Ableton Forum

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

No, not really.

today i found a dead bat in a box of stuff. i hope it was not the pharmaceutical-industrial complex that tried to hide their soul-less bat experiments.

303

Aequitas123 wrote:

Android Bishop wrote:
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.

You can't ask me if I believe in something and not define what that something is. There are a great many different interpretations of what "god" is and I can't just assume to know which one you mean in your question

Aequitas123 wrote:

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

No, not really.

Yes, really. Gods and morals are all human fictions. If these morals and rights exist, where do they come from? That's right, they were dreamed up by humans. The physical world free of humans lays no claim to such concoctions.

stringtapper wrote: Yes, really. Gods and morals are all human fictions. If these morals and rights exist, where do they come from? That's right, they were dreamed up by humans. The physical world free of humans lays no claim to such concoctions.

Let me be specific in my question:

Do you believe in any sort of worldview that YOU would say includes a "God"?

a) Yes
b) No


Chime in Kodama

stringtapper wrote: If these morals and rights exist, where do they come from? That's right, they were dreamed up by humans. The physical world free of humans lays no claim to such concoctions.

True, but the ethics that we agree on control our society, and you, as all of us, live under their domain.

They can make the difference between getting stoned to death for not wearing the correct clothing, being enslaved, or living in what you might consider a just society.

That's why the source and application of our society's ethics are the most important study of all. Some sources of our ethics can be:

- dictated by a book passed down for centuries

- a product of popular culture

- an internal belief in the super natural

- an inborn sense of right and wrong, which exists in several species. It is more of a biological cue, and not always in step with what we would consider intellectually ethical.

- reinforcement by a group of like-minded individuals

- a product of discussion of a broad range of ethical ideals, weighed on their merits and failings

b0unce wrote:

*smokes cigarette*

*hits off of b0unce's cigarette and gets swine flu*

Kodama wrote:no cthullu

What? WHAT? WTF? How DARE you!

stringtapper wrote:Gods and morals are all human constructs.

fxd.

LoopStationZebra wrote:

Kodama wrote:no cthullu

What? WHAT? WTF? How DARE you!

I know, I know! My gf & I did have a Cthullu & FSM tree last year though!

I basically think that the flying spaghetti monster is a gateway into Cthullu-ism, a more amicable face of the great horror, if you will.

yeah well Cthulhu actually exists...

Man. You know it's an Epic thread when Cthulhu AND Ralphie from the Simpsons making an appearance. Now all we need is Hitler. Can't believe that guy hasn't shown up to the party yet. ? WTF?

Im starving for some squid rolls now.

LoopStationZebra wrote:Man. You know it's an Epic thread when Cthulhu AND Ralphie from the Simpsons making an appearance. Now all we need is Hitler. Can't believe that guy hasn't shown up to the party yet. ? WTF?

Android Bishop wrote:

Machinesworking wrote: 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.

Right, so avoid the simple fact that large institutions that operate on government grants routinely spend every last dime of the grant money, whether the experiment is finished or not? Just pretending this doesn't happen in order to 'win' an interweb debate is silly IMO. Call my rationale whatever you want, grant based organizations operate this way as a matter of course, and to think otherwise IMO is to be deluded.

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.

So you have a built in excuse for any study that continually has a failed experiment. Or in other words, a failed experiment repeated ad infinitum will always result in at least some positive benefit. Sounds like you think it's OK to conduct experiments past their point of usefulness if it's possible some scientific benefit can be gleaned from it. Which is exactly my point, that it's not any use debating you about it, because you see all animal testing as valid, and find no fault in it at all.

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.

Right, again, either you're being consciously obtuse about this, or you really haven't any understanding of how grant money is requested and received. Do you really think a lab with say 45 employees that gets a research grant to test some new AIDS drug etc... say it's May, funding has been granted, and news comes in that in France say, the same exact drug has been proven to be useless. Do you really think that 45 employee lab turns to the government and says, "Hey our study is finished, we're returning the money and we'll just lay everyone off until we write up a new grant and await your approval."
The animal testing business simply doesn't operate like that, and while I wouldn't expect it not to, I'm actually quite surprised that anybody would argue that somehow the business is on a higher ethical plane than pretty much every other business out there? Seriously, You're fighting a straw man here, you've gotten so caught up in defending any slight against animal testing that you won't admit ANY tarnish on the purity that is your profession?? Not buying it, and again, all I was saying was the waste should be cut from the business end.