Animal Testing - Let it carry on? [Closes 06/03/07]

omg - can't believe I missed this gem!

"4) we do know animals arent clever, and we know there not capable of communication. So back to the real world please."

i must have been in cloud cuckoo land when my dog picked up her lead and dropped it at my feet after I mentioned the word 'walk' in a conversation
maybe the police are fooling themselves by using sniffer dogs to seek out narcotics? maybe the scientists (whom you seem to place in such high esteem) are just lying about the discovery of complex and intelligent cetacean communication etc

yeah - I don't live on planet earth - I'm off in space with a bunch of super-intelligent aliens who think that humans are the best thing since er... since...er... what was that amazing invention again?

in one breath you say that animals are nothing more than walking toasters and then in the next you make a point that humans are animals?

are we all toasters? are we all appliances that are to be used and discarded at a whim? or do you reserve that treatment for living creatures that might have difficulty inventing atom bombs?

I'm truly scared by some of your conclusions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dog-egg

1) I KNOW humans are animals - if I'd said 'without tigers on this planet...' would it have meant I was saying tigers aren't animals? doh
2) Yes they are part of the environment - taking it over, ruining it, propagating with an alarming lack of control for such a superior self-aware animal ;P

---

Ok, so you dont understand how an environment works i take it? at least not above a primary school level?
Do you understand food chains? Aka food pyramids?

We have basic environment, animals move in, and will slowly adapt to best suit it, by the normal food chain normalition process's no animal can truely dominate another. If there are less rabbits, fox's wont be able to find food. they die. if there are more rabbits, fox population growns, they get eaten down to a lower level, again fox's have no food, die off. This always happens.

Humans as i said, and you agreed are animals, we fit in to the same food chains, where at the top, are intelligence is an asset, it is an evolutionary adaption which allows us to have that top spot, although the actual phiscal capability's of humans do tend to be highly underestimated. If humans dont have enough food, we die. We use are intellegence to make sure we do have enough food, thats why it evolved in us the first time. Animals then adapt to this, they have, we teraform are envirment, animals again adapt, as they have to all other changes in the enviroment, and its false that other animals dont terraform in some way, building a burrow is the same thing, simply on a lesser scale. So my point is, destroying an enviroment is really a bit of a contradction in terms, you can only change it, We can nuke and irrade every squre inch, we still wont destroy it, animals will surive, cocroaches as the common exsample, eveolve adapt. Its how the worlds worked since life first began.

So no, where not irrisoponible, where simply doing what every other animal does, surviveing by the means made avaible to us. Which is what my comment about humans being animals ment, that we are not exstenral to this process, simply another part.

Quote:

---

3) 'Most' is untrue - which animals are you basing this on? If you're thinking about creatures like foxes killing chickens then you should maybe study them a bit more closely because you'll find that they take any chickens that they can't eat and bury them so that they can survive the winter... that sounds like a plan to eat it to me - how about you, or did your eyes and ears seize up at birth? ;)

---

Lets sea, all types of shark, orca's like to kill animals, cats like to kill animals, you can watch them playing with a mouse, often they wont eat it, its just the natraul instincts to home there skills, the animal suffers* alot, not the quick painless death they get otherwise.
Now, humans dont kill unessary, we are quite conservate, we kill what we need to surive, (unless your a serial killer at least). Surival, is in terms of food, and testing on animals, by treateing desise we exsent are life spans, again the aim of all life, and a vertue of our intellegnce. When we kill aditional animals, population control, that is again for our surival, if animals over populate, there will be more desase, if there to scarse we cant get the food, we need. If theres to many fox's, they eat the food WE need. Its survival.

*Suffering in animals is also up for debate, ill cover in next part.

Quote:

---

4) When was the last time you were out measuring suffering? Come to think of it, what prey have you dealt with recently? - not a lot unless you actually go out and catch your own food which btw I think is an excellent idea. So keeping domesticated animals in tiny spaces and feeding them reconstituted ****** for their lifespan causes less suffering than a relatively short kill by a predator?

---

1) stop watching propergander, go to a real farm and get a clue on this one.

2) a cat will play with a mouse for hours, slowly killing it, letting it bleed to death.
a cow, will be killed in under a second, a bolt to the brain, quick painless.

You see the differnce here?

Quote:

---

6) I think this one is my favourite :D
So what you're saying is that you doubt that I understand what language is, and therefore you deem me incapable of communicating on your level in a debate on how it's acquired?

---

Well yes and no. By your anwer youve proven you dont know what i was talking about, which is the yes. And also the no is the fact, that your responce has nothing to do with what true language aquisiotion actualy is.

Hence meaning i was right in avioding going to this debate aria. If you do want to engadge in the debate, i would suggest reading up on a texts about theory of mind, if you dont have a clue what substance duleism, functionism etc, you cant really engadge in this aria. It would be just as pointless as someone entering in to a debate on the finer points of music with me, since i for one know **** all on the subject.

Quote:

---

Hmmmm - you wouldn't by any chance be feeling superior there would you? Maybe you're thinking (assuming actually) that a lack of knowledge of a subject matter on my part would mean that I would be unable to offer any rational or valid thoughts?

---

no, it would mean id have to do one hell of alot of explaing, i cant be arsed to do, in order to actualy give you the understanding needed to have a clue what i go on about, in the correct contexts.

Quote:

---

Oh, and isn't language something like a bunch of sonic or visual gestures used to represent concepts and to communicate? Maybe something that has developed as part of the social interaction of a species through the generations, being passed down and evolving over time?

---

The issue is in language aquistion, not with its existance.

Quote:

---

Ever notice that scientists have discovered that some other animals even have senses that humans don't have? Ever wonder if they might communicate through means that we have yet to find?

---

yes, no.
We know other animals have exstended sensory ranges to us, its irrelivent. We know what sences they do have, so no there is not one where yet to find.

How you communicate is irrelivent, if modifed a dogs vocal cords to allow it to perform all arias of human speach, it still count comprihend, interpite and use language.

Quote:

---

Ever wonder if your entire belief system might be based on the useless meanderings of the collective human conciousness, as mine may well be? I would presume that you haven't else you might demonstrate the ability to debate with an open mind... the best debates are not about point-scoring at the expense of individuals - they explore the concepts and pave the way for new and informed thought... I accept the possibility that I could be wrong

---

I accept the possiblty i could be wrong, but i also aknolage its only a possiblty, im agruieng for the belifes i hold on the subject, and backing that up with the information i used to form these belifes. If evedance is put forward that proves my belife wrong, i will look at it, and form a new belife, which will be closer to the correct answer.

How do you debate an issue, if you dont have a side to argue from? I will stick with my belife until someone shows me its wrong. you so far have failed to do so, hence i maintain my current belifes on the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dog-egg

omg - can't believe I missed this gem!

"4) we do know animals arent clever, and we know there not capable of communication. So back to the real world please."

i must have been in cloud cuckoo land when my dog picked up her lead and dropped it at my feet after I mentioned the word 'walk' in a conversation
maybe the police are fooling themselves by using sniffer dogs to seek out narcotics? maybe the scientists (whom you seem to place in such high esteem) are just lying about the discovery of complex and intelligent cetacean communication etc

---

Like i said erlier, you dont know what true language useage is, hence you dont seen to get what is ment by communitcation, hence why you make this claim based on an anadotal point of evdance thats completely irrelivent to my claim? Thats like saying my car isnt red becuse i thing tuna tastes nice. There no connction between the issues.
Also much of my reasoning comes from a philosphical backdrop as opposed to a simply scientific one.

Quote:

---

yeah - I don't live on planet earth - I'm off in space with a bunch of super-intelligent aliens who think that humans are the best thing since er... since...er... what was that amazing invention again?

---

Good for you o.0

Quote:

---

in one breath you say that animals are nothing more than walking toasters and then in the next you make a point that humans are animals?

---

Animals refering to animals which we are not. We are the only ones whom are self aware, which is what puts as above the level of toaster, although my exsample was more for effect than direct truth, since animals tend to be one hell of alot more complex than your avergae toaster. But that alown doesnt make it self aware of sentaint.

Quote:

---

are we all toasters? are we all appliances that are to be used and discarded at a whim? or do you reserve that treatment for living creatures that might have difficulty inventing atom bombs?

---

Interesting you say that since, personly my own views on mind are strongly towards the functionist ideas, so in some ways i would agree, we are all "toasters". the differnce is we are sentiant, self aware toasters, which is what gives us in my opinion superiorty.
That an the fact, an ant is more protive of another ant than of another life form. All animals value there speciese, above another. I serosly think theres something very wrong with someone who values a differnt species beoned there own. If an alaien massivly smarter than us comes down starts zapping people, i will still side with my humans, regudless of if we are inferior to this hypothetical alien.

lol - ok, ok - i realise i'm dealing with someone who doesn't recognise sarcasm (the bit about being an alien was in response to some of your arguments)

food chains? environments? ecosytems? ooh - i musta missed em all during my A-level biology and all the documentaries that i've watched since (with an open mind to the fact that they might not be entirely accurate)

anyway, enough with the primitive verbal mud throwing, (and yes, my uncle has a farm in cumbria, and yes it's done organically unlike the majority of em)

ahem

"We know what sences they do have, so no there is not one where yet to find."

that kinda sums it up - there's no need to have a postmortem on your other arguments

that statement shows how closed your mind is to new possibilities - you can ignore that you wrote what you wrote and pick on something trivial from this post, but the sentence remains for all to see

what you're saying is that because we currently (in your opinion) know everything about animal's senses, there can't be any new ones to discover?

am i right in thinking that you don't believe in the existence of things beyond our perception? because that's gotta be the conclusion of your statement

so...

in the red corner we have the assumption that we already know everything, animals other than humans are fair game to torture, maim and abuse because they're not as clever as humans - completely disregarding any form of compassion for species other than our own...

and in the blue corner we have a world filled with amazing creatures that we are still only beginning to understand, so perhaps we should learn about them in more 'humane' ways than injecting them full of drugs to see if they die or not

i will always be rooting for the underdog, and that means non-human animals

black people were regarded as sub-human animals in the last century and scientists carried out tests to attempt to prove it - back then, who's side would you have been on? how different does something/someone need to be before you start keeping them in a cage?

don't bother replying to this post as i shall not be posting any more in this discussion, so you'd be wasting your time if you were doing it for my benefit; but by all means fill another page with quotes and contradictory arguments for other people to read as it will only serve to further strengthen my argument

i thank you, and goodnight :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dog-egg

lol - ok, ok - i realise i'm dealing with someone who doesn't recognise sarcasm (the bit about being an alien was in response to some of your arguments)

food chains? environments? ecosytems? ooh - i musta missed em all during my A-level biology and all the documentaries that i've watched since (with an open mind to the fact that they might not be entirely accurate)

anyway, enough with the primitive verbal mud throwing, (and yes, my uncle has a farm in cumbria, and yes it's done organically unlike the majority of em)

ahem

"We know what sences they do have, so no there is not one where yet to find."

that kinda sums it up - there's no need to have a postmortem on your other arguments

that statement shows how closed your mind is to new possibilities - you can ignore that you wrote what you wrote and pick on something trivial from this post, but the sentence remains for all to see

what you're saying is that because we currently (in your opinion) know everything about animal's senses, there can't be any new ones to discover?

am i right in thinking that you don't believe in the existence of things beyond our perception? because that's gotta be the conclusion of your statement

---

Im not entirely sure how saying we know what senses an animal has equates to saying animals dont have senses beoned are perception.

Now, if you really have an A level in biology, its somewhat strange to me, you dont appear to understand what the word sence actualy means, Our sences and the sences of other animals are by definition "physiological methods of perception."

So somthing beoned perception cannot be a sence, since are perseption own covers the physical.

I can not see in to the infared specturm, other animals can, that means they have a sensory range beoned my own. But, we still know they have this sence, in the way we know they also dont have any other magical sences.

The only idea i can really get that your implying is some metaphisical knolage based, which by definition is not a sence as i said. And no, im an aithiest, so i dont belive in god, ghoast and all the other crap, since quite frankly theres no basis for it.

Quote:

---

in the red corner we have the assumption that we already know everything, animals other than humans are fair game to torture, maim and abuse because they're not as clever as humans - completely disregarding any form of compassion for species other than our own...

---

o.0 well, personaly id suggest reading what i actualy wrote, not what you think i wrote, but aside from that, my argument we as the link higher in the food chain, have the evoultionary right to use the animals below us in the food chain to fasiliate are own survival. I also say, i value human life more than animal life. I also pointed out animals being none self aware, dont care, there not capable of it. Thats got nothing to do with intellegence, a computer may be smarter than a human(or in realilty, dumb very fast), but that doesnt make it a self aware being now does it?

Quote:

---

and in the blue corner we have a world filled with amazing creatures that we are still only beginning to understand, so perhaps we should learn about them in more 'humane' ways than injecting them full of drugs to see if they die or not

---

Back now from fairly land to the realm of reality, how amazing you think a creature is, is completly irrelivent to the topic, the death of a 1000 rats = the survival of a million humans (and if you wanted a million rats)... call me a utilitarian but i dont see that as a bad thing.

Quote:

---

i will always be rooting for the underdog, and that means non-human animals

---

You keep doing that...

Quote:

---

black people were regarded as sub-human animals in the last century and scientists carried out tests to attempt to prove it - back then, who's side would you have been on? how different does something/someone need to be before you start keeping them in a cage?

---

Well, your flaw is in your deduction that scientists were doing this, sciance is based on the facts, the black v whites problem was based on predetermined assumptions, not the actual data avaible to them. Hence was flawed from the start.
Seconly, a human is a huamn with the same capasitys regardless of skin colour. A chicken doesnt have the same capasitys, and still isnt human regardless of how many bad anadotes you throw at it.

Quote:

---

don't bother replying to this post as i shall not be posting any more in this discussion, so you'd be wasting your time if you were doing it for my benefit; but by all means fill another page with quotes and contradictory arguments for other people to read as it will only serve to further strengthen my argument

---

I do it for the benifit of anyone whom wants to get some idea of the facts of the debate, i do it in an attempt to correct the misinformation you presnted in your ad homen attacks and poorly thought out logic.
If you dont wish to continue the debate, thats your choice.

lmao - of course i know what a sense is (this was too tempting to leave it alone)

we have 5 right? and maybe a possible 6th? so you're pompous enough to think that just because a human isn't capable of perceiving an extra sense that we don't posess or indeed have the current capacity to create a machine to detect, that it therefore can't exist? omg

lol - blinkered, luddite, non-sensical, illogical

if you actually took the time to study other animals instead of spouting unjustified and unqualified trash then you might realise just how much we have yet to learn

i can't be bobba'd to quote the garbled sentence about scientists, but it's fact! yes, FACT!!!! they tried to prove it! SCIENTISTS (read that again if you're having trouble) attempted to prove it to justify the white population's atrocious treatment of other members of their own species! Look it up! Go on! Search it on the web! Read! Learn! Say the word 'fact' when you know some!

You are in a position where you're posting on a forum read by a large number of people - if you truly believe that animal testing is justifiable then do them a favour and justify it! read back through my posts - did I at ANY point try to anthropomorphise non-human animals? No!! Especially not chickens lmao

it's garbage, man - give up!!

to be honest fella, if it came down to it, and you were dangling off a cliff and my dog was in the same predicament a few feet further on, the question of who i'd save wouldn't turn out too favourably for you - even if it was purely for the reason that my dog would be more likely to be capable of rational and logical debate

yes, i've studied biology - fact, get over it

you mentioned sharks earlier as an example of animals that would kill more than they would eat - big mistake fella :) i'm a huge fan of sharks - been studying them for years - they don't do that - NONE of them - they don't play with their prey, don't kill more than they need to survive - t..h..e..y d...o..n..'t
tell me what you witnessed to back up your statement - i have around 30 VHS tapes to justify mine - but you won't will you? Because you're wrong and you know it, so you'll ignore that bit

your views on non-human animals would appear to be shaped by a garbled pseudo-intellectual rationale based on a personal philosophy that shows such a lack of empathy towards other planetary life as to merit serious questions around your morality

now, if you pay attention to anything in this post, pay attention to the next bit: (please, if you are an innocent bystander and are personally affected by tales of extreme cruelty then stop reading now)

in my home town a few years ago, a man was discovered to have taken his recently acquired puppy into his garage, and nailed it's paws into the concrete, purely to watch it suffer - he kept it there to starve it to death and then threw the body into a bin bag and disposed of it with the rest of the rubbish

that man is in PRISON
and why? because it was cruel - because when the public saw his evil grinning face in the paper demonstrating his complete lack of remorse for such a horrendous thing, they demanded justice
that man decided at some point that it was ok to torture the puppy for a purpose (to satisfy his own perverted needs) - he had justified it in his head

the puppy was his to abuse, to make use of to his own ends

please don't tell me that you would condone this kind of behaviour because the puppy isn't self-aware

no, really - please!! because the total lack of empathy for the suffering of small creatures and their subsequent torture is recorded as being a common trait amongst serial killers, and i would hate to think that you would be heading that way

cite some proof - right now! not a quote of my post with some misinterpretation of words presented as a statement of perceived and misguided fact - some actual proof - proof that non-human animals are not self aware - proof that there is no possibility that we don't know enough about them to irrefutably justify animal testing on any basis!

you can't
neither could i, even if i was pro-testing

non-human animal testing occurs because we CAN
simple as that
if only a species would arise that was capable of sticking you full of drugs, because you didn't fit the bill of what they reckoned was intelligent life - i'd actually like to see the look on your face as you realised what a monster you'd been until i'd inevitably feel sorry for you and rescue you because I'm able to empathise

i really wanted to leave this topic alone, but i couldn't let such in-humane values go unchallenged - i have shown your posts to several friends, who all concluded (before i gave them my opinions) that your arguments have no cohesion, and when questioned on specific opinions that are shown to be illogical, you attempt to alter what you said, or ignore it

so... can you present the proof, showing that the animals don't suffer? - don't quote my post - just type your proof

lol - actually, you were unable to do it last time, so why should i expect any different today? i live in hope, but...

no, seriously, give it a go if you can!

Firstly i admire your conviction... "don't bother replying to this post as i shall not be posting any more in this discussion,"

Wow. you lasted a whole one posts...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dog-egg

lmao - of course i know what a sense is (this was too tempting to leave it alone)

we have 5 right? and maybe a possible 6th? so you're pompous enough to think that just because a human isn't capable of perceiving an extra sense that we don't posess or indeed have the current capacity to create a machine to detect, that it therefore can't exist? omg

---

We have 6, balance is technically classified as a sense. Although your the one with the A level in biology are you not? so i shouldn't be telling you this.

Your argument is suggestion, a deaf person couldnt tell other people could hear. Amasingly people deaf from birth do know people can hear, Why, Becuse its ******* obvious. Becuse you lack a sence, it does not then mean we can not still understand a sence, many animals are far more sencetive to eltromagnetic activity, hence why they often manage to get out the way of natrual desasters. This is a sence we dont have... We still know many animals do in fact have it.
A sence has to be something phiscal. We can already measure the phyiscal. If empircal evidenace cannot be used, it cant be phyiscal, hence isnt a sence...

Quote:

---

lol - blinkered, luddite, non-sensical, illogical

---

As a summery of your last clame, very true.

Quote:

---

if you actually took the time to study other animals instead of spouting unjustified and unqualified trash then you might realise just how much we have yet to learn

---

And your A level obviously makes you an expert in zoology i take it? and i suppose you also have the magic power which tells you exsactly what i know and what i dont know.

Quote:

---

i can't be bobba'd to quote the garbled sentence about scientists, but it's fact! yes, FACT!!!! they tried to prove it! SCIENTISTS (read that again if you're having trouble) attempted to prove it to justify the white population's atrocious treatment of other members of their own species! Look it up! Go on! Search it on the web! Read! Learn! Say the word 'fact' when you know some!

---

Bobba is a word used on habbo, it isnt part of habboxs filter... And again, you misread. I can call myself a sceintist? does that make me one? No, it doesnt. Are the cristan "scientists" who claim to have proved gravity doesnt exist, its actualy just got pushing us down, really scientists. Also no.

To be a scentist, you have to use the scentific method and be an exspert within a key feild. If your hypothisis is not based on empircal observation, but in fact on a preestablished belife, as with Intelgent design, or the white dominance ideology. They are not useing the scientifc method, hence are not scientists.

Quote:

---

You are in a position where you're posting on a forum read by a large number of people - if you truly believe that animal testing is justifiable then do them a favour and justify it! read back through my posts - did I at ANY point try to anthropomorphise non-human animals? No!! Especially not chickens lmao

---

Actually, your last post didnt even mention an animal, so no you didnt, your original post though, and the claims you make are still based upon that principle.

Also i already put forward two justifcations. One the evolutionary right, we being higher in the food chain, gives us an evolutionary right to use the animals below in order to facilite are survival.

My second was animals being non self aware, cannot suffer in the terms a human can, without the abilty to introspect, life death pain suffering, all these concepts are irreliveant. Appling them to an animal is simply a case on anthromophising it. Becuse of this i dont have a moral objection to useing them as the subjects for medical testing.

Quote:

---

it's garbage, man - give up!!

---

You keep makeing these claims, without actualy even comeing close to attacking my arguments, most the time you miss the point and attack an agrument i didnt even suggest?

Quote:

---

to be honest fella, if it came down to it, and you were dangling off a cliff and my dog was in the same predicament a few feet further on, the question of who i'd save wouldn't turn out too favourably for you - even if it was purely for the reason that my dog would be more likely to be capable of rational and logical debate

---

Its nice to know how much of a well adjusted, mentally stable human being you are :)
Although, again your motive was purely derived from the selfish notion of your own emotional bond towards your dog, the bond is purly one way, and your action is an irrational one, but hey, most humans arnt that rational. Personly given the same reversed predicament, id rescue you, since dispite your obvious ignorance, you at least hold a concept of what that is and an unstanding of the action. The dog does not, it insted would simply be an indugance in my own selfish pleasures.

Quote:

---

yes, i've studied biology - fact, get over it

---

Weird, most people who study biology tend to have at least some understanding of the subject, i guess you just dossed the course.

Quote:

---

you mentioned sharks earlier as an example of animals that would kill more than they would eat - big mistake fella :) i'm a huge fan of sharks - been studying them for years - they don't do that - NONE of them - they don't play with their prey, don't kill more than they need to survive - t..h..e..y d...o..n..'t

---

A Great white, will on many occasions, give chase to a seal it has no intention of eating, now, as chuffed with your A level as you may be, I tend to have more faith in what an established exspert in the field has to say, you dont even need to look further a feild that popular bbc programing, such as planet earth, to have this information readily aviaible to you, even directly shown.

Quote:

---

tell me what you witnessed to back up your statement - i have around 30 VHS tapes to justify mine - but you won't will you? Because you're wrong and you know it, so you'll ignore that bit

---

Well i refranced an easy to find example already, so id stop trying to make witty comebacks, since they dont work. Also video tapes dont make you an exspert, granted by knowlage comes from that of authority, its an authorty i have far more faith in than you.

Quote:

---

your views on non-human animals would appear to be shaped by a garbled pseudo-intellectual rationale based on a personal philosophy that shows such a lack of empathy towards other planetary life as to merit serious questions around your morality

---

Actually its far more likenable, to ideas of substance dualism, despite the fact, personally i take a more functionalist view of things, im not a believe in the metaphysical as ive said before, although since my philosophy is based on whats quite a mainstream one, i wouldn't really consider it a solely personal one.

Also considering youve already stated youd be happy to let me die, given the chance, i dont really see how you can be in any stead to challenge my own morality?

Quote:

---

now, if you pay attention to anything in this post, pay attention to the next bit: (please, if you are an innocent bystander and are personally affected by tales of extreme cruelty then stop reading now)

in my home town a few years ago, a man was discovered to have taken his recently acquired puppy into his garage, and nailed it's paws into the concrete, purely to watch it suffer - he kept it there to starve it to death and then threw the body into a bin bag and disposed of it with the rest of the rubbish

that man is in PRISON
and why? because it was cruel - because when the public saw his evil grinning face in the paper demonstrating his complete lack of remorse for such a horrendous thing, they demanded justice
that man decided at some point that it was ok to torture the puppy for a purpose (to satisfy his own perverted needs) - he had justified it in his head

the puppy was his to abuse, to make use of to his own ends

please don't tell me that you would condone this kind of behaviour because the puppy isn't self-aware

---

Were you expecting me to? Since you truly have not understood the central points of my argument if you do. Someone who would do such a thing is seirosly, wrong in the head, animal abusers often become serial killers. Why? not becuse they understand the differnce between animals and humans in the awarness and abilty to comprihend reality, but simply in the lack of there own abilty to empherise, a central componet of human intelligence.
The "because i can" argument doesn't cut it. I dont believe in unnecessary death, i dont belive in causing suffering. Ignorance being the main cause of this, i also do not take refuge in it. Im a realist, i accept the world for what it is, not for what i want it to be. I personaly dont even swat flys, but that doesnt mean, if for means of survival, i had to kill a cow, for food i would not do it. The cases are differnt, one, death is unessary. two, death is necessary. i dont delude myself with fantisy visions. Death is nessary, its unavaidable, in the second case, it would ether be the death of a cow, or the death of me. Im not suidal, i have a very strong drive to live, so i choose that.
Its the same concept with animal testing, So a 1000 rats die, a million humans can live. Do you think its moraly justifable killing a million humans to save a 1000 rats? as that is what your argument is for, if you truely understand what going against animal testing is.

Then again, do you even know what that is? They dont slosh some chemicals together and slap it on the first animal the find. Medicans are almost complete by the time of animal testing, tested in computer simulations, on tissue samples, the theory behind them tested, confirmed, peer reviewed. Then when we have the pretty much safe product, then its tested on animals, then if there some nastly side effect missed, we dont end up with dead people, people with emotional bonds to others. It should be noted that most animal reaserches have a very close bond with the animals they experiment on, there treated pretty well. After animal testing, we test on humans for the same reason. Eventaly we then have the finished product. But i suppose the peta fatiscy world is more entertaing, and fits better with your sideing than reality does on the issue.

Quote:

---

no, really - please!! because the total lack of empathy for the suffering of small creatures and their subsequent torture is recorded as being a common trait amongst serial killers, and i would hate to think that you would be heading that way

---

Again, you seriosly havent followed.

Quote:

---

cite some proof - right now! not a quote of my post with some misinterpretation of words presented as a statement of perceived and misguided fact - some actual proof - proof that non-human animals are not self aware - proof that there is no possibility that we don't know enough about them to irrefutably justify animal testing on any basis!

---

Well if we apply the true language aqisiotion principles, Descartes test for intelgence as it happened, no animal, bar human can pass it.
We then have the fact, that are knowlage of the brain, although far from complete would indicate animals cannot have it, they dont even have the frontal lobe.
We then take in to account the human brain is massivly more advanced than that of any other animal out there, not a proof in itself, but a noteable point.
Do you think a mouse sits down and ponders the meaning of life in its free time? Since if you dont, why have you even suggested self awarness in animals, if you dont belive it yourself.

Infact, go read some chomsky, the true language application princible is the easiest to use from a non strictly biological outlook on the subject.

Quote:

---

you can't
neither could i, even if i was pro-testing

---

i just did?

Quote:

---

non-human animal testing occurs because we CAN
simple as that
if only a species would arise that was capable of sticking you full of drugs, because you didn't fit the bill of what they reckoned was intelligent life - i'd actually like to see the look on your face as you realised what a monster you'd been until i'd inevitably feel sorry for you and rescue you because I'm able to empathise

---

You kinda seem to have neglected to take in to account, you get to enjoy the same fate, and then missed the major flaw in the analogy. If your takeing a lifeform more intelgent than a human, somthing to which a human is massivly inferior to. The being is going to be very smart, so smart in fact, even if we are makeing a mistake, a being far smarter wouldnt make the same one... if it did, it wouldnt be far smarter, at best it would be even.

Then again, the whole agrument is based on the fact you have no idea what animal testing actualy is...

Quote:

---

i really wanted to leave this topic alone, but i couldn't let such in-humane values go unchallenged - i have shown your posts to several friends, who all concluded (before i gave them my opinions) that your arguments have no cohesion, and when questioned on specific opinions that are shown to be illogical, you attempt to alter what you said, or ignore it

---

yet i have done nether, i simply reliterate what i say, and clarifie it futher, your inabilty to understand it, is your own problem... and that of your friends i suppose to, especaly if even as a group you couldnt work it out...

Quote:

---

so... can you present the proof, showing that the animals don't suffer? - don't quote my post - just type your proof

---

You said this once, i did.

Quote:

---

lol - actually, you were unable to do it last time, so why should i expect any different today? i live in hope, but...

---

You really need to stop makeing these assumed come backs, its really starting to make you look stupid.

Quote:

---

no, seriously, give it a go if you can!

---

o.0 you see what i mean?

It should carry on - If your Mum / Dad / Relative or yourself got some unknown life threatening disease and they needed to test the treatment on animals I really don't think you would care about the animals, You'd just want whoever had the disease to get better.

They test life saving drugs on animals, I'd rather humans live than many humans dieing because some nuts think its Oh-so-wrong-and-terribly-cruel to test on animals.

firstly, a quick apology if i have actually missed some pearls of wisdom in what you're saying - it's often difficult to follow what you're trying to say as it looks like you typed with a spade

"Firstly i admire your conviction... "don't bother replying to this post as i shall not be posting any more in this discussion,"

well, you replied lol :P

"We have 6, balance is technically classified as a sense. Although your the one with the A level in biology are you not? so i shouldn't be telling you this."

erm - 'possible' 6th? 'technically classified'? i still said there's 6, i just said 'possible' cos i don't really think of balance as a sense

"Your argument is suggestion, a deaf person couldnt tell other people could hear. Amasingly people deaf from birth do know people can hear, Why, Becuse its ******* obvious. Becuse you lack a sence, it does not then mean we can not still understand a sence, many animals are far more sencetive to eltromagnetic activity, hence why they often manage to get out the way of natrual desasters. This is a sence we dont have... We still know many animals do in fact have it.
A sence has to be something phiscal. We can already measure the phyiscal. If empircal evidenace cannot be used, it cant be phyiscal, hence isnt a sence..."

you're missing my point - all i'm saying is that there may be some entirely physical senses out there that we have yet to discover - you presume that we've found them all which i find to be rather odd

"As a summery of your last clame, very true."

erm... didn't i say that there were 5 and a possible sixth? doesn't that make 6? or are you referring to me calling you a luddite?

"And your A level obviously makes you an expert in zoology i take it? and i suppose you also have the magic power which tells you exsactly what i know and what i dont know."

i have never claimed to be an expert, i only informed you of it because you said i seemed to be educated to primary school level - you're the one who keeps bringing it up! and no i don't have a magic power, obviously, just the ability to read your dubious arguments which couldn't possibly be based on a great deal of non-human animal study

"Bobba is a word used on habbo, it isnt part of habboxs filter... And again, you misread. I can call myself a sceintist? does that make me one? No, it doesnt. Are the cristan "scientists" who claim to have proved gravity doesnt exist, its actualy just got pushing us down, really scientists. Also no.

To be a scentist, you have to use the scentific method and be an exspert within a key feild. If your hypothisis is not based on empircal observation, but in fact on a preestablished belife, as with Intelgent design, or the white dominance ideology. They are not useing the scientifc method, hence are not scientists."

would you like a sweetie for pointy out that i typed 'bobba' - it was a jk, but maybe your 'sense' of humour is yet to be discovered :)

ok - 'scientists' - what i actually said was they tried to prove it - they were experts in their fields BUT they chose tests that were innappropriate and biased because they were racist

i'd like to know where you got your definition of a scientist from - try the one on wikipedia - seems to suggest you're wrong about the hypothesis business - look for the word 'hunch' on the page

"Actually, your last post didnt even mention an animal, so no you didnt, your original post though, and the claims you make are still based upon that principle."

lol - no they're not based on any kind of anthropomorphic principle
you're the one who's so desperate to disprove that they're anything like us because then you might have to feel guilty - would i be anthropomorphising if i said that gorillas exhibit many human-like actions, emotions and social structure/behaviour, so maybe sticking electrodes on them without any kind of choice might be a little unfair? even if animals DO experience pain differently, does it give us the right to cause it to them? NO

"Also i already put forward two justifcations. One the evolutionary right, we being higher in the food chain, gives us an evolutionary right to use the animals below in order to facilite are survival."

firstly, how about you go stand naked in the middle of an african plain at night and see who's at the top of the food chain... maybe the evolutionary right to EAT them, but not the moral right to 'use' them...
by your reckoning, if a country full of cannibals with higher IQs than yours and better weapons decided to test radiation on you, then you'd agree

"My second was animals being non self aware, cannot suffer in the terms a human can, without the abilty to introspect, life death pain suffering, all these concepts are irreliveant. Appling them to an animal is simply a case on anthromophising it. Becuse of this i dont have a moral objection to useing them as the subjects for medical testing."

ah - no moral objection... i'll deal with that one after the puppy story comments...

"You keep makeing these claims, without actualy even comeing close to attacking my arguments, most the time you miss the point and attack an agrument i didnt even suggest?"

lmao - you're gonna say that or we wouldn't be arguing, would we? doh

"Its nice to know how much of a well adjusted, mentally stable human being you are :)
Although, again your motive was purely derived from the selfish notion of your own emotional bond towards your dog, the bond is purly one way, and your action is an irrational one, but hey, most humans arnt that rational. Personly given the same reversed predicament, id rescue you, since dispite your obvious ignorance, you at least hold a concept of what that is and an unstanding of the action. The dog does not, it insted would simply be an indugance in my own selfish pleasures."

lol - so there are no cases of people being saved by animals? you trying to tell me that when my dog used to put her head on my knee if i was depressed and wag her tail slowly (the only time she ever exhibited that kind of behaviour) was some sort of automated response? if it was two people there, one of which you knew, you'd indulgence your selfishness there wouldn't you? so where would your rational brain be then?

"Weird, most people who study biology tend to have at least some understanding of the subject, i guess you just dossed the course."

you really do like bringing it up don't you? i got a B, because i couldn't care less about some of the biochemistry part, so that bit i dossed...
so according to you, i have NO understanding of biology, yet passed with a high grade - u now saying that it's possible to have no understanding of a complex subject yet pass an exam in it? ooh - that insult was razor sharp wasn't it?

"A Great white, will on many occasions, give chase to a seal it has no intention of eating, now, as chuffed with your A level as you may be, I tend to have more faith in what an established exspert in the field has to say, you dont even need to look further a feild that popular bbc programing, such as planet earth, to have this information readily aviaible to you, even directly shown."

my god, can u stop banging on about my education? or is that now the basis for your argument? ok - planet earth - are you sure you aren't mixing them up with orcas? i've had a good search on the net and found no new evidence that great whites play with their prey - post a link to some video proof and i'll believe it - still would be no justification for animal testing tho would it? it's just a minor point, but surely you shouldn't be believing anything unless it's been empirically tested, being so fond of that as you are? so what if it DOES turn out to be true - as you said, cats play with their prey - it's not a licence for humans to do the same is it?

"Well i refranced an easy to find example already, so id stop trying to make witty comebacks, since they dont work. Also video tapes dont make you an exspert, granted by knowlage comes from that of authority, its an authorty i have far more faith in than you."

aint found a summary of that episode - send me a link - i asked for proof remember, not a vague reference to a bbc documentary - plus, how exactly do you know what a great white's intentions are? - and again, why state the obvious - of course you have more faith in your authority - else you wouldn't be arguing doh again


"Actually its far more likenable, to ideas of substance dualism, despite the fact, personally i take a more functionalist view of things, im not a believe in the metaphysical as ive said before, although since my philosophy is based on whats quite a mainstream one, i wouldn't really consider it a solely personal one."

i'm not asking you to believe in the metaphysical - just the possibility that there are physical things we don't know about yet - everyone thought the atom was the smallest thing not so long ago... it really isn't a big leap to see that we might still have things to discover

"Also considering youve already stated youd be happy to let me die, given the chance, i dont really see how you can be in any stead to challenge my own morality?"

lmao - i didn't say i'd be happy about it :) - in reality, i'd save my dog and then feel guilty and save you which some might think is a questionable decision in terms of morality - true
doesn't mean i can't question your morals though

"Were you expecting me to? Since you truly have not understood the central points of my argument if you do. Someone who would do such a thing is seirosly, wrong in the head, animal abusers often become serial killers. Why? not becuse they understand the differnce between animals and humans in the awarness and abilty to comprihend reality, but simply in the lack of there own abilty to empherise, a central componet of human intelligence.
The "because i can" argument doesn't cut it. I dont believe in unnecessary death, i dont belive in causing suffering. Ignorance being the main cause of this, i also do not take refuge in it. Im a realist, i accept the world for what it is, not for what i want it to be. I personaly dont even swat flys, but that doesnt mean, if for means of survival, i had to kill a cow, for food i would not do it. The cases are differnt, one, death is unessary. two, death is necessary. i dont delude myself with fantisy visions. Death is nessary, its unavaidable, in the second case, it would ether be the death of a cow, or the death of me. Im not suidal, i have a very strong drive to live, so i choose that.
Its the same concept with animal testing, So a 1000 rats die, a million humans can live. Do you think its moraly justifable killing a million humans to save a 1000 rats? as that is what your argument is for, if you truely understand what going against animal testing is."

so what that guy did was cruel? and morally wrong? so you'll admit that!
if he'd eaten it afterwards, would it have made a difference? NO - still horrendous

now, how about if he was carrying out experiments to back up your claims about non-human animals and how they experience pain 'differently' - maybe had 5 different animals, and rigged them up with monitors to check brain activity and stress levels - would it make a difference? NO again - still cruel - he's still nailing them to the floor

ok - so instead of nails, he puts them in cages and gives them electric shocks instead... it ISN'T going to get less morally wrong!

you don't believe in causing suffering - did the puppy in the story suffer? i would say yes - if you say no, then why would it be a sick act? if the puppy did suffer then it has the capacity to suffer, so it would suffer if you tested products on it - so if you believe that animal testing is fine then you also believe in causing suffering - this really is basic logic

if you were actually true to your arguments then you WOULD swat flies as they spread diseases and you're 'not suicidal'

"Then again, do you even know what that is? They dont slosh some chemicals together and slap it on the first animal the find. Medicans are almost complete by the time of animal testing, tested in computer simulations, on tissue samples, the theory behind them tested, confirmed, peer reviewed. Then when we have the pretty much safe product, then its tested on animals, then if there some nastly side effect missed, we dont end up with dead people, people with emotional bonds to others. It should be noted that most animal reaserches have a very close bond with the animals they experiment on, there treated pretty well. After animal testing, we test on humans for the same reason. Eventaly we then have the finished product. But i suppose the peta fatiscy world is more entertaing, and fits better with your sideing than reality does on the issue."

this is just a repeat from one of your earlier posts - i already know the process of testing, and knew it before the debate
you say they're 'treated pretty well' which implies it could be worse, or better - i'm sorry but i thought you said earlier that non-human animals were ours to use any way we see fit because they're lower on the food chain so why bother treating them well at all if you subscribe to that belief, and also think that they don't have the capacity to suffer like humans?

"Again, you seriosly havent followed."

i did and it's a logical progression from your arguments, if a little extreme

"Well if we apply the true language aqisiotion principles, Descartes test for intelgence as it happened, no animal, bar human can pass it.
We then have the fact, that are knowlage of the brain, although far from complete would indicate animals cannot have it, they dont even have the frontal lobe.
We then take in to account the human brain is massivly more advanced than that of any other animal out there, not a proof in itself, but a noteable point.
Do you think a mouse sits down and ponders the meaning of life in its free time? Since if you dont, why have you even suggested self awarness in animals, if you dont belive it yourself."

ah - so you admit it isn't proof, and that we don't know everything about the brain - YAY!! almost a start...
yes, i do think mice may quite possibly do that
some non-human animals obviously dream, so presumably they can imagine, so i would never rule out the possibility of being self-aware

Infact, go read some chomsky, the true language application princible is the easiest to use from a non strictly biological outlook on the subject.

"i just did?"

lmao - you just said it wasn't proof!

"You kinda seem to have neglected to take in to account, you get to enjoy the same fate, and then missed the major flaw in the analogy. If your takeing a lifeform more intelgent than a human, somthing to which a human is massivly inferior to. The being is going to be very smart, so smart in fact, even if we are makeing a mistake, a being far smarter wouldnt make the same one... if it did, it wouldnt be far smarter, at best it would be even."

even if i did share the same fate, it'd still be worth it to see the look on your face! - i deliberately didn't mention that the species was smarter - i just said 'capable' - i still say you'd be a bit narked if they did that to you, whether they were more intelligent or not

"Then again, the whole agrument is based on the fact you have no idea what animal testing actualy is..."

i know exactly what it is - it's the cheapest method of testing products on living tissue, and drug companies won't get sued by animals if an accidental death occurs - what else is there to understand? that they apply a product to an animal to see the results and prove that it's safe enough for human testing? i understand that perfectly well...

"yet i have done nether, i simply reliterate what i say, and clarifie it futher, your inabilty to understand it, is your own problem... and that of your friends i suppose to, especaly if even as a group you couldnt work it out..."

i can understand what you're trying to say well enough - there's a difference between that and seeing any kind of logic to it, or finding things to agree with

"You said this once, i did."

Yes and even though i said it twice in the same post, you still didn't provide any - you tried and then said it wasn't actually proof

"You really need to stop makeing these assumed come backs, its really starting to make you look stupid."

hmmm - let me see... you quoted my post as i predicted, and you failed to provide proof as i predicted and admitted you hadn't... hello everyone!! i'm stupid - no, really, i am! we all are as humans - just look at what we're doing - still having wars, still messing up the world, still making bombs, making most of the same mistakes that we've been making for thousands of years

"o.0 you see what i mean?"

proof?

luke - of course nobody would want their relative to die, but the fact is that animal testing isn't necessary - it's just cheaper
surely if we could test drugs without doing it on animals then it would be better?
you'd still get your life-saving drugs, but without the pain caused to animals

oh, and gomme - one last thing - just reminding you that you said this:

"4) we do know animals arent clever, and we know there not capable of communication."

:)

still laughing here

Edited by micky.blue.eyes (Super Moderator): Please don't multiple post within the 15 minutes edit limit.