By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Animal testing is barbaric!

Dr.Grass on 18 September 2011
mantlepiecek said:
Dr.Grass said:
@OP

Animal testing is no more barbaric than the meat industry.

You have the choice as a human to turn away, ignore the horrible truth, or face it and prepare for some difficulty. Clearly most people, in this case and in life in general, choose the easy road.

Slavery was the norm a few hundred years ago. Now the average person is disgusted by that history, BUT THE FACT IS if you put them in those times they most probably would have ignored it and just tried to 'enjoy' their life - just like they do now.


Good and bad are surprisingly not natural and are made by : Humans. So really, good is anything that humans think is "good". Animals follow exactly what immortal said, they kill others for meat and flesh to survive, and hence they exist. Its called a food chain.

Your example of whites and non-whites doesn't apply in this situation, because there is no white and black in humans, its a concept created by idiots and is now used by idiots. Its an imaginary division that doesn't exist in nature.

I don't even like meat that much but I understand that in the end we humans can afford to eat animals without them getting extinct.

That is a belief you have about the fundamental aspects of this world that I do not share.



Around the Network
Dr.Grass on 18 September 2011
Immortal said:
Dr.Grass said:
Immortal said:
This is pretty much the same as vegetarianism for me. I mean, I fail to see the logic of not harming some animals, harming others and freely harming plants. Sure, plants may not feel, plants may not record any pain. Why does that give us some moral right to take their lives and play around with them?
Honestly, as humans, we have to take a very cruel "care only for other humans and nothing else" stance if we don't want to completely fail as a species.
I mean, I feel bad about all those endangered species, abused animals (I love dogs so it kills me personally to see those advertisements and such) and similar animal-related problems, but to really care about those and then proceed to swat a fly and dig into vegetables feels hypocritical.


I could write an article about the circumstantial contradictions herein. I could write another one about the logical contradictions. Another one could be made by analysing your philosophical world view and comparing it to the lofty philosophies of India and the Greeks and your lack of absorbing any of the lofty thoughts therein - a follow-up could view the absolute mess this world is in by considering your views as that of a typical '1st world person' of modernety.

Instead of wasting my time, I'd rather point out something simple.

''Honestly, as humans, we have to take a very cruel "care only for other humans and nothing else" stance if we don't want to completely fail as a species.''

Since your motive is based on association, i.e ''I am human'', I'm going to take your exact implicit philosophical reasoning and extrapolate it to the point it inevitably leads to:

''Honestly, as white-people, we have to take a very cruel "care only for other white-people and nothing else" stance if we don't want to completely fail as a race.''

Identical mentality - i.e. conditioning, different applications.

The western world is insane.

Wow, that hurt. You can point out ignorance and contradictions without being so downright offensive, you know.

I can see how you'd connect those two statements (I'm not white, by the way, so thankfully I don't feel like you're actually accusing me of racism, :P), but part of it I think is that I didn't explain myself well enough. "Completely fail as a species" was my way of saying, in the long run, going extinct, not "being less superior" or something subjective and ridiculous like that.

I was saying that not killing animals is the same as not killing plants and that not killing plants is essentially committing suicide as a species.

I'm not deluded enough to think that that statement is free of logical and philosophical contradictions in any way so would you be oh-so-kind enough to waste your time explaining my stupidity to me? I can only become less stupid as a result, even if it wastes your clearly precious time.

By the way, these "first-world-person" and "western world" comments are hurting me especially because I come from and have lived in a "third world" country for most of my life and generally look down upon most recent western practices and ideologies, even if I'm used to them now. You're making me feel as ignorant and misinformed as I rather hoped I wasn't.


You have now leaved me in an immobilized position. I have several things I want to say and comment upon, but they share different outcomes.



mantlepiecek on 18 September 2011
Dr.Grass said:
mantlepiecek said:
Dr.Grass said:
@OP

Animal testing is no more barbaric than the meat industry.

You have the choice as a human to turn away, ignore the horrible truth, or face it and prepare for some difficulty. Clearly most people, in this case and in life in general, choose the easy road.

Slavery was the norm a few hundred years ago. Now the average person is disgusted by that history, BUT THE FACT IS if you put them in those times they most probably would have ignored it and just tried to 'enjoy' their life - just like they do now.


Good and bad are surprisingly not natural and are made by : Humans. So really, good is anything that humans think is "good". Animals follow exactly what immortal said, they kill others for meat and flesh to survive, and hence they exist. Its called a food chain.

Your example of whites and non-whites doesn't apply in this situation, because there is no white and black in humans, its a concept created by idiots and is now used by idiots. Its an imaginary division that doesn't exist in nature.

I don't even like meat that much but I understand that in the end we humans can afford to eat animals without them getting extinct.

That is a belief you have about the fundamental aspects of this world that I do not share.

What do you believe then?



Immortal on 18 September 2011
Dr.Grass said:


You have now leaved me in an immobilized position. I have several things I want to say and comment upon, but they share different outcomes.


Go ahead with whatever you want. As long as they're reasonable comments that don't personally offend me, I'll be all the more knowledgable hearing whatever you have to say. I actually like hearing people who disagree with me on this subject.



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx

chocoloco on 18 September 2011

The threads are not fun without making fun of taylor swift.

Still in this case the ends are>>>>>>>>>>> than the means. So much science would never of helped mankind if people could not use animals in their research. People that argue against using animals seem to think that human are less of a priority than less intelligent creatures. I disagree. Humans well being matters more especially when it is used to create new medications. Without hair products and makeup Taylor swift would look like an average  bimbo. Taylor loves these products and so should you PS3. You probably would not be so hard for her, if she didn't use those products.



Around the Network
Dr.Grass on 18 September 2011
Immortal said:
Dr.Grass said:


You have now leaved me in an immobilized position. I have several things I want to say and comment upon, but they share different outcomes.


Go ahead with whatever you want. As long as they're reasonable comments that don't personally offend me, I'll be all the more knowledgable hearing whatever you have to say. I actually like hearing people who disagree with me on this subject.

Well you have my respect for that attitude - not very common indeed.

So it's late now... Maybe I'll disagree with you a little tomorrow



forest-spirit on 18 September 2011

I understand why animals are used in medical research as it's in our nature to think of ourselves before others. There is no reason to let the animals suffer more than necessary though.
However, modern science is now letting us grow entire body parts and when that technology let's us grow enough "human" to test on then using animals is no longer acceptable in my book.

Using animals in cosmetic research on the other hand is fully despicable and unacceptable.



chocoloco on 18 September 2011
forest-spirit said:
I understand why animals are used in medical research as it's in our nature to think of ourselves before others. There is no reason to let the animals suffer more than necessary though.
However, modern science is now letting us grow entire body parts and when that technology let's us grow enough "human" to test on then using animals is no longer acceptable in my book.

Using animals in cosmetic research on the other hand is fully despicable and unacceptable.

The animals love it. It is like going to get their hair done and getting manicures. They feel pampered.



lestatdark on 18 September 2011
forest-spirit said:
I understand why animals are used in medical research as it's in our nature to think of ourselves before others. There is no reason to let the animals suffer more than necessary though.
However, modern science is now letting us grow entire body parts and when that technology let's us grow e.nough "human" to test on then using animals is no longer acceptable in my book.

Using animals in cosmetic research on the other hand is fully despicable and unacceptable.

Growing entire body parts is still a work in progress. The best you can grow in full detail are individual organs and tissue samples, there still some complications in recreating entire working systems from stem cells or cloning processes. 

However that will lead to a whole new ethical debate and whole new arguments. Would it be ethically and morally right to do tests on cloned bodies or "grown" from stem cells? How can you justify that the "grown" humans don't have the same rights as a normal human has? If they do, then why not just test on regular humans? 

That would be the equivalent of an ethical shitstorm.



Current PC Build

CPU - i7 8700K 3.7 GHz (4.7 GHz turbo) 6 cores OC'd to 5.2 GHz with Watercooling (Hydro Series H110i) | MB - Gigabyte Z370 HD3P ATX | Gigabyte GTX 1080ti Gaming OC BLACK 11G (1657 MHz Boost Core / 11010 MHz Memory) | RAM - Corsair DIMM 32GB DDR4, 2400 MHz | PSU - Corsair CX650M (80+ Bronze) 650W | Audio - Asus Essence STX II 7.1 | Monitor - Samsung U28E590D 4K UHD, Freesync, 1 ms, 60 Hz, 28"

CommonMistake on 18 September 2011

They are actually testing on roaches too and eels, they've impanted a chip onto the top of a roaches head wired to its wee brain so that they can control it like a little redio controlled insect. They've also taken the brain out of an eel and rigged it up to light sensors and made a wee robot body and it tries to swim towards the light. Not long now en and we'll all be for it too