GreenChrist

11:55 - 2008-Jul-2 - post comment

but..but..I've got no one to make love to right now..*pouts*

On a more serious note, yes animal testing is horrible(on some levels) but I have yet to see any of these bleeding hearts volunteering to be tested on, new chemicals, medicines, etc have to be given a trial and I sure as shite would rather have them tested on a rat/pig/monkey than on my fair form.

sarai - 12:45 - 2008-Jul-3

You know, on that note, I have done more for drug research than these pillocks. When I broke my leg in 2004, and needed surgery, they asked me before the surgery if they could take some muscle tissue. They wanted to test some heart drug on micro veins. And I donated.

dantesinferno - 12:52 - 2008-Jul-3

hooray for Dante the guinea pig!

sarai - 01:03 - 2008-Jul-3

Damn...Sarai stole my thunder. After reading the Greenpeace part, I was going to suggest that these fuckers put their asses where their mouths are and volunteer to take the places of the rats.

As for Jesus, Bloody Jesus...you should have walked up to "Carrie" and told them all how much you like all that Stephen King shit...

texican - 01:37 - 2008-Jul-3

Fuckwits.

Twist - 11:17 - 2008-Jul-3

I saw a great one in Birmingham on Saturday, on the flip-side of this. Amnesty International were protesting about the human rights violations in China, featuring three people standing on a podium in white masks, blue jumpsuits and chains, just standing still as a show-piece.

At one point, some idiot strutted past and starting shouting at the protesters and the people supporting them. Whatever he was shouting was mostly garbled, but he looked absolutely furious and eventually said, "...but you're obviously not going to listen to me, so fuck it!" Then wandered away a little, turned, yelled "Think about what you're doing!" and ambled off.

Religious nutters always make me giggle. They seem to have no concept of how completely fucked-up their perspective is.

On that note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-WJO...-WJO0YQLOs

bebbet - 11:30 - 2008-Jul-3

We had PETA protesters break into a mink ranch and set all the mink free....problem was the mink were not wild in the least and the ones that were not recaptured starved to death because they did not know how to hunt for food. They all just ran into the woods and lay there to die because no one brought them food.

I agree with the concept PETA was trying to do. Don't kill the mink for coats, but what they did made the little buggers die an even more horrible death. At least on the mink ranch, they were calmly put to sleep (so not to damage the pelts) then skinned!

littleMissConfused - 03:39 - 2008-Jul-3

"After reading the Greenpeace part, I was going to suggest that these fuckers put their asses where their mouths are and volunteer to take the places of the rats. "

Eh. It'd be more of a gotcha to see if they spent effort in avoiding products that used animal testing.

I think testing any product on anything that didn't consent to it is extremely selfish and amoral.

OgreJehosephatt - 05:02 - 2008-Jul-3

I think testing any product on anything that didn't consent to it is extremely selfish and amoral - No, it isn't.

dantesinferno - 05:26 - 2008-Jul-3

"No, it isn't."

Haha. Well, if you say it isn't it must be.

OgreJehosephatt - 05:41 - 2008-Jul-3

I have two friends who are diabetic. They need insulin. Developed with animal testing. I like my friends. I like them to be alive. Fuck what ever animal that had to die to perfect their medicine.
My dad is not well. He takes various medications. Every single one developed by years of testing. I would personally kill every rabbit in the testing facility to save my dad.
I take lithium every day. While being a natural element, the precise formula for the pill I take was developed with animal testing. I don't lose any sleep because most likely a rhesus monkey or twenty were killed to perfect the medicine. I like my sanity that much.

You can not view a matter so complicated with a simple yes or no, moral or amoral myopic vision. It's idiocy. It's what the Greenpeace people do. They throw all reason and intelligence in to the air and start raving about how rats are being murdered. They are idiots. And they are wrong.

dantesinferno - 05:50 - 2008-Jul-3

Just because you're willing to indulge in it (as I am) doesn't make you (or I) any less selfish or amoral. If you rather pretend your hands aren't dirty, then that's your prerogative.

I won't not use a product because of animal testing if I had to use it. Then again, I'd be pretty okay if the world suddenly decided only using human test-subjects from now on. I'm sure it'd raise the costs of R&D, but moral-high-ground and idealism isn't easy.

OgreJehosephatt - 06:04 - 2008-Jul-3

A lot of animals used in testing facilities are treated excellently, as in many cases their health and hygiene, not to mention state of mind, are important in the testing of the product used. It's a sad fact that we need to do this testing on animals, as to do this to ourselves would probably send us completely insane. It's just one step below killing people for meat instead of animals.

Twist - 06:11 - 2008-Jul-3

"It's just one step below killing people for meat instead of animals."

And if people volunteered to be food, I'd be all for it... Except that people shouldn't eat people since it's physiologically disastrous after too long, as I understand it.

OgreJehosephatt - 06:14 - 2008-Jul-3

Only if they don't suppliment their diet with fruit and veg.

bebbet - 06:17 - 2008-Jul-3

But that isn't a question of morality versus amorality. You can't dictate morality, so animal testing is a matter of personal morality, so there is no immorality in the mix. Either you approve it or don't, but that's it. It becomes a matter of morality only when raving lunatics scream it in the streets and try to convince simpleminded people that creating medicine for people who need it is somehow open for a moral discussion.

Also, using animal testing is not just a question of money, it is a question of necessity. At this moment there is no way for pharmaceutical companies to go from animal testing to something else, simply because there is not yet enough new technology and not enough other test material. We're years away from that, but all that is being pursued and it will happen one day. But now it is not possible, end of story. And no, not because I say so, but because there simply is not enough alternatives at this time.

dantesinferno - 06:20 - 2008-Jul-3

"Only if they don't suppliment their diet with fruit and veg."

Interesting. I wonder how they found that out. Haha.

"You can't dictate morality, so animal testing is a matter of personal morality..."

I don't think I'm dictating anything, nor do I think it's personal. I see myself as observing something intrinsic.

Well, mostly intrinsic.

I didn't, one day, just create a list of immoral and moral things. One day, I asked myself, "What is Good?". I asked myself, "What is Evil?".

And so I thought. I thought about all the examples of good and evil I could think of. I thought about different cultures and what they considered good and evil. I thought about history, where good things are then considered evil, or evil things are considered good (or at least not-evil)... And I looked at why these people thought the way they did and why changes were made when they were.

Through all the contradictions and oddities, I noticed a general direction to it all. The only thing in common with all of it is that Good benefits something and Evil harms something.

Of course, what benefits or harms something can be quite abstract, and a single action could both cause benefit and harm, so it can be a bit of a nuanced balancing act.

When we get down to it, it's impossible to be purely good. Life is pretty evil. I am willing to see my existence as both good and evil. It seems that many other people have problems with it, so they create arbitrary lines between what is deserving of good and the things they won't acknowledge being evil towards.

You accused me of a personal morality, but I think you have it backwards. People create value in things and people, based on their preferences. It's due to these values people decide how do assign good and evil actions. You'd kill many rabbits to save your dad, because your dad is more valuable to you than the rabbits. The rabbits sure as hell wouldn't want to die for your dad.

"At this moment there is no way for pharmaceutical companies to go from animal testing to something else, simply because there is not yet enough new technology and not enough other test material."

And that's a pretty good reason to continue animal testing.

OgreJehosephatt - 07:23 - 2008-Jul-3

"The rabbits sure as hell wouldn't want to die for your dad."

You don't know that... maybe Dante's dad had a real affinity with rabbits, to the point where they would sacrifice their cute little selves for his health. Yeah, think about THAT one, Mr Logical. *nod*

Twist - 07:26 - 2008-Jul-3

"Yeah, think about THAT one, Mr Logical. *nod*"

Heh. I had considered it, but hoped it wouldn't come up.


Post script: I just found out that really like being called "Mr. Logical".

OgreJehosephatt - 07:33 - 2008-Jul-3

Then again, I'd be pretty okay if the world suddenly decided only using human test-subjects from now on.

Ok...but who's gonna volunteer? And what happens if there are no volunteers? Who's gonna decide which people get tested on?

I think animal testing is an unfortunate necessity until something better comes along.

texican - 07:36 - 2008-Jul-3

You'd kill many rabbits to save your dad, because your dad is more valuable to you than the rabbits. - I'd kill many rabbits to save any human being. Maybe not the pope, but most human beings.

The only thing in common with all of it is that Good benefits something and Evil harms something. - That's utter rubbish. There are tons of Good morals that do nothing but hurt people.

Everyone has personal morals, that's how we are built. We consider what is good for us and how far we can go. Problems always start when people open their mouths and try to get others to live in accordance to their morals.

Usually, these people are so limited in their mental capacities, that they don't see the complexity of the world beyond their moral compass.

Here's a few good ones;

Taking a life to save another.
Taking a life to prevent suffering.
Child labor is good.

dantesinferno - 07:37 - 2008-Jul-3

Dante, you don't seem to have understood what I said.


"Ok...but who's gonna volunteer?

Only the folks that stand to gain something. Folks who can get rich of the product they're developing. Folks that are paid to be guinea pigs, perhaps getting royalties. And for more benign stuff, like shampoo or make up, it could just be for some perk, like free shampoo.

And what happens if there are no volunteers?"

Then product R&D would slowdown dramatically. This is what I'm saying that a societies' morals and idealism aren't easy. There are sacrifices involved. On the other side of the spectrum, if we didn't care about the individual, and experimented and tested things on whoever was unlucky enough to be captured, we could develop some technologies very quickly.

We already tax ourselves for the sake of our ideals... We bother maintaining prisons and courthouses because we believe in justice. It'd be far easier and cheaper to just execute anyone who didn't obey the law.

We freed slaves and ruined economies for it, because we felt it was the right thing to do.

Striving to be idealistically better than you already are is tough. Generally, one who considers themselves to be moral should believe that it is worth it.

OgreJehosephatt - 09:49 - 2008-Jul-3

Post Comment

From:	Registered User: [ login / signup ]
Subject:
Message: