Boombats wrote:You have astounded me with your staggering evidence

One of the main problems with your linked MRMC paper is the general tone that because some experiments aren’t useful all should be stopped (that is at least is your point. And you have used this paper to back up your point.) This is similar to the creationists argument that because evolution doesn’t answer everything it therefore answers nothing. It is (as you are so fond of insisting - your being nothing but rational and logical in all of this) a logical nonsense to suggest that.

I am not saying that all animal experimentation is needed or warranted and think bodies monitoring research are vital and research into alternative methods should continue.
Your man Doctor Hoffman complaining about the specific experiment on baboons (remember that – the specific experiment – not all experiments regarding strokes) seems reasonable enough to me (from a cursory glance at a self confessed biased scientist).

I would also say that if ‘unnecessary’ cruelty takes place (i.e the animals were treated in a manner that prolonged any more pain than might have been necessary) then a doctor should be held to account for that. That however is different from saying that an experiment is or was pointless.

regarding strokes (which was the ailment the baboons were being tested on for) here’s the URL from within my measly URL citing several stroke related benefits of animal testing.

http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page ... PageID=146

in the footnotes there are two dozen cited studies with benefits or progressions. Now explain to me how those benefits and/or progressions could have been discovered without an animal study.

I could point out similar benefits for several other diseases mentioned in your linked MRMC article but will allow you to go and have a look for yourself if you can get through your fog of not moral hatred of scientists who disagree with your unemotional viewpoint.

Yes I have linked only one URL (I work believe it or not) but if you look you will see dozens and dozens of cited scientific papers backing up the claims within. Those dozens and dozens of papers were not made up specifically for that web site.

With regards this whole subject I (being reasonable and not filled with the hatred for other animals that you feel for your own kind) can be relatively unbiased.
I for example, after looking at your provided links can agree that studying animals to know more about human psychology is bizarre. A scientific study into animal behaviour is just that – a study in animal behaviour – it may provide some marginal insightful parallels to human behaviour but I fail to see how any psychiatric treatments could be brought about by experimentation in animals.
If that happens I’m shocked and think it’s just silly.

This fella for example:

“Pharmacologist Vincent Dole has acknowledged: "Some 60 years of offering alcohol to animals has produced no fundamental insights into the causes of this self-destructive behavior or even a convincing analogue of pathological drinking."

…sounds to me like he has come straight from the Ministry of the Totally Obvious.

Regarding human tissue research I’m all for it and as far as I am aware it can be helpful – and is used. But in order for scientists to have some idea how a medicine or procedure might effect an animal with a central nervous system or a circulatory system (like a human) then it needs to be tested on an animal with a central nervous system and circulatory system. Until there is a safer alternative.

Also I noticed these quotes from your unemotional unmoralistic science based websites:

Referring to monkey -

“Notice the Nazi-style tattoo on his leg.

And

His experiments are aimed at everything from figuring out how stress affects the menstrual cycle and reproduction to conditions specific to premenopausal women. Unfortunately, all his experiments are conducted on female rhesus macaques instead of on women.

Can you not see how I can interpret misogyny and the equivalency of the holocaust to animal experimentation in those there two statements?
And given that the holocaust was the murder of millions of people can you not see why someone might be offended by that?

and this:

"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."
-Professor Charles R. Magel

Is an extreme over simplification which I would expect from someone unable to think in a more complex manner.

If you are capable of seeing life in anything other than black and white then we can carry on talking about it if you want.

I'd be happy to.

Here's a question (and I'd prefer it if you didn't hide behind the 'that would never happen!' nonsense). You have a choice between a mouse and a baboon - in this thought experiment - one of them has to snuff it (not horribly just an injection let's say).
Which would you choose (your relationship with both monkey and mouse being equal)?

In case you can't grasp it, what I'm trying to see is whether you see a difference, in terms of 'value' between different types of animal. I could just as easily make the mouse a squid - or a centipede.

Does all life (presumably beyond plants) have equal value to you?

As for now I'm going to do some work but here's a few more URLs for you to have a look at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YA272DS ... ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p-xOlX2GyA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91XlBezu ... ed&search=

Earwicker, in regards to the "mouse vs. baboon" conudrum, if I were truly set with that dilemma and I HAD to make a choice, then I would save the baboon. You will say "well see, you don't really value all life as equal." That would be a load of horse shit because it wouldn't be up to me that this stupid decision had to be made; it would be you or whichever asshole is holding the gun to my head or whatever the fanciful situation required to exist. I just choose the baboon because it is more likely to have offspring to care for.

As far as the rest of what you say, it's hard to take someone seriously when they keep accusing me of HATING HUMANS. That is TOTAL ASSWIPE. You don't know me, you just know your stereotype of an animal-rights activist. I'm sure there are even more "kooky" animal friends over there in Great Britain, but they're not me. I have been a social worker, volunteered for m any years on a suicide hotline, and generally nurture and comfort my friends and family. So if you're going to still harbor this misconception after I emphatically deny it, then go fuck yerself with a rake. I won't argue with an asshole.

And to once more refute your flimsy theory that I made a Freudian slip by saying "people" and then "Africans" when discussing how humans of a different colour were treated like animals-
1: when I said "people" I was referring to Europeans, but due to typing quickly I was not specific as I should have been,
2: My father is black, and
3: go fuck yerself with a cheese grater.

Boombats wrote:Earwicker, in regards to the "mouse vs. baboon" conudrum, if I were truly set with that dilemma and I HAD to make a choice, then I would save the baboon. You will say "well see, you don't really value all life as equal."

Yeah.

Or rather I think you value the baboon more than the mouse.

I would too.

Boombats wrote:I just choose the baboon because it is more likely to have offspring to care for.

And I don't believe this is the real reason I'm afraid. Are you suggesting that mice don't have or care for offspring?

Boombats wrote:As far as the rest of what you say, it's hard to take someone seriously when they keep accusing me of HATING HUMANS. That is TOTAL ASSWIPE.

Take a deep breath. You need to calm down. All this logic and rationality seems to be getting the better of you.
Try reading this stuff you wrote.

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.

But all the treatments that keep people alive also keeps them in hospitals, paying crazy bills that sap their families' resources when they're going to die eventually anyway. Go gracefully I say.

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.

Now try and understand why I might think you have a less than rosy view of humans after reading this?

At least try and understand why I feel fairly strongly that your self professed monopoly on what compassion is - is a load of cock.

I only claim to know anything about you from your statements. You haven't anywhere admitted that this is a compicated issue and it isn't black and white.
I can admit that it is - you cannot.

My complaint with your attitude (and those who agree with it) is that your utter conviction in your own self righteousness would mean I and others would die from diseases and ailments we don't need to.

Boombats wrote:I won't argue with an asshole.

you've been arguing with me for pages now.

Boombats wrote:And to once more refute your flimsy theory that I made a Freudian slip by saying "people" and then "Africans" when discussing how humans of a different colour were treated like animals-
1: when I said "people" I was referring to Europeans, but due to typing quickly I was not specific as I should have been,

Whatever you say Ray. I'll be pedantic and just remind you though that Americans and other Africans were involved in the slave trade.
All of which are people.

Boombats wrote:2: My father is black, and

So what - is he African? Just because you have black ancestry doesn't mean you don't have a cultural prejudice.

But before you go all rational on me again i don't happen to think you're racist - though really don't have a clue - I think you dislike humans generally.
Did you know an American Fascist leader during the second world war was a pale skinned black person? here's a link about him:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2741

Oops, there's that complex world again. Shut it out Boombats before it gets to scary.

Boombats wrote:3: go fuck yerself with a cheese grater.

Which school of logic and reasoning are you coming from again?

How's this for a compromise -

Anyone who doesn't like the idea of animal testing can refuse to accept the benefits of any product or procedure that has or might be developed as a result of it. They can die younger and more painful, uncomfortable deaths of they want to.

That's okay by me.

But the rest of us get the positives.

How's that?

Earwicker wrote:

Boombats wrote:Earwicker, in regards to the "mouse vs. baboon" conudrum, if I were truly set with that dilemma and I HAD to make a choice, then I would save the baboon. You will say "well see, you don't really value all life as equal."

Yeah.

Or rather I think you value the baboon more than the mouse.

I would too.

Boombats wrote:I just choose the baboon because it is more likely to have offspring to care for.

And I don't believe this is the real reason I'm afraid. Are you suggesting that mice don't have or care for offspring?

Well if you can't believe anything I say then what's the point of discussing this shit? I believe you when you say what you think- I just disagree. We have to take what each other is saying at face value to continue operating under this virtual paradigm. Or not. 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.

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 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.

If there were no other creatures on earth save for humans, we would have to make a tougher choice than the mouse vs baboon one, and I think we would choose stem-cell research or some other painless method. 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?

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!

Let me rephrase: I am tired of arguing with someone who reveals themself to be an asshole. 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, 2: are still calling me a misanthrope, and 3: I have some small children to murder.

Skronk wrote:

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.

I was commenting on the doublethink in society. In the end, it's not completely dissimilar. Both instances, the outcome is the death of animals.

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.

This is not a black and white issue. My point was, if you happened to have missed it, is that death in the name of life is not a solution. If these drugs are intended to serve Man, they should be tested on Man.

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.

Thanks, Boom. I was looking for this quote for a while.

Before these drugs reach the market they are tested on humans, a lot has to happen before drugs can be passed as safe because of past mistakes and even now people are hurt. Last year in the UK some drugs were tested on human subjects and the subjects became seriously and dangerously ill, these drugs were tested on animals first, but the animals didn't react in the same manner, so it doesn't always work, but more often than not it does. This happens extensively upon animals to try and ensure the safety of the human test patients. Only are these drugs tested on humans after they've been developed and worked on for some time.

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.

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.

Boombats wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

Boombats wrote:Earwicker, in regards to the "mouse vs. baboon" conudrum, if I were truly set with that dilemma and I HAD to make a choice, then I would save the baboon. You will say "well see, you don't really value all life as equal."

Yeah.

Or rather I think you value the baboon more than the mouse.

I would too.

Boombats wrote:I just choose the baboon because it is more likely to have offspring to care for.

And I don't believe this is the real reason I'm afraid. Are you suggesting that mice don't have or care for offspring?

Well if you can't believe anything I say then what's the point of discussing this shit? I believe you when you say what you think- I just disagree. We have to take what each other is saying at face value to continue operating under this virtual paradigm. Or not. 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.

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 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.

If there were no other creatures on earth save for humans, we would have to make a tougher choice than the mouse vs baboon one, and I think we would choose stem-cell research or some other painless method. 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?

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!

Let me rephrase: I am tired of arguing with someone who reveals themself to be an asshole. 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, 2: are still calling me a misanthrope, and 3: I have some small children to murder.

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?

You've focused on the personal side of his argument and basically skirted around the bult of what he's saying. I admire you for sticking up for yourself and believing what you believe, but you have to understand that for others too.

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.

sphincter wrote:You've focused on the personal side of his argument and basically skirted around the bult of what he's saying. I admire you for sticking up for yourself and believing what you believe, but you have to understand that for others too.

I understand what you're saying sphinc, but if you want to talk about skirting and focusing on personal shit, recognize that my point was not "tests should never have been done on animals": it was "if you have the option of NOT hurting animals and you don't use it, you're a shit", which earwicker then skirted by focusing on his assesment of my personality. I have addressed most of his questions and accusations but I'm not going to go on at it with him. If I wanted to argue with someone who thinks I am a piece of shit I'll fuss with Marsupialized.

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.

sphincter wrote:You've focused on the personal side of his argument and basically skirted around the bult of what he's saying. I admire you for sticking up for yourself and believing what you believe, but you have to understand that for others too.

I understand what you're saying sphinc, but if you want to talk about skirting and focusing on personal shit, recognize that my point was not "tests should never have been done on animals": it was "if you have the option of NOT hurting animals and you don't use it, you're a shit", which earwicker then skirted by focusing on his assesment of my personality. I have addressed most of his questions and accusations but I'm not going to go on at it with him. If I wanted to argue with someone who thinks I am a piece of shit I'll fuss with Marsupialized.

But, most of us pro-testers believe that there is no substitute to testing on animals. Testing on animals is the most effective method we have, that's why we use it, nothing else comes close enough, apart from human testing, of which we only use once animal testing has taken place. If we didn't do animal testing first then we'd lose human testing too, we'd lose drug development: in our opinion (generally) - a bad thing

sphincter wrote:But, most of us pro-testers believe that there is no substitute to testing on animals. Testing on animals is the most effective method we have, that's why we use it, nothing else comes close enough, apart from human testing, of which we only use once animal testing has taken place. If we didn't do animal testing first then we'd lose human testing too, we'd lose drug development: in our opinion (generally) - a bad thing

First let me start fresh by saying that 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.

Unfortunately, drug developers do not value animal welfare over profits. Fuck, they don't half the time care about human welfare enough to keep a drug off the market that is potentially dangerous, and meanwhile the flip side of their coin (the AMA/FDA) prevents natural treatments from gaining legitimacy.

I guess where I'm coming from is, if we have a system run by people who care more about animal rights, we're going to have a system that cares more about the individual human and all life, really. Those who abuse animals are a cunt's-hair away from those who would abuse humans, and those who can not see the intimate connection between humans and animals are blind.

ant man bee wrote:I remember a someone saying "if hooking a monkey's head up to a car battery will find a cure for AIDS, I only have one thing to say: Black is negative and red is positive."

I stand by that.

Do you need to earth the monkey?