I don't think that I do, since immigration issues in Europe often are a racial issue. But again: in this case, you mean speciesist.

You're suggesting that I am prejudiced against animals, but that's not the case - strictly speaking. I simply think of human life as being more intrinsically valuable than the life of any other species.

You can't draw the analogy because it requires acceptance of the idea that black people are to white people as dogs are to humans, which is, uh, absurdly racist unless you think that dog life and human life are basically equivalent.

To the bolded: I don't think lowly of animals. I happen to love them quite a lot. I happen to love humans a lot more, my justification for that being that I am human, and whatever benefits my species tops my priority list. I see human life as intrinsically more valuable than the life of other animals, so trading their lives for human lives is acceptable to me.

Do you see human life as intrinsically more valuable than the lives of other animals?

Oh, you guys say human lives are more important now, sure.

But when the insects and other mammals take over the world, they might not be so kind and generous to our species. Just keep that in mind.

if you disagree with me, then you are probably a racist.

Okay....so you're saying that a healthy dog or pig's life has more value than that of a mentally handicapped human being?

* Yes and no. It depends on the species. Humans are not intrinsically more valuable than any other mammals. But all mammals are more valuable than fish, who in turn are more valuable than insects.

* But why do you draw the line at species? It's just based on feelings. Whats wrong If I draw the line between humans of different cultures or even races? If I did the same analogy, I would say that I happen to love Scandinavian people a lot more than <insert ethic group here> so therefore that gives me the right to mistreat people who are <insert ethic group here>??

If it is severely mentally handicapped, then of course.

Anything else is unlogical and only based on feelings, unless you for religious reasons think there's some unique value in all humans.

Just to clarify - the value of human life is roughly equal to that of other mammals?

And I draw the line at species because it's not based on feelings, it's based on a clear-cut dividing line between us and every other sort of creature on the planet, on markd differences that differentiate us from other animals - and, yes, other mammals. I use species because our species is what makes us different, what gives us the ability to act above other animals.

Edit: Bah. Looks like he done got ban't.

Well Slimebeast, if the answer to the first question is yes, I assume that you are vegan, that you have no leather items of clothing or upholstery, that all of your pets are free-range and you would allow them to run away if they so desired (with easy access to paths of escape provided at all times), and that you are against the spaying and neutering of pets for population control's sake. Because, if your answer was yes and you still ate meat and so forth, then by your own system you would be guilty of rough equivalents of cannibalism, the killing and wearing of people, slave ownership, and eugenic castration.

Assuming, of course, that your answer was yes.

Is it right?

Probably not.

Is it better then the alternatives.

Yes.

I mean the alternatives are either testing on humans... or not testing anything and science grinds to a halt.

I believe it should be controlled.

I live in Sweden and a friend of mine is doing a PhD at the agricultural university. She tests things like the effect of different diets on pigs. They feed the pigs for a while and then kill them to analyze the effects inside their bodies.

Every time they kill the pigs they have to get official permission, and there are inspectors which check the quality of living of the pigs... they need a certain amount of living space, a fairly hygienic and comfortable environment (for example, temperature wise), etc. And obviously there are procedures for the actual killing.

It's always sad to kill animals but we have to do it, in order to live the way we do. We should just have some standards.

meh. I still say use pedos instead of animals.

although they're not human, they might provide a compatable analogue.