Ethics Of Animal Research

[Wake]

Everyone, please ignore Ashtara's antagonistic posts.

I think testing on white lab rats is the best way to go. We have precious little other options left. Could we experiment on insects? That would still be lives sacrificed. Do we stop because some small animals are dying for our benefit?

If you eat meat for your own consumption, why should this concern you? I feel that's a fair question, because one animal is being used to feed you when you could fill your belly with plant matter, while the other animal is used to create concoctions used to save not only your own life, but the lives of countless others. If animal experimentation is truly bothersome to you, I think you would be a vegetarian, too.

I do love animals... but I do love people, too. I don't want to see my children, my wife, and all my loved ones and friends wiped out from horrific diseases that maim and kill. Imagine, for just one moment, what the world would be like if we did not have the means to prevent diseases... or cure them. Millions upon millions of lives hang in the balance, and we have much of animal experimentation to thank for it.

 

[Politico]

I can think of 40 million human beings in this country I'd rather see used for research than a single dog.

That. Animals are worth way more than people.

 

[G.T.]

I don't understand the level of self loathing some people have as to consider their own species as lesser than any other.

Think a cutesy lion gives three fucks before it cuts the neck of its prey?

Does a bear give a damn if he takes a hot musty dump on a chipmunks house? I mean, animals are pretty self centered and rude too.

A tiger will maul a newborn human. Few humans would maul a newborn tiger.

Monkeys throw shit at each other and also commit rape all of the time - but unlike humans who have actual empathy - it isn't 'wrong.'

 

[September]

It has absolutely nothing to do with "self loathing".

Its possible that Natural misanthropy and sociopathy contribute to my perspective on the matter.

​

 

[G.T.]

I wasn't specifically referring to you, but I also don't think you're a sociopath - you play one on the internet to troll for shock value.

A real sociopath is 'out there' doing what a sociopath does, not sitting on a message board acting outlandish all of the time for effect.

 

[September]

"Outlandish"? That works too.

Any naive Mundanes who assume I "act" for shock value are really just complimenting my "outlandish" Nature when they declare that my Weltanschauung is too unbelievable to be true.

Mundanes will continue to be Mundane.
​

 

[G.T.]

They're also weak, but I told you that before.

I'll call you out on it so long as you're going to do it.

You favor eugenics, you cheered the be-headings - but you're on your ass typing about it and not even killing a mouse. Its about as intimidating as the ice bucket challenge.

 

[September]

I must have left an impression on you, yet you aren't significant enough for me to recall anything about you. You are like a spec of dirt on my boots while I'm walking through the desert. I could care less.

Complain about my posts if you Will. It won't change anything.

One of the many things I enjoy in life is discussing religion and "morality", in person or via the Internet. My phone makes Internet access possible wherever I'm at, whenever I wish. Very convenient.

Some people here ask some good questions about religion and "morality". Some people here are a strong source of wisdom, especially when it comes to religion and spirituality, which is my primary interest here.

But you... you're just irrelevant, and you don't leave much of an impression.

You are welcome to complain about every one of my posts, if you wish to allow yourself to be that deeply affected by what I have to say.

​

 

[G.T.]

I luh u boo *hugs*

 

[G.T.]

If eugenics in humans is ever a go universally - sociopaths are likely up there on the list to go.

Too bad, so sad,

Yo dad.



J/p & happy shatterday

 

[September]

I can think of 40 million human beings in this country I'd rather see used for research than a single dog.

Misanthropic perspectives aside, scientifically it makes far more sense to test a product- designed for human use- on a human, rather than a dog.
​

 

[G.T.]

I can think of 40 million human beings in this country I'd rather see used for research than a single dog.

Misanthropic perspectives aside, scientifically it makes far more sense to test a product- designed for human use- on a human, rather than a dog.
​

They begin with an animal genetically similar, typically a rat, to determine if human testing is safe.

They don't not test on humans, they simply clear the path first.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I can think of 40 million human beings in this country I'd rather see used for research than a single dog.

I'll take that as hyperbole and not as some nod to the 40's...

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I can think of 40 million human beings in this country I'd rather see used for research than a single dog.

I'll take that as hyperbole and not as some nod to the 40's...

You know that back in the 20's and 30's, PhD degrees were available from the University of Chicago, Harvard, Yale, and the rest, in eugenics! Yes, back in the 20's and 30's, academia saw no moral contradiction in "mercy" killing, nor in human experimentation. It was only after Hitler's brand of eugenics was exposed to the world, that eugenics quickly died out as a field of study in the US and Canada.

 

[sealybobo]

Looking for other things yesterday I came across some stuff about using animals in deadly medical research (experiments which require the animal to die, or make that a likely outcome.)

Is it ethical to sacrifice animals if the resulting research saves humans?

No. I say experiment on human murderers, terrorists and rapists. Those Beagles didn't do anything to anyone.

 

[sealybobo]

I can think of 40 million human beings in this country I'd rather see used for research than a single dog.

I'll take that as hyperbole and not as some nod to the 40's...

You know that back in the 20's and 30's, PhD degrees were available from the University of Chicago, Harvard, Yale, and the rest, in eugenics! Yes, back in the 20's and 30's, academia saw no moral contradiction in "mercy" killing, nor in human experimentation. It was only after Hitler's brand of eugenics was exposed to the world, that eugenics quickly died out as a field of study in the US and Canada.

Who did they experiment on?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I can think of 40 million human beings in this country I'd rather see used for research than a single dog.

I'll take that as hyperbole and not as some nod to the 40's...

You know that back in the 20's and 30's, PhD degrees were available from the University of Chicago, Harvard, Yale, and the rest, in eugenics! Yes, back in the 20's and 30's, academia saw no moral contradiction in "mercy" killing, nor in human experimentation. It was only after Hitler's brand of eugenics was exposed to the world, that eugenics quickly died out as a field of study in the US and Canada.

Who did they experiment on?

The mentally ill.

 

[GreenBean]

Would say it's necessary right now, but unethical.

Why use animals ? We should simply round up all the homosexuals and transgender freaks and use them . They are in denial of their humanity anyway -

 

[sealybobo]

Would say it's necessary right now, but unethical.

Why use animals ? We should simply round up all the homosexuals and transgender freaks and use them . They are in denial of their humanity anyway -

You'd rather them than murderers and rapists?

You want them to deny who they are they aren't in denial of their humanity.

 

[sealybobo]

Would say it's necessary right now, but unethical.

Why use animals ? We should simply round up all the homosexuals and transgender freaks and use them . They are in denial of their humanity anyway -

I hope one day a son, daughter or grandkid of yours turns out to be gay and I want to see if you would still say such an evil thing.

Let me guess you think you're going to heaven I bet?