Now I know you're being silly: I asked a not unreasonable question. If you have no answer then say nothing: don't attack me becuase I asked it; rather be good enough to come up with a proper answer instead of bile. BTW, I'd like to think that most scientists have scruples but the sad fact is that most research is funded and that means that they will use animlas because they are cheap, easy and numerous. But if you're happy to abandon all research... Maybe we'll wait and see until you get a bit older and things start going wrong or, heaven forbid, your child is ill and the only way to save them is through medicine developed through animal research. Would you turn it down? Of course you wont. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
The point is I don't disagree that hurting ANY creature for the sake of it is unquestionalbly wrong but to conduct experiments that can prolong human life or make my children better or give me back my sight or hearing... Well that is something else altogether. I'm not saying it's right but neither will I say it is wrong and unless and until someone can show me that no animal experementation is required, at all, then it will retain my support.
viaduct wrote:
Otherwise we might as well perform painful experiments on cows and sheep and pigs and poultry before sending them off to the abattoir.
That's off point and misguided: most of the animals we eat are bred soley for that purpose: that in my mind, is far more cruel than a few experiments. However, I would not stop eating meat for any reason other than my doctor told me to. Apparently I'm having a rather nice spag-bol for dinner made with lean ground beef. Given the choice I'm sure the cow would rather be out chewing cud than lining my stomach. But that's life. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comI'm not a vegetarian and I'm not totally opposed to animal experimentation, but my support isn't unconditional. 1M animals killed for the sake of one human's sight (as Ryan advocates) is far too much slaughter IMHO. Enjoy your spag-bol. :-)
-
The point is I don't disagree that hurting ANY creature for the sake of it is unquestionalbly wrong but to conduct experiments that can prolong human life or make my children better or give me back my sight or hearing... Well that is something else altogether. I'm not saying it's right but neither will I say it is wrong and unless and until someone can show me that no animal experementation is required, at all, then it will retain my support.
viaduct wrote:
Otherwise we might as well perform painful experiments on cows and sheep and pigs and poultry before sending them off to the abattoir.
That's off point and misguided: most of the animals we eat are bred soley for that purpose: that in my mind, is far more cruel than a few experiments. However, I would not stop eating meat for any reason other than my doctor told me to. Apparently I'm having a rather nice spag-bol for dinner made with lean ground beef. Given the choice I'm sure the cow would rather be out chewing cud than lining my stomach. But that's life. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
most of the animals we eat are bred soley for that purpose
Most of the experimental animals are done the same way, at least in the states. Not putting you down because I mostly agree, just an FYI. ------------------------------------- Do not do what has already been done. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.. but it ROCKS absolutely, too.
-
digital 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
Marc Clifton wrote:
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.
And yet you have no problem with killing animals for meat? Cheers, Vikram.
I don't know and you don't either. Militant Agnostic
-
Neat result but I'm uncomfortable with deliberately blinding animals to do research.
... how you can be lynch-voted for saying you're uncomfortable with deliberately blinding animals to do research. Cheers, Vikram.
I don't know and you don't either. Militant Agnostic
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
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.
And yet you have no problem with killing animals for meat? Cheers, Vikram.
I don't know and you don't either. Militant Agnostic
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
And yet you have no problem with killing animals for meat?
That's nature. Maiming animals for scientific research is man-made. Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
-
Blimey, where did all that come from? Perhaps you could suggest some other form of words which won't offend you in some way but allow me to convey my OPINION which I should be able to do without a vitriolic and childsih attack from you. I don't and won't deny you your point of view: why would you deny me mine?
Marc Clifton wrote:
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
Now I know you're being silly: I asked a not unreasonable question. If you have no answer then say nothing: don't attack me becuase I asked it; rather be good enough to come up with a proper answer instead of bile. BTW, I'd like to think that most scientists have scruples but the sad fact is that most research is funded and that means that they will use animlas because they are cheap, easy and numerous. But if you're happy to abandon all research... Maybe we'll wait and see until you get a bit older and things start going wrong or, heaven forbid, your child is ill and the only way to save them is through medicine developed through animal research. Would you turn it down? Of course you wont. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.comdigital man wrote:
which won't offend you in some way but allow me to convey my OPINION which I should be able to do without a vitriolic and childsih attack from you.
I don't deny your point of view, I was expressing mine. And yes, perhaps a bit too loud.
digital man wrote:
your child is ill and the only way to save them is through medicine developed through animal research. Would you turn it down? Of course you wont.
I'm not against the research per se, it's how the research is done that bothers me. Same thing with the cosmetics industry. When it was found out that cosmetics were tested on rabbits, it caused this huge backlash and now there are many products to choose from that are animal test-free. Although admittedly, many of those products use products that HAVE been previously tested on animals, but they can get away with that statement because the final product was never tested on animals, so it's hypocritical. Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
-
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
ihoecken wrote:
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?
I will volunteer for the sexual compatibility testing. :-> -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Ryan Roberts wrote:
I would sacrifice a million rodents to restore the sight of a single human being.
I strongly disagree. Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
Marc Clifton wrote:
I strongly disagree.
Yeah, dont blame you. Try working next to an abattoir and see what that does for your a). appetite for meat, and b). view of the meat industry. Animals used for experimentation (although I disagree with it unless absolutely neccesary) generally are treated much better than the walking corpses used for the meat industry. I'm not a raving veggie, but I don't eat much meat at all these days X| Phil Harding.
myBlog [^] | mySite [^] -
... how you can be lynch-voted for saying you're uncomfortable with deliberately blinding animals to do research. Cheers, Vikram.
I don't know and you don't either. Militant Agnostic
:shrug: There's nowt so strange as folk, Vikram. :-D
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
I strongly disagree.
Yeah, dont blame you. Try working next to an abattoir and see what that does for your a). appetite for meat, and b). view of the meat industry. Animals used for experimentation (although I disagree with it unless absolutely neccesary) generally are treated much better than the walking corpses used for the meat industry. I'm not a raving veggie, but I don't eat much meat at all these days X| Phil Harding.
myBlog [^] | mySite [^]Phil Harding wrote:
generally are treated much better than the walking corpses used for the meat industry.
That's true--they need to, to make sure the animals aren't loaded with junk that throws off the experimental results. I read something a long time ago about how test animals are treated vs. feed animals, the reasons why, and the question "which animal would you rather eat?" When I took a behind the scenes tour of the San Diego Zoo, somebody commented that the veggies the animals get look way better than what's at the grocery store. The zoo keeper said that's because the zoo gets first pick of all the produce so the animals stay healthy. What you see in the stores is the rejects. :~ Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
-
digital man wrote:
which won't offend you in some way but allow me to convey my OPINION which I should be able to do without a vitriolic and childsih attack from you.
I don't deny your point of view, I was expressing mine. And yes, perhaps a bit too loud.
digital man wrote:
your child is ill and the only way to save them is through medicine developed through animal research. Would you turn it down? Of course you wont.
I'm not against the research per se, it's how the research is done that bothers me. Same thing with the cosmetics industry. When it was found out that cosmetics were tested on rabbits, it caused this huge backlash and now there are many products to choose from that are animal test-free. Although admittedly, many of those products use products that HAVE been previously tested on animals, but they can get away with that statement because the final product was never tested on animals, so it's hypocritical. Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
Marc Clifton wrote:
Same thing with the cosmetics industry.
This part I am happy to agree with: this serves no purpose.
Marc Clifton wrote:
Although admittedly, many of those products use products that HAVE been previously tested on animals
Can't undo what's already been done and the culture of the time in which many of these experiments took place, like the world I grew up in, was very different and long gone. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
Not an unreasonable observation: the first time I heard the term nano-probe was from Data on an episode of Star Trek, TNG. Was that a Borg episode? www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
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
One - simple - question... What makes you so sure you are not already a 'human test animal'? If you beleive in a supreme being, I would find it rather interesting that you have not considered this possibility already. People that start writing code immediately are programmers (or hackers), people that ask questions first are Software Engineers - Graham Shanks
-
Not an unreasonable observation: the first time I heard the term nano-probe was from Data on an episode of Star Trek, TNG. Was that a Borg episode? www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
And yet you have no problem with killing animals for meat?
That's nature. Maiming animals for scientific research is man-made. Marc Pensieve Functional Entanglement vs. Code Entanglement Static Classes Make For Rigid Architectures
Marc Clifton wrote:
That's nature.
I view it as a choice. [shrug] Cheers, Vikram.
I don't know and you don't either. Militant Agnostic
-
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?
viaduct wrote:
pay for life-long care and support for a blind hamster
nah, just terminate it and burn the evidence. -- LOL just kidding. yeah, it's a tough situation. but if the blinding was done in a non-painful, humane way for the purpose of potentially helping blind people, then I'm all for it.