BAN ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS IN EU - VOTE NOW !

[Android Bishop]

No it's first hand experience I'm talking, I have friends currently doing studies on monkeys that aren't successful, and seem to be continuing to ensure funding coming in more than anything else, but I'm more of a impartial observer in this thread. I agree there is a point to animal testing, but I also agree that the business of animal testing lends itself to conducting tests that prove nothing, Bishop already stated that he thinks that's OK, (since proving nothing over and over again is scientifically valid), so there's really nothing to argue about.

I'm sorry but this is not first hand experience, its hearsay and speculation at best.

Furthermore, I do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth. NOWHERE did I say that conducting the same failed experiment over and over again is OK. I said what is good about a failed experiment is that it teaches you what doesnt work or isn't true so that you have a better idea of what WILL work or what IS true for future experiments. Doing the same thing over and over again with the same failed results doesn't accomplish anything. However, I sincerely doubt they would continue doing the SAME failed experiment over and over because, moral issues aside, it doesn't accomplish anything and wastes a lot of time and money. Nor is it likely anyone would continue to give them grants to conduct the same failed research over and over again either.

[Kodama]

Why do people keep getting respect for posing the same question with different emotional dressing?

"Wait, I've got a new one! What if you were octomom and all of your babies and you all of your relatives had a horrible blood disease that was causing them to go crazy and eat their own skin. Don't laugh my mum died like that so like fuck Peta and hippies, I like cheeseburgers."

[Kodama]

The ONLY reason that we do not involuntarily subject humans to medical is testing is this:

Ethics > Free reign of science at any cost


What's odd is that I have not heard Android even answer a question on ethics, even my one on testing on humans (except to say because it's illegal).

Leads me to believe that either:

1. He would not experiment on humans non-voluntarily because god said so

2. Would do so if the law allowed


Also, why not at least acknowledge some of the effed up hillbilly pseudo-science that is going?

It won't hurt your argument to publicly recognize that many of these experiments are ridiculous and without merit.

[Kodama]

This forum is so PC it can make one sick.

PC = Politically Correct

AKA - Saying what's popular.

It does not mean saying something against the will of the majority, aka sticking your neck out with an unpopular sentiment.

[Kodama]

I guess they let you walk in and filled you in on all the projects they had going right?

Look, I get it, you don't like what I'm saying so you want to bat down everything that you think is an easy 'hit'. Well the institution is the ONPRC, which is run by OHSU. You can easily research what I wrote, some of the information is even on their own site.

[Aequitas123]

I'm all for free speech and would protect anyones right to their opinion, even yours Kodama. After all, freedom of speech means nothing if it is not entitled to those whose opinion is different than then general consensus. But you've clearly demonstrated ignorance and closed mindedness. Not to mentioned the numerous logical fallacies in your arguments.

Quick survey: How many of you involved in this discussion believe in God?

Hands up.

[Android Bishop]

Quick survey: How many of you involved in this discussion believe in God?

Hands up.

Depends how you define "God"

[stringtapper]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdvnNQQvCc4

[Kodama]

Well, not everyone can drop the science like Aequitas123.

I have pointed you to what I believe is a good source, if you want a more infallible argument than either I or android are capable of producing, I would suggest you read a book.

[Kodama]

Nyet. No leprechauns, no Easter bunny, no cthullu, no spaghetti monster.

[Aequitas123]

Depends how you define "God"

Lets not get into that, as there are thousands of definitions.

Any type of God.



The reason for this is i believe it may have bearing on the subject.

[Aequitas123]

Well, not everyone can drop the science like Aequitas123.

I have pointed you to what I believe is a good source, if you want a more infallible argument than either I or android are capable of producing, I would suggest you read a book.

Absurd.

[Kodama]

Well, not everyone can drop the science like Aequitas123.

I have pointed you to what I believe is a good source, if you want a more infallible argument than either I or android are capable of producing, I would suggest you read a book.

Absurd.

I know, reading is crazy!

To quote auto-tune the news 2= "Surely you jest, I'm under cardiac arrest!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBb4cjjj1gI

[Tone Deft]

Depends how you define "God"

Lets not get into that, as there are thousands of definitions.

Any type of God.



The reason for this is i believe it may have bearing on the subject.

it's God's will.
or
God says it's wrong to kill.

either way God is an enabling force to back up ANY silly argument without rhyme or reason.

hands down.

[stringtapper]

Depends how you define "God"

Lets not get into that, as there are thousands of definitions.

Any type of God.



The reason for this is i believe it may have bearing on the subject.

it's God's will.
or
God says it's wrong to kill.

either way God is an enabling force to back up ANY silly argument without rhyme or reason.

hands down.

And the same goes for any kind of made up fantasies like morals and "rights."