BAN ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS IN EU - VOTE NOW !

[Tone Deft]

The only rights animals, or even people, have are the rights others bestow on them or the ones they fight for. The only implicit rights that exist are the laws of chemistry and physics, and whatever follows from there. I treat all animals very well, because I love and care for them, but that doesn't mean they implicitly have that right. I choose to give it to them. I agree that standards should exist to better animal treatment (more needed in agriculture than research I should add), but in the end, to what extent and how do you plan on enforcing it? When it comes down to it, we're still gonna attach electrodes in their brains to find out how the brain works. We're gonna inject them with protein fragments to harvest antibodies from their spleens (spleen, right? I forget). We should have standards but it shouldn't interfere with good research. And most labs, at least for university research, have standards even if it isn't mandated. Animal testing sucks, you think I enjoy killing animals for research? I love animals! Its fucked up but this is life. You dont see them giving each other rights in the wild. Likewise we're going to do what we have to do.

well that's it. you are not 'in the wild'. your are human and capable of much more. do you really see yourself and animal "likewise"?

the whole jungle theory i.e the stronger survives, is always something the current strong one makes up to protect himself morally. nazis loved that (not suggesting that you are one). so we live in a fearful culture that celebrates exactly this, the power of those who were so 'advanced' and 'intelligent' (thanks to drinking a lot of cow milk, right?) that they came up with what? guns. celebrates abusing of everything weaker than you. why humans eating animals? because they can. the same way that a goat eats a plastic bag. the same way that a rapist does his victim. because he can.

i think you belong to a race that came up with greater things than this. to name one - compassion. and other terms which usually refer to how we describe god. you are this god. humanity expends not because of abusing animals, but thanks to being more than just animals.

to echo what Bishop has been screaming, you don't know a goddamn thing about how our drugs are developed, how food safety is tested or what the FDA requires of products seeking their approval.

your post shows nothing but the hollow pop culture perception of what really goes on. think about it.




can we all agree that the OP is a fucking tool and should be given a really hard time when he resurfaces? dumbass didn't even know what he posted.

[scott nathaniel]

Emotions will cloud reason. So how do you overcome the moral dilemma of essentially raisng the life expentancy of humanity, knowing full well that that is a detriment to humans, other animals, and the earth. You're going to have to get a degree in philosphy with a focus on ethics to asnwer this
see you in a few years

Since philosophy isnt science but merely intellectual masturbation on matters unprovable your metaphor doesnt work.

I overcome the moral delemma because my philosophy is that life evolves, and with it civilization and science evolves with it. They are not mutually exclusive, technology is an extension of life. And things do not evolve unless there is pressure to do so. So as we grow older and resources become tighter and environmental concerns become more of an issue, the pressure to find solutions will provide the incentive to find solutions to these problems. There is already a lot of research underway to find greener fuels, biodegradable plastics, more nutritious sources of food that require less resources to grow, and other technologies that address these problems. I stood up and forced the conversation at an anti-ageing conference to force people to start thinking about this stuff, because it WILL happen. You can't stop the natural course of evolution, so long as we have these technologies we will continue to use and expand them. We will eventually re-engineer human beings too. The trick is not to try and stop these things, the trick is to think about the consequences and develop ways to minimize or eliminate harmful consequences.

So, then, ethics are not science. There's no way to establish ethics within the scientific community. Therefore, your reasons, guised as an ethical stance, for not experimenting on humans are intellectual masturbation. No?

[Aequitas123]

can we all agree that the OP is a fucking tool and should be given a really hard time when he resurfaces? dumbass didn't even know what he posted.

I second that motion.

[Android Bishop]

The only rights animals, or even people, have are the rights others bestow on them or the ones they fight for. The only implicit rights that exist are the laws of chemistry and physics, and whatever follows from there. I treat all animals very well, because I love and care for them, but that doesn't mean they implicitly have that right. I choose to give it to them. I agree that standards should exist to better animal treatment (more needed in agriculture than research I should add), but in the end, to what extent and how do you plan on enforcing it? When it comes down to it, we're still gonna attach electrodes in their brains to find out how the brain works. We're gonna inject them with protein fragments to harvest antibodies from their spleens (spleen, right? I forget). We should have standards but it shouldn't interfere with good research. And most labs, at least for university research, have standards even if it isn't mandated. Animal testing sucks, you think I enjoy killing animals for research? I love animals! Its fucked up but this is life. You dont see them giving each other rights in the wild. Likewise we're going to do what we have to do.

well that's it. you are not 'in the wild'. your are human and capable of much more. do you really see yourself and animal "likewise"?

the whole jungle theory i.e the stronger survives, is always something the current strong one makes up to protect himself morally. nazis loved that (not suggesting that you are one). so we live in a fearful culture that celebrates exactly this, the power of those who were so 'advanced' and 'intelligent' (thanks to drinking a lot of cow milk, right?) that they came up with what? guns. celebrates abusing of everything weaker than you. why humans eating animals? because they can. the same way that a goat eats a plastic bag. the same way that a rapist does his victim. because he can.

i think you belong to a race that came up with greater things than this. to name one - compassion. and other terms which usually refer to how we describe god. you are this god. humanity expends not because of abusing animals, but thanks to being more than just animals.

I'm sorry but its the truth, these core patterns dont go away just because we have higher thinking. They only become more complex. We ARE in the wild, everything is in the wild. Survival of the fittest is true in everything, even ideas and cultures. Our ability to pontificate and feel compassion and whatnot were evolved for our survival, because it allows us greater flexibility to react to our environment and develop long term strategies to thrive without the need for genetic evolution.

I agree that we are god. god is the greatest genetic engineer in existence. god drove an experiment that tested and killed more animals than a computer can even count, all to expand the technology of life. if you think that god's experiment didn't intend for humans to do our own experiments with life's technology, then you must think god is incompetent as fuck because that's whats happening. Clearly this is where the universe was supposed to lead because that's where it is.

[Android Bishop]

So, then, ethics are not science. There's no way to establish ethics within the scientific community. Therefore, your reasons, guised as an ethical stance, for not experimenting on humans are intellectual masturbation. No?

yes, it is intellectual masturbation. that's why I went for it in the first place, cause I dont think you need to a degree to know how to masturbate.

However, ethics do have a place within the scientific community, because without them it leads to bad science. bad science teaches no one nothing and creates nothing of value.

[mickey disco]

Here's a tip for the animal rights activists: your opinions will continue to be regarded as irrelevant until you yourselves dedicate your time to become equally as educated in matters of biology, biochemisty, genetics, cellular biology, and all matters of biotechnology, experiment design, and current research as scientists in the field are. Then, and only then, will you have a real understanding of what is going on and be able to come up with educated and well thought out proposals for changing the way we do research. If you care this much about it, then do what is needed and get some experience and education to be able to come up with a better way of doing things. Otherwise you are just another asshole with an opinion about something you dont know jack shit about.

You certainly have a high opinion of yourself and your own intellect, even though you still haven't properly addressed the points I raised earlier. Why don't you tell everyone what qualifications and knowledge you have in this field (we already know that you've heard of PubMed, congratulations), and then we can judge whether the other poster or you is an "asshole with an opinion"?

I'll try again.....

[Android Bishop]

Here's a tip for the animal rights activists: your opinions will continue to be regarded as irrelevant until you yourselves dedicate your time to become equally as educated in matters of biology, biochemisty, genetics, cellular biology, and all matters of biotechnology, experiment design, and current research as scientists in the field are. Then, and only then, will you have a real understanding of what is going on and be able to come up with educated and well thought out proposals for changing the way we do research. If you care this much about it, then do what is needed and get some experience and education to be able to come up with a better way of doing things. Otherwise you are just another asshole with an opinion about something you dont know jack shit about.

You certainly have a high opinion of yourself and your own intellect, even though you still haven't properly addressed the points I raised earlier. Why don't you tell everyone what qualifications and knowledge you have in this field (we already know that you've heard of PubMed, congratulations), and then we can judge whether the other poster or you is an "asshole with an opinion"?

I'll try again.....

I have a BS in Biotechnology and am currently working on my master's. what, exactly, do you want to know? Do you refute my argument that one should have an thorough understanding of the field in which they are criticizing? Because so far I've seen nothing but bullshit from people who CLEARLY have no idea what the fuck they are talking about coming from the anti-animal testing side of the fence. Again, learn the actual science and get some real world experience before you tell the entire scientific establishment what you think is or is not necessary for our research. It has nothing to do with how much I value my own intellect, its how much the scientific community is being bombarded with stupidity from every angle. If you dont know what you're talking about, then go fucking learn something and then come back when you actually know whats up.

[scott nathaniel]

So, then, ethics are not science. There's no way to establish ethics within the scientific community. Therefore, your reasons, guised as an ethical stance, for not experimenting on humans are intellectual masturbation. No?

yes, it is intellectual masturbation. that's why I went for it in the first place, cause I dont think you need to a degree to know how to masturbate.

However, ethics do have a place within the scientific community, because without them it leads to bad science. bad science teaches no one nothing and creates nothing of value.

That's where the problem arises. Ethics is a meaningless term. PETA claims ethical right. You're claiming ethical right. How do you define your ethics. What are your ethics, can you state them, not to me, but can you claim what your ethics are. And how can something as absolute as science be bad or good. There is only the scientific method. It either is or isn't. It can't be bad or good. If it's bad science, i.e. not of the scientific method, then it's not science.

[Kodama]

LOl, explain scientifically? Ok, scientifically its against the law. That scientific enough for you?

That's no more of an answer than "the earth is flat, it's the law!".

You want things to change, get at least a master's degree in cellular bio or biotech or some kind of applied biological science and get some years of experience actually working in a lab before you tell us what is or isnt necessary for research.

Do you need a degree to answer why human children are not used as models to help human children?

Because it would not be any science course that would help with that.

[Kodama]

can we all agree that the OP is a fucking tool and should be given a really hard time when he resurfaces? dumbass didn't even know what he posted.

I second that motion.

Agreed, unpopularity should remain unpopular, no matter what!

[Android Bishop]

That's where the problem arises. Ethics is a meaningless term. PETA claims ethical right. You're claiming ethical right. How do you define your ethics. What are your ethics, can you state them, not to me, but can you claim what your ethics are. And how can something as absolute as science be bad or good. There is only the scientific method. It either is or isn't. It can't be bad or good. If it's bad science, i.e. not of the scientific method, then it's not science.

I'm not really claiming any ethical right, I'm just doing it because I want to. I enjoy this stuff. My personal philosophy comes into play too (ideas of taking evolution into our own hands and hacking the technology of life etc), but at its heart I just plain enjoy it like I enjoy making music. My ethics come into play whenever the issue comes up, they are not very solid.

What I mean by "bad" science is science based on faulty or false data, conclusions that aren't backed up by said data, science that teaches absolutely nothing new, etc. Think of bad not so much a moral idea, but just a low quality one. science that lies or leads nowhere productive. at least failed science usually leads somewhere that eventually succeeds. That is where ethics come into play, to be honest about results and design experiments carefully to get good data that teaches or develops something new.

[Android Bishop]

LOl, explain scientifically? Ok, scientifically its against the law. That scientific enough for you?

That's no more of an answer than "the earth is flat, it's the law!".

You want things to change, get at least a master's degree in cellular bio or biotech or some kind of applied biological science and get some years of experience actually working in a lab before you tell us what is or isnt necessary for research.

Do you need a degree to answer why human children are not used as models to help human children?

Because it would not be any science course that would help with that.

I dont know why I bother wasting my time with you. Why dont scientists just harvest babies and test drugs on them instead of chimps? Because they go to jail if they try that shit. Furthermore its a pain in the ass working with humans and you can get a lot more research done with other animals. And AGAIN, if there is a drug or something actually intended to be used on human children, guess what? Once it passes animal testing THEY TEST IT ON HUMANS.

[Kodama]

It can't be bad or good. If it's bad science, i.e. not of the scientific method, then it's not science.

Hence my question about the human child as a scientific model.

Do ethics matter? If so, why? Is there such a thing as a true rational human being? Should there be?

As we lose the taught morals of religion and learn new ways away from our own biological cues, as well as away from the norms enforced by society, there is a place for ethical discussion.

[scott nathaniel]

That's where the problem arises. Ethics is a meaningless term. PETA claims ethical right. You're claiming ethical right. How do you define your ethics. What are your ethics, can you state them, not to me, but can you claim what your ethics are. And how can something as absolute as science be bad or good. There is only the scientific method. It either is or isn't. It can't be bad or good. If it's bad science, i.e. not of the scientific method, then it's not science.

I'm not really claiming any ethical right, I'm just doing it because I want to. I enjoy this stuff. My personal philosophy comes into play too (ideas of taking evolution into our own hands and hacking the technology of life etc), but at its heart I just plain enjoy it like I enjoy making music. My ethics come into play whenever the issue comes up, they are not very solid.

What I mean by "bad" science is science based on faulty or false data, conclusions that aren't backed up by said data, science that teaches absolutely nothing new, etc. Think of bad not much as a moral idea, but just a low quality one. science that lies or leads nowhere. at least failed science usually leads somewhere that eventually succeeds. That is where ethics come into play, to be honest about results and design experiments carefully to get good data that teaches or develops something new.

That's whats difficult. Science functions regardless of ethics. That's where the distrust comes from-- Not in science, but the scientist. I don't dispute the information gleaned from experiment, I don't dispute the value either. I just don't have a lot of faith in the purpose or motivation of a lot of research.

[Kodama]

Are you advocating the use of children as biological models?
I admire your integrity..
But is kind of of kilter in a lot of ways.
You need to stop hating on the rest of the humans and go beyond the naivety of thinking the animal world is one based on respect and tolerance.
Plenty of people are used in the last stages of drug and surgical trials.

I'm not advocating anything in asking that question, except an honest answer to it.

I also do not hate humans, I believe that is a stereotype that comforts many who disagree with the ethics that I am presenting. I am not naive about the behavior of animals in the wild, matter of fact, I believe that ethics are one of our great leaps forward. Seriously, any vegan that believes in social medicine has to have a sweet spot for humanity. I personally think that we are pure potential, and what we do with it is what counts.