Ableton Forum

b0unce wrote:Guys, look after someone with a degenerative nuerological disease until their point of ultimate departure...and get back to me about animal tests, I'll hear you out if you've spoon-fed someone (maybe your young mother) and cleaned their ass for years and you still object to scientifically experimenting with animals in the name of a treatment (if not cure), and above all else a greater understanding of neurological systems for future generations. OK, so some capitalist scumfuck corporation may ultimately charge you for the medicine, but then again some socialist saint may be in charge at some point....knowledge is pure.

Sorry, but the douchefucks talking about experiments in the name of beauty science (as if it's news) are being a wee bit pedantic. Obviously none of us support that shit, and no one is arguing in favour of it. No one asks creative types to advertise bullshit products that kill the planet and their fellow man either. But let's not ban art classes, ok ?

Completely on point.

but then again some socialist saint may be in charge at some point

...and will have the good sense and fortitude to implement reasonable and rational testing regulations; based on rigorous and vigorous debate of the science and ethics.

b0unce wrote:Guys, look after someone with a degenerative nuerological disease until their point of ultimate departure...and get back to me about animal tests, I'll hear you out if you've spoon-fed someone (maybe your young mother) and cleaned their ass for years and you still object to scientifically experimenting with animals in the name of a treatment (if not cure), and above all else a greater understanding of neurological systems for future generations.

Now this is a position I can respect. It says, "I don't want my loved one to suffer (and therefore I don't want to suffer from seeing them suffer), so I support 'X'" It comes from a state of emotion, true, but it imposes no moral will on anyone else. It merely presents a want or need that exists within the individual who is stating it. It says, "I think this would be good for me," without presupposing or making judgements on what might be good for anyone or anything else.

b0unce wrote:Guys, look after someone with a degenerative nuerological disease until their point of ultimate departure...and get back to me about animal tests, I'll hear you out if you've spoon-fed someone (maybe your young mother) and cleaned their ass for years and you still object to scientifically experimenting with animals in the name of a treatment (if not cure), and above all else a greater understanding of neurological systems for future generations. OK, so some capitalist scumfuck corporation may ultimately charge you for the medicine, but then again some socialist saint may be in charge at some point....knowledge is pure.

Sorry, but the douchefucks talking about experiments in the name of beauty science (as if it's news) are being a wee bit pedantic. Obviously none of us support that shit, and no one is arguing in favour of it. No one asks creative types to advertise bullshit products that kill the planet and their fellow man either. But let's not ban art classes, ok ?

Well done sir. It took 16 pages to get to this

I'm pretty sure no-one here is advocating animal testing for non-essentials (I think Android Bishop is def coming from a biopharma angle...correct me if I'm wrong).

We know it's bad but for some things in life, the end justifies the means.

That's why the books I pointed out are pertinent, they question whether or no animal experimentation has helped human medical science.

If there is a chance that animal testing could help a terminal patient, then there is room for discussion.

If there is a chance that animal testing could delay or hinder treatment for that same patient, is there no room for discussion?

Maybe quit bashing the book before you crack the cover?

b0unce wrote:Guys, look after someone with a degenerative nuerological disease until their point of ultimate departure...and get back to me about animal tests, I'll hear you out if you've spoon-fed someone (maybe your young mother) and cleaned their ass for years and you still object to scientifically experimenting with animals in the name of a treatment (if not cure), and above all else a greater understanding of neurological systems for future generations. OK, so some capitalist scumfuck corporation may ultimately charge you for the medicine, but then again some socialist saint may be in charge at some point....knowledge is pure.

Sorry, but the douchefucks talking about experiments in the name of beauty science (as if it's news) are being a wee bit pedantic. Obviously none of us support that shit, and no one is arguing in favour of it. No one asks creative types to advertise bullshit products that kill the planet and their fellow man either. But let's not ban art classes, ok ?

My father has had MS for 15 years, and i have genetic tendency to have it so do I qualify? because i still dont believe in animal testing.

You can object to animal testing if you hide his meds, and sabotage his efforts to get to appointments with his consultant.


or is he taking St John's Wort for it ?

b0unce wrote:You can object to animal testing if you hide his meds, and sabotage his efforts to get to appointments with his consultant.


or is he taking St John's Wort for it ?

he takes cock for it

Ya, I was expecting a facetious reply.

b0unce wrote:Ya, I was expecting a facetious reply.

Bounce postures toward the high road.

Stocks go down in Japan.

Emissary wrote:

b0unce wrote:You can object to animal testing if you hide his meds, and sabotage his efforts to get to appointments with his consultant.


or is he taking St John's Wort for it ?

he takes cock for it

stringtapper wrote:

b0unce wrote:Guys, look after someone with a degenerative nuerological disease until their point of ultimate departure...and get back to me about animal tests, I'll hear you out if you've spoon-fed someone (maybe your young mother) and cleaned their ass for years and you still object to scientifically experimenting with animals in the name of a treatment (if not cure), and above all else a greater understanding of neurological systems for future generations.

Now this is a position I can respect. It says, "I don't want my loved one to suffer (and therefore I don't want to suffer from seeing them suffer), so I support 'X'" It comes from a state of emotion, true, but it imposes no moral will on anyone else. It merely presents a want or need that exists within the individual who is stating it. It says, "I think this would be good for me," without presupposing or making judgements on what might be good for anyone or anything else.

I guess you missed this bit:
and above all else a greater understanding of neurological systems for future generations.

Let's test some slugs to cure your retardation, all in favour say Aiiiii!


*edited to make sure 'above all else' reaaaaallllllly stood out, he is severely retarded after all*

Lord, Have MRSA on us all.
And, get a motel room, you fucknobs

b0unce wrote:
Sorry, but the douchefucks talking about experiments in the name of beauty science (as if it's news) are being a wee bit pedantic. Obviously none of us support that shit, and no one is arguing in favour of it. No one asks creative types to advertise bullshit products that kill the planet and their fellow man either. But let's not ban art classes, ok ?

Great post, but this is where I'm going to disagree with you. There is always talk of shifting government funded research away from experiments that don't have any immediate application to ones that are targeted with some specific application in mind, and the research community has to constantly remind people that we NEVER KNOW what will be useful later down the line, especially in biology. A majority of the applied research we see all comes from information gleaned from experiments that were performed just cause. First comes the information foundation and then comes the house. Furthermore, it isnt just medicine that the technology of life can help us with. It has allowed us to do all sorts of things for agriculture, industrial applications, environmental applications, and who knows what else.

The point is that we don't have an idea of what a lot of these components do or how we can work with them unless we test them, and that usually means in the organism from which they came. From there one has added another potential tool for other scientists to use in case they come up an idea of what it can be useful for. This is where most of our knowledge and applied research comes from, its rare for someone to come up with an experiment and just "know" what everything is going to do and how its going to benefit us. Its all built from bricks of information gleaned from other experiments that were designed simply to find out what their "brick" was and how it works.

What animals do you work with Android?

Android Bishop wrote:The point is that we don't have an idea of what a lot of these components do or how we can work with them unless we test them, and that usually means in the organism from which they came. From there one has added another potential tool for other scientists to use in case they come up an idea of what it can be useful for. This is where most of our knowledge and applied research comes from, its rare for someone to come up with an experiment and just "know" what everything is going to do and how its going to benefit us. Its all built from bricks of information gleaned from other experiments that were designed simply to find out what their "brick" was and how it works.

Sorry, I don't think that you have the right to do 'X' to an animal just to see what happens.

History has proven that the 'X' can be remarkably perverse.

And BTW - animal testing is not the only way to learn about animals or their cells, otherwise we would never have known about humans.

Da Vinci was mentioned earlier, he was a vegetarian that studied cadavers.

Additions to that of course include culturing, computer models, clinical trials, etc...