Boombats wrote:This is getting bloated so I'll TRY to keep it simple: my point about the tangent is that it is not essential to the arguement. It is based on my opinions, not empirical data. I let a bit of my personality out and you chose to latch onto that instead of my original point.

Boombats wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

Boombats wrote:I didn't bother searching the links because whoever is for testing can just find links that support their theory, as could I.

So that’s evidence ruled out by you.

I am NOT saying that you can't provide evindence to your point! I am saying that I don't feel the need to get for you what you could find on your own. If it matters to you, you can research it. I have already seen the data on both sides.

Boombats wrote:

Earwicker wrote:Here’s your central argument

Boombats wrote:It has been proven time and again that animal testing is inconclusive and unnecessary. This is not from animal rights advocates, but from scientists and doctors who have spent their careers testing on animals.

WRONG my central arguement is that given the choice between cruel/cruelty-free testing, those who choose cruelty are a shit! You still haven't addressed that:

I have addressed that. You’re just frothing at the mouth with hatred you’re refusing to see it. I agree – if there was a choice between animal and animal free testing (I am interpreting your word ‘cruelty’ there – I admit) choosing the animal testing would be wrong. But, right now, there is no such choice.
‘We’ could stop all testing now, today and put all research money and time into trying to find ways of doing things animal free but in the mean time medical progress would grind to a halt and more and more humans will die.

If you fail to see why your tangent about not caring about humans dying doesn’t become relevant in this then you are just evading the ramifications of your own views.

Boombats wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

Boombats wrote:You are attempting to discredit ME …

All I know about you is that you think that there are too many people in the world so letting people die is okay.

I don't and won't argue that because that is how I feel and my feelings are not a point of logic to be debated. That would be like arguing the merits of strawberry ice cream. Casting aspersions on my character because of that is NOT good logic. It's good mudsling.

Our emotions and feelings affect our logic and reasoning(you can look into that if you want to – but I won’t do the research for you).
If your feelings are so filled with hatred for humanity then those feelings are, logically, bound to effect your views on medical progress for humans.

And with regards mudsling. I think if you look back over you’ll see yourself throwing by far the greater insults about.

Boombats wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

Boombats wrote:given the option of animal vs non-animal testing, the person who chooses to test on animals is a heartless fuck (or at least lazy and ignorant). Answer me that, or shut the fuck up (and change your avatar to a vivisected dog).

This assumes that your earlier statement .

Boombats wrote:It has been proven time and again that animal testing is inconclusive and unnecessary.

..is true.

NO, it assumes there are options TODAY of cruel/non-cruel testing methods.

Take a deep breath and read it again slowly.

I am saying that that assumption is mistaken. Those options are not there. We cannot safely get rid of animal testing if we wish to progress at the moment. So your central argument is based on something that I consider untrue.
Your central argument is therefore fucking wrong (in my view)

Boombats wrote:The medical advences that have been arrived at already are there, no need to un-make anything.

But according to you:

Boombats wrote:It has been proven time and again that animal testing is inconclusive and unnecessary.

Those medical advances have nothing to do with animal testing because any testing would have been inconclusive.

?

Boombats wrote:

Earwicker wrote: That means we have to test new medicines on either humans or other, non human animals. I think someone who would choose humans out of those two options (no matter how many there are in the world) is a heartless fuck.

Well that is a moot point because I NEVER said we should test on humans. You are feeding me tripe.

Apologies I thought when you were supporting this statement by Rachi:

Rachi wrote:I have done drug tests before on the basis of, If they test on animals, Yeah sure it may work for them, but a human is an entirely different type of species.
If something I have done in my testing works, that would be awesome.
If you are going to test on animals, test them for cures for animals ONLY!

Boombats wrote:Good point.

You were supporting her argument that humans should be tested on for human medicines.

If I’m wrong then fair dos but you’re so rational and logical I’m sure you can see why I’d make that mistake?

Boombats wrote:At this point in your post you continue to harp on my "too many people" comments as if I were a genocidal dictator. Let's pass on that because it is CRAP.

Okay, I can see why you’d not want to bring it up again. As I’m sure everyone else reading can.

Boombats wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

Boombats wrote:And of course you like to say "bunny rabbits" as if I'm a drooling retard from Of Mice And Men. Clever.

Silly me. I thought you emotively brought rabbits into the argument first…

Boombats wrote:It is up to me and all of us whether we procreate like hairless rabbits, and it is up to us whether we support companies that test on animals.

Hey you're making my job too easy. Look at the quote: nowhere do I say "aw the poor little bunny." Read before you quote. I said we fuck like retarded bunnies and spread our shitty kin across the globe.

What job is that exactly?
How’s this for reading. See there where it says ‘I thought you emotively brought up rabbits’?
That was referring to you using the description ‘hairless rabbits’ to try and emotively express your hatred for the human animal reproducing too much.

You in fact just did it again by using the expression ‘retarded bunnies’

A ‘bunny’ is a ‘rabbit’ – you have got that haven’t you?

I wasn’t saying you had used the expression ‘poor little bunny’ so why not - ahem – read before you quote.

And can I point out that here you are reiterating the hatred of humans which you are repeatedly asking me to let lie?

Boombats wrote:

Earwicker wrote:BTW it is not up to me or ‘us’ whether you procreate like a hairless rabbit. You seem to have some difficulty in seeing that humanity is not one big block. It is a collection of individuals. We are not all responsible for each others actions.

So you feel no responsibility for human actions?

I don’t feel responsibility for all human actions - no.

Boombats wrote:Your question about girl vs dog IS loaded becuase reality is NOT that way. … If it was a choice between a dog that was my friend and a girl that I didn't know, I'd have to say fuck the girl.

nuff said

for me I don’t care how close I was to the dog the little girl would get saved. The dog could have been in my family for years and I might never have set eyes on the girl – she’d still get saved.

You’ve made your moral call – I’ve made mine.

I am being particularly tolerant in allowing that in that situation compassion is still not black and white.

Boombats wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

Boombats wrote: All mammals are thinking creatures with a will. Some have less sophisticated nervous systems.

I think you are anthropomorphising animals…

If you understand what the word "anthropomorphising" means, then show ONE instance where I do this.

You need to start reading again. The bit where you say animals have a will is you anthropomorphising (and that attempted dig there is extremely childish.
Notice I have not once pointed out how many times you have spelled ‘arguement’ incorrectly during this argument)

Boombats wrote: If you can define "know" then I would say yes, we do "know" that animals, at least mammals, have "will" as you define it. We know based on research and experience. If YOU don't "know" that animals have emotions, dreams, memories, and ethics, then you should spend more time around them.

I’ve been brought up around animals all my life. My other even used to run a home for animals. Animals have basic emotions they have dreams and they have an extremely limited memory. There is no evidence anywhere that they have ethics and no evidence of a consciousness.

Boombats wrote: You say that we "know" that humans have a will. Look at the weak humans everywhere, following religion, trend, politics, and psychosis. Now tell your dog that Allah says he has to kill. good fucking luck.

I’m not even sure what you’re on about here. Is this another tangent I have to ignore?

I said that we think we know we have a will. As it happens I think that our will might be an illusion. And I notice your rhetoric (‘weak humans’) is getting closer and closer to that other famous vegan who didn’t seem to like humans too much.

Boombats wrote:The only way we "know" anything about other humans is by communication, and most of us lack that level of communication with animals.

Actually I’ll ask you to do this research for me. Could you point me toward literature regarding those few who have learnt to communicate with animals with ‘that level of communication’? (whatever that means)
I mean aside from Dr Dolittle and Crocodile Dundee.

Boombats wrote:People used to thuink that Africans were monstrous beasts with no souls. Based on your reasoning, they were until the white man taught them English.

Oh dear, oh dear.
I think this one has back fired a little don’t you?
Let me just repeat for you the first line of the above –

Boombats wrote:People used to think Africans were monstrous beasts with no souls.

Skronk wrote:

sphincter wrote:

Skronk wrote:

sphincter wrote:... to them, man kind isn't as concerned with animal life as it is with human life...in general!

That's the problem. As much as Man would like to separate themselves from the animal kingdom, we should be looking out for more than ourselves.

We're the people we are not the people we aspire to be, few people live what they preach on these topics. I agree though, we should be looking out for the entire planet, but you have to be realistic.

Realistic how? Throwing the towel in before the match starts? Just because we've been destroying creatures in the name of profit, doesn't mean that it's the only avenue to "better" our own lives.
There's this cognitive dissonance in our society, where two incompatable areas try to live side by side. Making life better at the expense of killing is truly doublethink.

The same goes for scientists that develop newer, more deadlier arms, all the while excusing their actions in the name of "peace".

Boombats wrote:

sphincter wrote:See, pro-scientists are just industry puppets, but anti are obviously reliable sources of information. This is also a common argument.

I never said that. If you want to set up a straw man with my face on it, then go outside.

sphincter wrote:Trying to develope drugs to save lives, everything you use to help you when you're ill, if you're ever in hospital and they use medicine to help cure you of your problem...they've all been tested on animals in their development.

See my statements above on what it takes to save someone's life.

The technology caues the sickness, then treats it at great expense. Maybe people should just die! All the really old people that I know have lived for 90 plus years because of healthy lifestyles. When they died it was fast. The sickly bloated diseased fuckers are crowding the health care system. I know this is a bit tangential but no more so than your "should people eat animals" tangent.

kenoki wrote:animal testing for cosmetics and vanity products is a definite no-no in my book. animal testing to fight diseases such as cancer is fine by me. there are plenty of people who lead healthy lifestyles and end up with terrible (theoretically genetic) diseases, of which water, vitamins and surgery will not cure. i guess you could say these people should just die, boombats, i guess... but i don't find that very compassionate at all. if giving up my beloved dog to testing, who the very thought of dying makes me cry a little bit, would save a family member's life... i wouldn't think twice about giving hank the cow dog up, and i would never regret that decision.

when i think about animal testing i invariably end up thinking about linda mccartney (who i could otherwise give two shits about) and when she was going through her cancer treatment. as you know, she gave most of her life to animals rights issues, was a vegan, and completely against animal testing. in the end she had her doctor lie to her and say certain treatments were not tested on animals because, in the end, her life was more important to her. i don't think that's selfish. she ended up dying anyway, but lots of other good people undergoing the same treatment have not.

boombats, i empathize with your stance, but cannot agree.

Rachi wrote:I have done drug tests before on the basis of, If they test on animals, Yeah sure it may work for them, but a human is an entirely different type of species.
If something I have done in my testing works, that would be awesome.
If you are going to test on animals, test them for cures for animals ONLY!

IMO

Earwicker wrote:

Boombats wrote:This is getting bloated so I'll TRY to keep it simple: my point about the tangent is that it is not essential to the arguement. It is based on my opinions, not empirical data. I let a bit of my personality out and you chose to latch onto that instead of my original point.

I think that bit of your personality – the hatred of all humanity part of it – is fairly significant and may (call me crazy) inform some of your opinions.
You are saying it doesn’t.
Fair dos
Forgive me for carrying on thinking you’re just fucking weird That is a fair and legitimate estimation, I just don't think it has a place in a logical arguement

Boombats wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

Boombats wrote:I didn't bother searching the links because whoever is for testing can just find links that support their theory, as could I.

So that’s evidence ruled out by you.

I am NOT saying that you can't provide evindence to your point! I am saying that I don't feel the need to get for you what you could find on your own. If it matters to you, you can research it. I have already seen the data on both sides.

Yes, so have I. I was brought up by someone one with a similarly skewed view of humanity/animals and bought it until my early twenties when I did start to look into it.
But your statement quoted above renders the presentation of any evidence in this particular discussion moot – cause you will just say ‘oh, well, I can find evidence that says the opposite’ and that’ll be the end of it.
So you're again putting words in my mouth. Nobody has thrown up ANY stats. I am fine with you bringing digits to the table. I am NOT fine with you accusing me of dismissing them when I haven't. If you put up digits, I will put up digits. Put up or SHUT up.

If you fail to see why your tangent about not caring about humans dying doesn’t become relevant in this then you are just evading the ramifications of your own views.

Boombats wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

Boombats wrote:You are attempting to discredit ME …

All I know about you is that you think that there are too many people in the world so letting people die is okay.

I don't and won't argue that because that is how I feel and my feelings are not a point of logic to be debated. That would be like arguing the merits of strawberry ice cream. Casting aspersions on my character because of that is NOT good logic. It's good mudsling.

Our emotions and feelings affect our logic and reasoning(you can look into that if you want to – but I won’t do the research for you).
If your feelings are so filled with hatred for humanity then those feelings are, logically, bound to effect your views on medical progress for humans. Again I never claimed hatred against humanity. You are taking your general view of animal rights nutcases and applying it to me. I can understand your arguement against me if that were the kind of person I was, but you are wrong.

And with regards mudsling. I think if you look back over you’ll see yourself throwing by far the greater insults about. Yeah I called you an asswipe. So what? I'm not trying to convince anyone that you hate people, as you seem to be doing to me.

Boombats wrote:Well that is a moot point because I NEVER said we should test on humans. You are feeding me tripe.

Apologies I thought when you were supporting this statement by Rachi:

Rachi wrote:I have done drug tests before on the basis of, If they test on animals, Yeah sure it may work for them, but a human is an entirely different type of species.
If something I have done in my testing works, that would be awesome.
If you are going to test on animals, test them for cures for animals ONLY!

Boombats wrote:Good point.

You were supporting her argument that humans should be tested on for human medicines. NO I was supporting her statement that animal testing should be used for animal disease!

If I’m wrong then fair dos but you’re so rational and logical I’m sure you can see why I’d make that mistake? Correct!

Boombats wrote:At this point in your post you continue to harp on my "too many people" comments as if I were a genocidal dictator. Let's pass on that because it is CRAP.

Okay, I can see why you’d not want to bring it up again. As I’m sure everyone else reading can. Because you think I am! Whatever, you don't pay my rent so I can live with that.

I wasn’t saying you had used the expression ‘poor little bunny’ so why not - ahem – read before you quote. Why not quote something that makes your point? I found several other statements that I mde that emotively raised "hairs" regarding "poor little" animals. You picked a vauge one when you could have used a more obvious example.

You’ve made your moral call – I’ve made mine. Your mistake is that you're trying to argue morals, or at least include them on the playing field. It's very effective when trying to sway an audience, as you seem to wish to do, but it's not logic and it's not convincing me of anything other than your MORAL motivation for your beliefs rather than LOGIC or ETHICS.

Boombats wrote:If you understand what the word "anthropomorphising" means, then show ONE instance where I do this.

You need to start reading again. The bit where you say animals have a will is you anthropomorphising (and that attempted dig there is extremely childish.
Notice I have not once pointed out how many times you have spelled ‘arguement’ incorrectly during this argument) EA's Spellceck (sic) doesn't work on a Mac. But I know what words mean. Look it up. My point about knowing what anthropomorphising means is that I believe you have used it incorrectly. I do not think other animals are like us, think etc like us. But they DO think feel etc. They should not be punished because they do it differently.

Boombats wrote: You say that we "know" that humans have a will. Look at the weak humans everywhere, following religion, trend, politics, and psychosis. Now tell your dog that Allah says he has to kill. good fucking luck.

I’m not even sure what you’re on about here. Is this another tangent I have to ignore? My point is that there is no more conclusive evidence of "will" in humans than there is in other societal mammals.

I said that we think we know we have a will. As it happens I think that our will might be an illusion. And I notice your rhetoric (‘weak humans’) is getting closer and closer to that other famous vegan who didn’t seem to like humans too much. OK heep harping on how I hate humans. I bet you think I dress up like a badger when nobody's looking right? Ha!

Boombats wrote:The only way we "know" anything about other humans is by communication, and most of us lack that level of communication with animals.

Actually I’ll ask you to do this research for me. Could you point me toward literature regarding those few who have learnt to communicate with animals with ‘that level of communication’? (whatever that means)
I mean aside from Dr Dolittle and Crocodile Dundee. Sure, give me the weekend cuz I have an out of town gig. Oh and does BeastMaster count?

Boombats wrote:People used to think that Africans were monstrous beasts with no souls. Based on your reasoning, they were until the white man taught them English.

Oh dear, oh dear.
I think this one has back fired a little don’t you?
Let me just repeat for you the first line of the above –

Boombats wrote:People used to think Africans were monstrous beasts with no souls.

Oh, really? And which people were they then Mr Boombats? White people like you I might guess.
You have just drawn a comparison between Africans and animals.

Boombats wrote:

Earwicker wrote:…your statement quoted above renders the presentation of any evidence in this particular discussion moot – cause you will just say ‘oh, well, I can find evidence that says the opposite’ and that’ll be the end of it.
So you're again putting words in my mouth. Nobody has thrown up ANY stats. I am fine with you bringing digits to the table. I am NOT fine with you accusing me of dismissing them when I haven't. If you put up digits, I will put up digits. Put up or SHUT up.

Earwicker wrote:If your feelings are so filled with hatred for humanity then those feelings are, logically, bound to effect your views on medical progress for humans. Again I never claimed hatred against humanity. You are taking your general view of animal rights nutcases and applying it to me. I can understand your arguement against me if that were the kind of person I was, but you are wrong.

Earwicker wrote:And with regards mudsling. I think if you look back over you’ll see yourself throwing by far the greater insults about. Yeah I called you an asswipe. So what? I'm not trying to convince anyone that you hate people, as you seem to be doing to me.

Boombats wrote: I was supporting her statement that animal testing should be used for animal disease![/color]

Boombats wrote:At this point in your post you continue to harp on my "too many people" comments as if I were a genocidal dictator. Let's pass on that because it is CRAP.

I wasn’t saying you had used the expression ‘poor little bunny’ so why not - ahem – read before you quote. Why not quote something that makes your point? I found several other statements that I mde that emotively raised "hairs" regarding "poor little" animals. You picked a vauge one when you could have used a more obvious example.

Earwicker wrote: You’ve made your moral call – I’ve made mine. Your mistake is that you're trying to argue morals, or at least include them on the playing field. It's very effective when trying to sway an audience, as you seem to wish to do, but it's not logic and it's not convincing me of anything other than your MORAL motivation for your beliefs rather than LOGIC or ETHICS.

Boombats wrote: My point about knowing what anthropomorphising means is that I believe you have used it incorrectly.[/color]

Earwicker wrote: I’m not even sure what you’re on about here. Is this another tangent I have to ignore? My point is that there is no more conclusive evidence of "will" in humans than there is in other societal mammals.

Boombats wrote: I bet you think I dress up like a badger when nobody's looking right? Ha![/color]

Boombats wrote:Hilarious how you subtly try to accuse me of accidental racism! Anything to make me seem more of a monster. Next try and tell me that the Europeans didn't treat Africans like cattle.

Boombats wrote: If you want to argue morals as you so clearly seem to, then I will say that we have lost our sacred worship of animals as givers of life, and as a part of our lives.

Boombats wrote: Now we are at the top of a food chain that makes us sick, and we attempt to prolong our lives with medicine, not from the earth but from the arcane labratories of our modern wizards.

Boombats wrote: In these catacombs of technical ceremony are countless torture chambers where we desperately cut and scratch at the pustules of our hubris, magically transfered to cage-grown subjects from a lower caste.

Boombats wrote: We find as much death-giving powers as life-saving ones, if not more, from these experiments. We have entrusted this duty to those who are inured to the grisly process, those who have by educational means been rationalized away from acknowledging any spiritual element to creatures great and small, and those whose profit margin bulges out like the fat gut of a man who can not see his own dick.

Boombats wrote: And you, earwicker, are their apologists, with your imaginary little blond blue-eyed girl who needs her medicine. Poo poo.

Boombats wrote: P.S. I am tired of cut-and-pasting so if you want to continue this, take it to the PM, unless you just want to post statistics.

sphincter wrote:Haha, slightly different thing mate. See when people make comparisons like that you have to forfill them completely by exploring the outcomes of each act...completely different outcomes, can't compare them really.

sphincter wrote:You painting everything black and white, and if you can only think in that way then arguing with you is a waste of time.

Professor Charles R. Magel wrote:Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.