You don't get it, I'm telling you "you're taking things too seriously you damn shit eating pussy."
You haven't been funny since you first joined the forum, licking balls http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... 842#404842
kissing ass and being "offensive" to women http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... 058#407058
and generally knob-polishing your best friend http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... 369#414369 in public.
It's obvious you guys are bros outside the forum. Your character is more sensitive and less funny than his in-forum character though. If you're going to talk shit and throw down on other forum members, have a sense of humor and don't get so bent out of shape when the balls swing back to you.
Half the things anyone's said to you were in the same jest as your own comments, but you apparently were too blinded by annoyance to see that (or you're just playing pissed to incite some turmoil). Whatever, it's boring with a capital B.
Nobody can take you seriously when you simultaneously cry foul and hang with the foulest.
Animal Testing
92Boombats wrote:You don't get it, I'm telling you "you're taking things too seriously you damn shit eating pussy."
Your a retard. I understand perfectly that it was meant for me. Notice you don't see me getting upset. I don't mind when the "Ball swings back at me." I just don't care for your humor and you don't care for mine/ or me in general. Which is alright by me. leave it at that how many times do you have to analyze my posts.
As as for people who are my "bro's" your out of your mind. However, I do tend to favor people with funny replies that make me laugh and who don't constantly try calling me out. Also, yes out of close to 200 posts I you have found some where I reference Marsupialized. He is a funny character and many people here reference his antics. Man, there is no sense even talking with you. We could go for pages as you over analyze everything. For the upteanth time, man lay off.
Animal Testing
93John George Peppers wrote:For the upteanth time, man lay off.
EA Ranking Wizard wrote:
Fair enough, as you have attained OT Level "Red Foxx" I will accordingly "nip it in the bud."
Animal Testing
95Skronk wrote:sphincter wrote:Without animal testing in this system human testing would cease to exist, thus drug testing would stop and we'd stop developing new drugs for society.
If a drug is purposefully made for Humans, then it stands to reason, Humans should be the test subjects. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean vivisecting an "Ashley", or anything, but if the drug is intended for human consumption, animals shouldn't play a part. You said it yourself, there've been cases where animals had no problem with the drug, but Human patients got sick. In a case like that, animals would have no bearing on the results, and shouldn't be used.sphincter wrote:Testing on animals isn't about killing them, I'm sure some practice is bad and people brake codes and are awful to animals, but you can't paint the whole industry (yeah) with the same brush.
Excuse me if I'm not lenient on an industry that kills animals wholesale. Testing on them is about killing them. Almost all animal test subjects are killed after testing to examine the organs. Take the LD 50 tests as an example. The test is about finding the lethal dosage that kills half of it's test subjects. If we were to only test on Human subjects, that volunteer, unlike animals, it would be a more accurate test, simply because the patient would be able to respond and communicate. These disgusting tests would never be done on Humans (except for the sickening WWII cases, but that's a different topic).
My point is the means don't justify the end.
Don't you realise human testing can't take place without animal testing happening before a drug is passed on?
These drugs that are developed end up killing thousands upon thousands of animals, you think if humans took that place that you'd end up with many people coming up for the cause? Obviously not.
Yes, I mentioned a case where animal testing failed, I'm being straight up and not absolute like you-one test failed, yeah, let's stop all testing, that makes huge amounts of sense. I'm not black and white about the subject, I just believe and also understand that in the development of medicines, animal testing is absolutely needed due to the lack of other effective methods.
Yes, animal testing isn't about killing animals, I'm not saying millions of animals haven't and won't die, they have indeed-but the testing isn't about killing the animals, it's about studying the effects, short and long term, that the drugs have on the biological form. These tests are done over and over on various species in different quantities and forms. It's complicated, but once they're sure (who is) the drug won't make heads explode (haha, it's obviously more complicated than this) they can introduce the drug into human testing schemes for futher development.
I've tried really hard here not to get personal with you, I've done OK.
Animal Testing
96lemur68 wrote:John George Peppers wrote:Your a retard.
I'm not one to give English lessons usually....scan my posts and you'll see I'm awful, but you should know this-
It sould be You're a retard. If you're shortening 'you are' in a sentence, you're changing it to 'you're'. ' is replacing the 'a' and you're joining the two.
Anyway, I'll go over this again in lesson two.
This post wasn't made to upset you, I like English lessons too. Just don't call me names.
Animal Testing
97sphincter wrote:lemur68 wrote:John George Peppers wrote:Your a retard.
I'm not one to give English lessons usually....scan my posts and you'll see I'm awful, but you should know this-
It sould be You're a retard. If you're shortening 'you are' in a sentence, you're changing it to 'you're'. ' is replacing the 'a' and you're joining the two.
Anyway, I'll go over this again in lesson two.
This post wasn't made to upset you, I like English lessons too. Just don't call me names.
HAHAHA. I didn't even notice I did that. In context, that's great. I was too busy typing away for most of this page defending myself and I just slipped up. It's no excuse and I will be more careful next time. Since we are all English teachers here............
sphincter wrote:It sould be You're a retard.
sould is actually spelled should. I'll cover more of this in my lesson 2.
Animal Testing
98Boombats wrote:Well if you can't believe anything I say then what's the point of discussing this shit?
A. you have extrapolated from me saying I don't believe one thing you say that I don't believe anything you say. This is no surprise from someone who thinks because one animal test is ineffective they all are.
And there are many points in discussing this shit I won't list them all but will highlight that one might be that we may learn from it. I personally have found this 'debate' interesting and enter any 'debate' with the secret, though slightly frightening hope that I may have my mind changed.
I have also found it entertaining - especially when you said morality has nothing to do with it - that was a real hoot and when you got so logical that you resorted to open, unjustified insults - that was fun. It was like seeing some school bully get all red faced cause he can't articulate himself.
Most amusing.
Boombats wrote:We have to take what each other is saying at face value to continue operating under this virtual paradigm. Or not.
What you said made no sense so I found it hard to believe. I still do and you've still avoided the issue.
Boombats wrote:Anyway there's no mouse and no baboon, so I say stuff the mouse up the baboon's ass and eat the baboon. It's not reality.
It was an analogy. I think I made my point clearly enuogh for anyone without shit for brains to see what I was driving at - whether they agree or not.
Boombats wrote:I never said I had a monopoly on compassion. I said, and I will firmly stand on this, that choosing non-abusive testing is cruel when there are alternatives. I think that IS a black and white element off the issue, and that you don't want to admit it because it sets you on the cruel side of the fence.
You start from an unproven premise (that there are now alternatives) - which you repeatedly refuse to try and prove then claim that anyone who doesn't accept your unproven premise is cruel for not accepting it.
Are you a Christian by any chance?
If your stance was that choosing non abusive testing would be cruel if there were alternatives would be pretty black and white - I would agree.
But we're not there yet.
Unfortunately.
Boombats wrote:You say I "cannot admit" the color of the issue, but that's like me saying that you "can't admit that you are wrong about everything." It's a fake and childish endgame.
Your argument has avoided any difficult question and you have repeatedly tried to hide your inability to argue your point behind a stream of open insults yet now you protest at something being fake and childish.
I think I already mentioned you're a hypocrite though, so that's okay.
Listen - I can give you a point by point reasoning behind why I have the stance I have. It rests on the belief (backed up by some looking into it) that there are not safe alternatives (for humans), right now, to animal testing.
I have asked you to prove that there are and all you have done is give me examples of some cases where testing was unecessarily abusive, ineffective.
You are either an idiot or you are hiding from the fact that that proves nothing.
Boombats wrote:What if your teenage daughter had a disease, and your newborn son could save her by dying? Would you make that choice, or try to pursue another method?
Well this moral dilemma (thanks for finally comng over on that one) is dependent on time. The ideal would be to pursue another method but it would take time to find one and in the meantime my teenage daughter would probably snuff it anyway.
So the question is daughter or son and in this case I would have to say I would not allow my son to die for my daughter. Not because I think the boy has any more value than the girl (as some cultures do) but because she is the one who has had the misfortune of developing the disease.
In this instance letting 'nature' take it's course would seem the right course of action - rather than wilfully killing someone else for the sake of another.
However - I don't have a daughter - but if I did, I would sacrifice every mouse rat and cat that ever lived to save her life.
There you see. that's how you think through a hypothetical moral problem. There is no divine law which states what is the correct cause of action (not for me anyhow) so I weigh up the elements in the dilemma which are important - to me - and make a judgement based on that.
You don't - you start going blind with rage and start shouting 'it wouldn't happen it wouldn't happen it wouldn't happen!!! Not real not real!!! there are no daughters there are no sons!!!' as you have done with my hypotheticals with all your expert powers of reasoning.
Boombats wrote:Earwicker wrote:Boombats wrote:I won't argue with an asshole.
you've been arguing with me for pages now.
So you admit you're an asshole!
Sure - I can be a total arsehole.
Doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Boombats wrote:Let me rephrase: I am tired of arguing with someone who reveals themself to be an asshole.
Suit yourself. I've been arguing with such a person for pages now and have quite enjoyed helping expose that person as an arsehole.
Boombats wrote:This post is my last response to you as 1: you won't believe what I say about my own thoughts, so why should I bother,
Because you might be wrong about your own thoughts. It can be instructive to get an outside opinion. You can just dismiss me as wrong - I couldn't care a less - but I'd like to think you are wondering why you wrote such hateful things earlier on the thread. Maybe you know but just aren't telling.
Or was that a rhetorical question?
Boombats wrote:2: are still calling me a misanthrope,
You still haven't tried to justify or explain your 'old and sick people should just die' vitriol.
I don't mind you being a misanthrope - I would like you to admit it though. Your refusal to admit it when the evidence is there for all to see is just odd.
Boombats wrote: 3: I have some small children to murder.
and I have baboons to liquify but, I admit, it requires much less effort.
Animal Testing
99Boombats wrote:sphincter wrote:The guy is saying he values human life more than animal so he obviously wouldn't let any of his kids die and he'd try to find a different method, how can you not understand that?
Well then let earwicker answer the question. He may value human life, as you say, but it begs the question which life is more important? If he's going to put mice and monkeys on a scale, then he should be able to do so with babies teenagers and adults.
To be honest when i thought about it I totally overlooked the age thing. It wasn't and wouldn't be relevant to me.
In terms of people what might be relevant is my relationship to them. Which is of course why you chose daughter and son. If the choice had been daughter and total strangers son then that would have been a much more difficult moral dilemma.
However, in my heirarchy of value (which as I said above is mine and not divinely ordained) people - humans -come above other animals. This is fairly arbitrary and not necessarily always an absolute.
For example if I had a choice of my dog who I've loved for years and some cunt who's raped kids or something then I'd save my dog.
My presumption however would not be that the person is bad and if it was an unknown stranger I would have to choose the person.
As painful as it might be.
Boombats wrote:...none (or very few) of us EAers are researchers or practicioners in this field, so we're all dealing in second-hand information. What I have read over the years leads me to believe that there are enough alternatives to animal testing to support an industry-wide transition to stem cell and computer-based methods completely.
You've still failed to pass on what has led you to believe this.
You have just given examples of poor tests. I have given examples of good ones.
Prove to me that these alternatives will be as effective.
Animal Testing
100Earwicker wrote:Boombats wrote:sphincter wrote:The guy is saying he values human life more than animal so he obviously wouldn't let any of his kids die and he'd try to find a different method, how can you not understand that?
Well then let earwicker answer the question. He may value human life, as you say, but it begs the question which life is more important? If he's going to put mice and monkeys on a scale, then he should be able to do so with babies teenagers and adults.
To be honest when i thought about it I totally overlooked the age thing. It wasn't and wouldn't be relevant to me.
There is an important distinction here: that babies can grow into teenagers and teenagers can grow into adults.
There is also an argument to be had here with regards to humans having a far greater capacity for suffering (physical and mental) than non-humans.
I'm not making the latter point glibly - I know there are those who would argue that the capacity for suffering of some animals is equivalent. I don't believe this. However, Boombats you and others may want to debate this.
I did a masters degree in chemistry, but my knowledge of biochemistry and animal behaviour is comparatively minimal.