Maybe there's hope yet...
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
....that those of you that won't accept the wrongness of animal research
"Wrongness?" What's that? Where do you get off making such moral claims -- specifically, where do you get off asserting that any human has any moral obligation to any animal?
Actually my real argument is about the bad science of it. I am really not so interested in the moral argument - like arguing about God, it gets you nowhere. People will believe what they will. But science can be argued about, and there is plenty of evidence to argue that vivisection is bad science.
-
digital man wrote:
sounds like the sort of guff that PETA puts out
But it isn't, is it? A lot - really, a lot - of scientists would love to see scientifically valid alternatives to animal testing - each for their own reasons - and there is a lot of serious work going on towards finding them.
digital man wrote:
no one is going to be that bothered by it:
Actually, a lot of epople are - even if they do still use such drugs it still bothers a lot of poeple. Perhaps if you wer in a plane crash in the Himalayas and had nothing to eat but the body of your dead mother, you would eat her - despite being bothered by it. You really have got to get over this idea that just because someone may be hypocritical in how they live their life that it invalidates their argument. Many people can't "walk the talk" but a) there are others that can, and b) even so - you should base your decisions on the value of an argument in its own right, not on whether some individual is able to live up to it or not. That is just a cheap and easy way for you to escape the argument. Just because some poeple advocate not using animals to test drugs, but then use them to alleviate their own pain, does not alter the arguement for or against it. Perhapos if we weren't so reliant on animal-testing there would be more alternatives available for people who are bothered by such things. Just as in the (real life) cases where it isn't fair to condemn plane crash survivors for eating the bosies of those around them who died, it really isn't fair to condemn people for giving in to what may be excruciating pain. I don't take common pain-killers for a headache but I can't say I would never give in to pain-relief, if it was bad enough. I would like to, but I may not be that strong if it came to it. But I would never take any other drug that had been tested on animals, even if ti was claimed it would save my life. If that makes me a fool or a hypocrite so be it - I still stand by my argument that vivisection is bad science and a reflection of a bad morality of which I do not want to be a part of. As a slight aside: it is well-known that marijuana is a great pain-reliever for MS sufferers (and others) - yet the law won't allow it. It forces them to take less-effective (often quite useless) animal-tested drugs instead. How dumb is that?
Fred_Smith wrote:
You really have got to get over this idea that just because someone may be hypocritical in how they live their life that it invalidates their argument.
You can't have it all ways: you're saying that no matter what, anyone that disagrees with the notion of animal testing is wrong. That is the sort of attitude that turns people away from the real issues: arrogance is annoying at best, downright irritating at worst.
Fred_Smith wrote:
If that makes me a fool or a hypocrite so be it - I still stand by my argument that vivisection is bad science and a reflection of a bad morality of which I do not want to be a part of.
Yes it does and you probably are and you make me want to go and kill an animal just to annoy you.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
You really have got to get over this idea that just because someone may be hypocritical in how they live their life that it invalidates their argument.
You can't have it all ways: you're saying that no matter what, anyone that disagrees with the notion of animal testing is wrong. That is the sort of attitude that turns people away from the real issues: arrogance is annoying at best, downright irritating at worst.
Fred_Smith wrote:
If that makes me a fool or a hypocrite so be it - I still stand by my argument that vivisection is bad science and a reflection of a bad morality of which I do not want to be a part of.
Yes it does and you probably are and you make me want to go and kill an animal just to annoy you.
digital man wrote:
you're saying that no matter what, anyone that disagrees with the notion of animal testing is wrong
And what are you saying, if not the exact opposite? Anyway, all I'm saying I think it wrong. Excuse me for breathing.
digital man wrote:
you probably are and you make me want to go and kill an animal just to annoy you
And what does that make you then? Grow up.
-
digital man wrote:
you're saying that no matter what, anyone that disagrees with the notion of animal testing is wrong
And what are you saying, if not the exact opposite? Anyway, all I'm saying I think it wrong. Excuse me for breathing.
digital man wrote:
you probably are and you make me want to go and kill an animal just to annoy you
And what does that make you then? Grow up.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Excuse me for breathing.
You're excused.
Fred_Smith wrote:
And what does that make you then? Grow up.
No, hungry.
-
Actually my real argument is about the bad science of it. I am really not so interested in the moral argument - like arguing about God, it gets you nowhere. People will believe what they will. But science can be argued about, and there is plenty of evidence to argue that vivisection is bad science.
Fred_Smith wrote:
Actually my real argument is about the bad science of it. I am really not so interested in the moral argument ...
I remind you that you began your post with a moral assertion: "....that those of you that won't accept the wrongness of animal research ... " I remind you that you said to Digital_Man: "I still stand by my argument that vivisection is bad science and a reflection of a bad morality of which I do not want to be a part of." I point out to you that you want to dictate you own strange conceptions of morality onto others, all the while denying that you are attempting to do such a thing.
Fred_Smith wrote:
I am really not so interested in the moral argument - like arguing about God, it gets you nowhere.
Really? What an interesting attitude!
Fred_Smith wrote:
But science can be argued about, and there is plenty of evidence to argue that vivisection is bad science.
"Science" isn't even *about* truth ... and, because of the need to protect 'modern evolutionary theory' from criticism, increasingly it isn't even about reason. How can one argue absent reason? ========== But let us pretend that someone does actually attend to whatever argument you have (I haven't seen one presented). And let us pretend that that person's response is: "Yes, I understand exactly what you're saying, but I just don't give a shit." What will you do? How will you respond? Why, of course, by asserting another moral claim --- which you claim you're not interested in making. In fact, even now, even as you're claiming to be making no moral argument and claiming to be uninterested in making one, you are advancing a hidden moral assertion -- Your assertion is that vivisection (*) is or produces "bad science" (which assertion is not established) and therefore we *ought not* do (or allow!) vivisection. Everything important or interesting always comes down to morality, in the end. (*) How odd. "Animal research" in the first post is suddenly "vivisection" in this post.
modified on Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:31:12 AM
-
I'm unconvinced by this: sounds like the sort of guff that PETA puts out. I think a more useful comparison might be to look at the efficacy or otherwise of drugs tested with and without animals. The sad fact is that where a drug cures or alleviates a disease and was tested on animals no one is going to be that bothered by it: certainly if I was so afflicted and was offered drugs the testing of which had harmed animals I would take them without hesitation. So would any sane person. Anyone who says they wouldn't take that drug where it might save them from pain and suffering is either a liar or a fool.
digital man wrote:
Anyone who says they wouldn't take that drug where it might save them from pain and suffering is either a liar or a fool.
Really? I think that only a fool would make such an absolutist claim about others; judging others to be fools (or liars) based on apparently nothing but his own faulty conceptions.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Actually my real argument is about the bad science of it. I am really not so interested in the moral argument ...
I remind you that you began your post with a moral assertion: "....that those of you that won't accept the wrongness of animal research ... " I remind you that you said to Digital_Man: "I still stand by my argument that vivisection is bad science and a reflection of a bad morality of which I do not want to be a part of." I point out to you that you want to dictate you own strange conceptions of morality onto others, all the while denying that you are attempting to do such a thing.
Fred_Smith wrote:
I am really not so interested in the moral argument - like arguing about God, it gets you nowhere.
Really? What an interesting attitude!
Fred_Smith wrote:
But science can be argued about, and there is plenty of evidence to argue that vivisection is bad science.
"Science" isn't even *about* truth ... and, because of the need to protect 'modern evolutionary theory' from criticism, increasingly it isn't even about reason. How can one argue absent reason? ========== But let us pretend that someone does actually attend to whatever argument you have (I haven't seen one presented). And let us pretend that that person's response is: "Yes, I understand exactly what you're saying, but I just don't give a shit." What will you do? How will you respond? Why, of course, by asserting another moral claim --- which you claim you're not interested in making. In fact, even now, even as you're claiming to be making no moral argument and claiming to be uninterested in making one, you are advancing a hidden moral assertion -- Your assertion is that vivisection (*) is or produces "bad science" (which assertion is not established) and therefore we *ought not* do (or allow!) vivisection. Everything important or interesting always comes down to morality, in the end. (*) How odd. "Animal research" in the first post is suddenly "vivisection" in this post.
modified on Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:31:12 AM
I am not say8ing I have no a moral view on the subject, just that I am not particularly interested in arguing about it. And since when does stating ones view on something become "dictating to others"?
Ilíon wrote:
"Science" isn't even *about* truth ... and, because of the need to protect 'modern evolutionary theory' from criticism, increasingly it isn't even about reason.
OK, you're a nut. Goodbye.
-
I am not say8ing I have no a moral view on the subject, just that I am not particularly interested in arguing about it. And since when does stating ones view on something become "dictating to others"?
Ilíon wrote:
"Science" isn't even *about* truth ... and, because of the need to protect 'modern evolutionary theory' from criticism, increasingly it isn't even about reason.
OK, you're a nut. Goodbye.
Fred_Smith wrote:
OK, you're a nut. Goodbye.
No. You're apparently a Science-worshipper ... and one of the quickest ways to get rid of a Science-worshipper is to point to the fact that this 'science' thingie isn't even about truth. I, on the other hand, know what I'm talking about.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
OK, you're a nut. Goodbye.
No. You're apparently a Science-worshipper ... and one of the quickest ways to get rid of a Science-worshipper is to point to the fact that this 'science' thingie isn't even about truth. I, on the other hand, know what I'm talking about.
Ilíon wrote:
and one of the quickest ways to get rid of a Science-worshipper is to point to the fact that this 'science' thingie isn't even about truth. I, on the other hand, know what I'm talking about.
Wow, you just completely demolished him. That was cruel.
-
Fred_Smith wrote:
Actually my real argument is about the bad science of it. I am really not so interested in the moral argument ...
I remind you that you began your post with a moral assertion: "....that those of you that won't accept the wrongness of animal research ... " I remind you that you said to Digital_Man: "I still stand by my argument that vivisection is bad science and a reflection of a bad morality of which I do not want to be a part of." I point out to you that you want to dictate you own strange conceptions of morality onto others, all the while denying that you are attempting to do such a thing.
Fred_Smith wrote:
I am really not so interested in the moral argument - like arguing about God, it gets you nowhere.
Really? What an interesting attitude!
Fred_Smith wrote:
But science can be argued about, and there is plenty of evidence to argue that vivisection is bad science.
"Science" isn't even *about* truth ... and, because of the need to protect 'modern evolutionary theory' from criticism, increasingly it isn't even about reason. How can one argue absent reason? ========== But let us pretend that someone does actually attend to whatever argument you have (I haven't seen one presented). And let us pretend that that person's response is: "Yes, I understand exactly what you're saying, but I just don't give a shit." What will you do? How will you respond? Why, of course, by asserting another moral claim --- which you claim you're not interested in making. In fact, even now, even as you're claiming to be making no moral argument and claiming to be uninterested in making one, you are advancing a hidden moral assertion -- Your assertion is that vivisection (*) is or produces "bad science" (which assertion is not established) and therefore we *ought not* do (or allow!) vivisection. Everything important or interesting always comes down to morality, in the end. (*) How odd. "Animal research" in the first post is suddenly "vivisection" in this post.
modified on Thursday, December 20, 2007 8:31:12 AM
Ilíon wrote:
because of the need to protect 'modern evolutionary theory' from criticism
This cracks me up every time I hear it. True science doesn't care what the story is, it just wants to know what it is. Evolution is currently the best explanation for what we see in nature. There is no need to 'protect' it, and who do you image is doing the protecting anyway? Creation 'science' has done nothing but perfect their ability to turn arguments around. Science has no vested interest in making sure that the current view is preserved. Religion on the other hand has everything to loose. Science looks for answers to what we see. Creation 'science' looks to discredit any science they see as a threat to their beliefs. I don't think God ever intended for people to try to prove anything in the book scientifically any more than he wanted people to try to disprove anything in the book. Animals with a mouthful of sharp pointy teeth all ate grass before the fall. Talk about a lack of reason. But I don't remember anything in the Bible stating that all animals were herbivores, just people. And actually, I don't remember it even saying that, only that "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Ilíon wrote:
because of the need to protect 'modern evolutionary theory' from criticism
This cracks me up every time I hear it. True science doesn't care what the story is, it just wants to know what it is. Evolution is currently the best explanation for what we see in nature. There is no need to 'protect' it, and who do you image is doing the protecting anyway? Creation 'science' has done nothing but perfect their ability to turn arguments around. Science has no vested interest in making sure that the current view is preserved. Religion on the other hand has everything to loose. Science looks for answers to what we see. Creation 'science' looks to discredit any science they see as a threat to their beliefs. I don't think God ever intended for people to try to prove anything in the book scientifically any more than he wanted people to try to disprove anything in the book. Animals with a mouthful of sharp pointy teeth all ate grass before the fall. Talk about a lack of reason. But I don't remember anything in the Bible stating that all animals were herbivores, just people. And actually, I don't remember it even saying that, only that "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things."
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Go away, kiddie. This 'science' thingie you kiddies worship isn't about truth -- you've just admitted this. Now, go away. Your childishness annoys me.
By all means, don't address the issue. Wow, that was an outstanding display of creation 'science' argumentation.
Ilíon wrote:
This 'science' thingie
:confused:
Ilíon wrote:
you kiddies worship
Don't pretend to know what I worship
Ilíon wrote:
isn't about truth
You're the only one talking about 'truth'
Ilíon wrote:
you've just admitted this
Liar.
Ilíon wrote:
Now, go away
No
Ilíon wrote:
Your childishness
You're misguided view
Ilíon wrote:
annoys me
Whooptie doo
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
By all means, don't address the issue. Wow, that was an outstanding display of creation 'science' argumentation.
Ilíon wrote:
This 'science' thingie
:confused:
Ilíon wrote:
you kiddies worship
Don't pretend to know what I worship
Ilíon wrote:
isn't about truth
You're the only one talking about 'truth'
Ilíon wrote:
you've just admitted this
Liar.
Ilíon wrote:
Now, go away
No
Ilíon wrote:
Your childishness
You're misguided view
Ilíon wrote:
annoys me
Whooptie doo
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Liar.
With all the lies he tells I guess he hasn't read this verse. Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
modified on Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:01:34 PM
-
By all means, don't address the issue. Wow, that was an outstanding display of creation 'science' argumentation.
Ilíon wrote:
This 'science' thingie
:confused:
Ilíon wrote:
you kiddies worship
Don't pretend to know what I worship
Ilíon wrote:
isn't about truth
You're the only one talking about 'truth'
Ilíon wrote:
you've just admitted this
Liar.
Ilíon wrote:
Now, go away
No
Ilíon wrote:
Your childishness
You're misguided view
Ilíon wrote:
annoys me
Whooptie doo
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
You've already confirmed the two statements I made. There is nothing more that needs discussed. So, go away.
So you concede. I accept your surrender. Pleasure doing business with ya.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
So you concede. I accept your surrender. Pleasure doing business with ya.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
-