Do You Support Animal-Testing? [Archive]

Property Is Robbery

24th May 2011, 06:02

To be quite honest I probably wouldn't be against it so much if it wasn't as torturous and actually yielded usable data the majority of the time. The fact is, however, since vivisection is a cheap and widely accepted method, large pharmaceutical companies and the companies that do the testing will have a motive to use this method even though it is not very accurate most of the time. Pharmaceutical companies and other such businesses that only have profit in mind don't care if they don't gather positive data as long as they can manipulate what they do gather to get their drug on the market. There is almost no pharmaceutical drug that is completely safe for humans. Every drug commercial is laden with a long list of quite undesirable side effects but most people don't care as long as they don't have anxiety etc. This is 2011 and we are still using such barbaric and outdated procedures but only in the name of profit. There can be so much improvement in the field of testing but that won't happen unless someone finds something cheaper. (or we have a socialist revolution)

Princess Luna

24th May 2011, 07:06

I think it should only be used for serious medical testing, such as cancer, regrowing limbs and such. We shouldn't use it for minor stuff like wart removing, and NEVER for cosmedics.

Game Girl

24th May 2011, 07:46

I don't support it at all. Especially on cosmetics. Your the one wearing the make up, not the damn bunny!

When it comes to medical testing, I understand it's the only way so far. But I will fully support alternative test methods.

Fawkes

24th May 2011, 08:26

I only support it in the case of cosmetics. Fuck medical testing.

Neuropsychology/neurology wouldn't be worth shit if it wasn't for animal testing and the same can be said for most other fields of medicine. Even if it meant pure torment for some bunnies or dogs, I like the fact that if I ever experience any kind of brain damage I have hope for recovery.

Rooster

24th May 2011, 09:58

This mouse has a human ear growing on its back.

No, it doesn't. It just looks like a human ear. I'm not even against that. It was to show that cartilage can be grown in moulds.

24th May 2011, 10:01

Animal testing in many species proved conclusively that chocolate and coffee are dangerous toxins unfit for human consumption: without animal testing those deadly poisons might be marketed as foods/drinks to humans! Think how many people would have died!

Oh...wait...

Andropov

24th May 2011, 10:11

Fully support testing on animals for medical purposes.
Fully against it for cosmetic purposes.
I love animals, really do but in no way are animals equal to people from my perspective.
I dont support equal rights for animals, I think animals should be used for the benefit of humanity but I do not agree with needless cruelty to animals in this process.
In essence I endorse the exploitation of animals for the benefit of humanity but oppose needless cruelty in this process.

jake williams

24th May 2011, 10:36

Cosmetics is no more morally repugnant than eating almost all meats.
Except that, for example, people need food more than they need cosmetics.

This is the 21st century. You don't think we could come up with more advanced and more accurate methods?
No? Why would you assume this is the case? Do you really think we have supercomputers that can accurately simulate all of the biochemical activity of mammals with trillions of cells in them? For that matter, do you really think we have a supercomputer that can accurately simulate all of the biochemical activity of a single cell? We've "decoded" DNA of a very few organisms, so we nominally know what's "in" our genes, but we still don't really know what it does. And it took us years of grinding through it to do that much.

The most accurate method is human testing, but human testing of the same things we test on animals would kill and immiserate millions of people.

Animal testing in many species proved conclusively that chocolate and coffee are dangerous toxins unfit for human consumption: without animal testing those deadly poisons might be marketed as foods/drinks to humans! Think how many people would have died!

Oh...wait...

To be quite honest I probably wouldn't be against it so much if it wasn't as torturous and actually yielded usable data the majority of the time. The fact is, however, since vivisection is a cheap and widely accepted method, large pharmaceutical companies and the companies that do the testing will have a motive to use this method even though it is not very accurate most of the time.
Animal testing is "inaccurate" because biological systems are incredibly fucking complex. Animal testing is way more accurate, for what it's worth, than any other way we could conceivably get that information short of human testing. Yes, humans are different organisms from even closely related mammals, with different biochemistry and different morphological makeup, and so we are affected differently, by, say, drugs. I think you'd have a hard time finding a biologist or a medical researcher or a doctor who thinks otherwise. No one thinks that drugs which are effective for mice are necessarily effective for humans, because it's demonstrably false. But that's not the logical standard to hold animal testing to, because that's not the intent, it couldn't possibly be that accurate, it still gives us critical information we can't get otherwise (again, without killing millions and millions of people, who don't breed as fast as mice do), and because the information isn't treated the way data from human tests is.

They often test drugs that are already on the market. Everything is motivated by profit. Drug companies often will pour money into a drug only to find out it is dangerous and they will often put it on the market anyway.

...

Pharmaceutical companies and other such businesses that only have profit in mind don't care if they don't gather positive data as long as they can manipulate what they do gather to get their drug on the market.
This is certainly true, and it's a catastrophe that we let the pharmaceutical industry remain a private one.

There is almost no pharmaceutical drug that is completely safe for humans. Every drug commercial is laden with a long list of quite undesirable side effects but most people don't care as long as they don't have anxiety etc.
There's no substance on earth that is completely safe for humans. You could kill people with helium, oxygen, or water. Many of the most dangerous substances on earth are natural. Natural substances kill way more people than synthetic ones. Modern pharmaceuticals are, collectively, the most effective substances used in medicine in human history.

This is 2011 and we are still using such barbaric and outdated procedures but only in the name of profit. There can be so much improvement in the field of testing but that won't happen unless someone finds something cheaper. (or we have a socialist revolution)
We do cancer research on mice because we'd rather kill mice than people, and because we want to be able to save the lives of people who get cancer (which, for the matter, we've already started to be able to do). It's ugly, but it's hardly "barbaric". Lots of animal testing is motivated by totally socially useless profit seeking. But lots isn't.

Lord Testicles

24th May 2011, 10:40

I don't like animals enough to give an iota of care about what happens to them or how it happens.

Jazzratt

24th May 2011, 12:40

I value science and human safety above the lives and comfort of any animals in any quantity. If you oppose animal testing you are a prick and I hope that one day your life is saved thanks to animal testing and that the role such testing played in your longevity is spelled out to you explicitly.

Dr Mindbender

24th May 2011, 13:34

http://www.pro-test.org.uk/facts.php

http://www.pro-test.org.uk/facts.php?lt=c

piet11111

24th May 2011, 17:39

I voted for only medical but i want to clarify that if the cosmetic option includes product safety then i also support animal testing for cosmetic purposes.

And i just realised i am an idiot because obviously they arent trying to see how good a rabbit looks with lipstick on :cursing:
could someone add my vote to complete support.

Proukunin

24th May 2011, 18:55

Lord Testicles

24th May 2011, 22:00

I agree with the ALF put it that way. as far as people talking about how they don't care about animals, that is fucking ridiculous and I hope you get shoved in a tube and get lipstick put on your face.

How is not caring for animals ridiculous?
Why does that particular attitude towards animals make you want to humiliate or harm other human beings?

Kamos

24th May 2011, 22:22

I voted all medical, no cosmetic.

bailey_187

25th May 2011, 00:44

how can somehwere in here say cosmetics doesnt serve a social purpose. sheeeeeet, ill show u some faces with and without

Ele'ill

25th May 2011, 00:56

Dr Mindbender

25th May 2011, 01:26

I hope one day your autonomy is violated severely and you end up with an ear growing out of your back.
If your home has ever suffered from a mouse or rodent infestation your sympathy for them would quickly tire.

If i cant grow ears on the backs of mice, sew the eyelids of monkeys together or force bassett hounds to smoke havanas it aint my revolution.

Voted support under any circumstance just to piss off all the resident ALF supporters.

The Vegan Marxist

25th May 2011, 02:20

If we can do so with no abuse involved, and to ensure that the animals don't suffer in the process, whether one has to die or not, then I'm all for medical research. Hell no to cosmetics though!

thesadmafioso

25th May 2011, 02:28

I fully support any measure of animal testing when the intent is medical in nature, as the welfare of humanity is something to be put ahead of comparatively expendable animals. It is not as if I take any pleasure in seeing the undesirable conditions and circumstances which animals are occasionally met with, but rather that I am willing to allow for that sacrifice to be made in order to have the opportunity to prevent a much greater degree of suffering amongst man.

Though as cosmetics are rather useless to the welfare of mankind, I can't see any reason for supporting any sort of animal testing in their use. It essentially causes undue harm to animals in order to refine a product without any worthwhile use value.

Jazzratt

25th May 2011, 17:07

I agree with the ALF put it that way. as far as people talking about how they don't care about animals, that is fucking ridiculous and I hope you get shoved in a tube and get lipstick put on your face.

I value science and human safety above the lives and comfort of any animals in any quantity. If you oppose animal testing you are a prick and I hope that one day your life is saved thanks to animal testing and that the role such testing played in your longevity is spelled out to you explicitly.

I hope one day your autonomy is violated severely and you end up with an ear growing out of your back.

Clearly it is the pro-testing position that lacks empathy.

Kamos

25th May 2011, 17:16

how can somehwere in here say cosmetics doesnt serve a social purpose. sheeeeeet, ill show u some faces with and without

So what you're saying is that a woman is ugly without lipstick and make-up?

I'm all for saving the animals some suffering where possible, but remember that we aren't at the top of the food chain because we have bribed animals to stay off us, but because we're more powerful. That is, with our tools - physically we're wimps compared to animals. Now, animals wouldn't show us mercy - if you died and your dog realised it's getting no more food it would start eating you eventually. So the least you all can do is admit that we have kicked the animals' asses and thus we are eligible to enjoy this status.

Finally, remember that what the "earmouse" had on its back was not an actual ear.

B0LSHEVIK

25th May 2011, 19:01

Why not test cosmetics? Thats surprising. I personally love women who are beautiful without cosmetics but who look like angels with it.;)

Besides, its either test humans or test animals, and Id rather the guinea pigs be literal guinea pigs than my lips.

Oh and dont be cruel to animals!!!

(animals are not people)

Ele'ill

25th May 2011, 19:20

If your home has ever suffered from a mouse or rodent infestation your sympathy for them would quickly tire.

I have lived with mice. I don't see 'infestations' as an excuse to engage in inhumane treatment of sentient creatures.

If i cant grow ears on the backs of mice, sew the eyelids of monkeys together or force bassett hounds to smoke havanas it aint my revolution.

Sentience and autonomy are something these creatures have in common- until they're bulldozed or strapped to a chair.

just to piss off all the resident ALF supporters.

As clearly it was your only option left.

25th May 2011, 19:21

If we can do so with no abuse involved, and to ensure that the animals don't suffer in the process, whether one has to die or not, then I'm all for medical research. Hell no to cosmetics though!

The notion that avoiding 'suffering' whatever that is absolves us of any reason to extend moral consideration to the lives of animals is just as speciesist as the belief that we need not extend moral consideration to animal suffering. Would killing you painlessly and instantly without giving you advanced knowledge be a morally acceptable thing to do? I don't think so - concern for whether not someone suffers - which is to say the quality of their life - implies that their good and bad experiences have moral relevance - and if their experiences have moral relevance, than it only seems reasonable to be concerned not just with the quality of their experiences but also with the quantity of their experiences. In this way an animal has just as profound of interests in living well, and continuing to have positive experiences - and not being killed - as a human does.

p.s. I suggest you change your name to the Sortof-Uncomfortable-With-Some-But-Not-All-Animal-Abuse Marxist

Ele'ill

25th May 2011, 19:23

Clearly it is the pro-testing position that lacks empathy.

Even more prevalent is the pro-testing's sarcasm blinders. To better illustrate the point I was trying to make I should have said something along the lines of- "I hope one day other sentient creature's lives are saved because a group of them caged you and grew their body parts out of your back."

Dr Mindbender

25th May 2011, 20:50

I have lived with mice. I don't see 'infestations' as an excuse to engage in inhumane treatment of sentient creatures.

I'm not talking about cute pet mice... I'm talking about dirty field mice that shit all over your food, gnaw holes in the skirting boards and potentially damage electric lines. Considering these infestations arent unknown to spread disease, i'd say thats a pretty good reason to engage in 'inhumane' treatment.

Sentience and autonomy are something these creatures have in common- until they're bulldozed or strapped to a chair.
Animals are not burdened by duty which means their 'rights' are not analogous to yours or mine. They do not posess the capacity to reason, much less even fathom the concept of rights, nor do they posess the will to embetter themselves or their situation. I've said it before, the whole animal rights thing seems to be a first world phenomenon. If you go to the developing hemisphere you simply dont see gangs of youths trying to thwart the efforts of authorities where the experience of animals is taken in even far less regard than in huntingdon life sciences. Thats because they'd be ridiculed and ostracised in the face of so much human adversity and rightly so. Its a shame that some of these balaclava wearing middle class kids of the anti testing lobby cant get their priorities in order.

Even ignoring the developing world, there is also suffering of animals in battery farms and cost cutting agricultural factory farms where poultry is probably enduring equally bad conditions to that of the labs. Strangely i don't see ALF breaking in to save the chickens. Inconsistency much?

As clearly it was your only option left.
As long as humans are living in need, and while the battle against disease continues to be honest with you i cant give a shit.

Dr Mindbender

25th May 2011, 20:56

So what you're saying is that a woman is ugly without lipstick and make-up?

Only women wear lipstick? :confused:

News to me.

Ele'ill

25th May 2011, 21:25

I'm not talking about cute pet mice...

I don't think anybody is.

I'm talking about dirty field mice that shit all over your food, gnaw holes in the skirting boards and potentially damage electric lines. Considering these infestations arent unknown to spread disease, i'd say thats a pretty good reason to engage in 'inhumane' treatment.

Nobody is talking about intentionally living amidst a 'mouse plague' and not doing anything about it. What is being talked about is the inhumane treatment of animals, sentient creatures, for a wide array of 'testing purposes'.

Animals are not burdened by duty which means their 'rights' are not analogous to yours or mine.

I'm not exactly sure what 'duties' you're referring to but I let them decide what duties are important to them.

They do not posess the capacity to reason

Of course they do. They have the ability to reason during any given situation and act accordingly.

much less even fathom the concept of rights

But we can and since humans tend to be the main culprits of inhumane treatment, especially to which this conversation pertains to, I'd think we can issue 'liberation' which they most certainly can comprehend.

nor do they posess the will to embetter themselves or their situation.

They nurture their young, move out of the weather, hunt for food and defend themselves. They demonstrate signs of emotional distress and physical pain.

I've said it before, the whole animal rights thing seems to be a first world phenomenon. If you go to the developing hemisphere you simply dont see gangs of youths trying to thwart the efforts of authorities where the experience of animals is taken in even far less regard than in huntingdon life sciences. Thats because they'd be ridiculed and ostracised in the face of so much human adversity and rightly so. Its a shame that some of these balaclava wearing middle class kids of the anti testing lobby cant get their priorities in order.

We're not talking about the topic of middle class environmentalists who wear masks though.

Even ignoring the developing world, there is also suffering of animals in battery farms and cost cutting agricultural factory farms where poultry is probably enduring equally bad conditions to that of the labs. Strangely i don't see ALF breaking in to save the chickens. Inconsistency much?

I think these are unreasonable expectations on your part. There are certain targets which are easier to access than others. I think a lot of the big agribusiness and testing centers are based in the Global North. There are only so many people who take up the tasks of militantly engaging them.

As long as humans are living in need, and while the battle against disease continues to be honest with you i cant give a shit.

Well I'm sorry to hear you cannot multi-task.

bezdomni

25th May 2011, 22:09

Who would support animal testing "only for cosmetic research, not scientific?"

"I only support inflicting pain on animals when it is completely frivolous and unnecessary..."

Fawkes

25th May 2011, 22:57

Me.

The whole concept of specieism is honestly one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of. It is somehow simultaneously sad, insulting, comical, and angering that there are people that actually attempt to apply the mechanisms and principles governing human oppression and social stratification to non-human animals.

Property Is Robbery

25th May 2011, 23:19

I value science
Then why do you approve of animal testing? Regardless if you give a shit about animals or not doesn't change the fact this is a highly inaccurate method of testing. We have so much better technology available but vivisection is utilized because it's cheap.

Property Is Robbery

25th May 2011, 23:23

Except that, for example, people need food more than they need cosmetics.

No? Why would you assume this is the case? Do you really think we have supercomputers that can accurately simulate all of the biochemical activity of mammals with trillions of cells in them? For that matter, do you really think we have a supercomputer that can accurately simulate all of the biochemical activity of a single cell? We've "decoded" DNA of a very few organisms, so we nominally know what's "in" our genes, but we still don't really know what it does. And it took us years of grinding through it to do that much.

The most accurate method is human testing, but human testing of the same things we test on animals would kill and immiserate millions of people.

Animal testing is "inaccurate" because biological systems are incredibly fucking complex. Animal testing is way more accurate, for what it's worth, than any other way we could conceivably get that information short of human testing. Yes, humans are different organisms from even closely related mammals, with different biochemistry and different morphological makeup, and so we are affected differently, by, say, drugs. I think you'd have a hard time finding a biologist or a medical researcher or a doctor who thinks otherwise. No one thinks that drugs which are effective for mice are necessarily effective for humans, because it's demonstrably false. But that's not the logical standard to hold animal testing to, because that's not the intent, it couldn't possibly be that accurate, it still gives us critical information we can't get otherwise (again, without killing millions and millions of people, who don't breed as fast as mice do), and because the information isn't treated the way data from human tests is.

This is certainly true, and it's a catastrophe that we let the pharmaceutical industry remain a private one.

There's no substance on earth that is completely safe for humans. You could kill people with helium, oxygen, or water. Many of the most dangerous substances on earth are natural. Natural substances kill way more people than synthetic ones. Modern pharmaceuticals are, collectively, the most effective substances used in medicine in human history.

We do cancer research on mice because we'd rather kill mice than people, and because we want to be able to save the lives of people who get cancer (which, for the matter, we've already started to be able to do). It's ugly, but it's hardly "barbaric". Lots of animal testing is motivated by totally socially useless profit seeking. But lots isn't.
They can test many many things including drugs on human cells. Technology has advanced so much but not very much in the field of testing. Exactly we are "fucking complex" and while we are similar to rats and primates, we are obviously not identical.

Dr Mindbender

25th May 2011, 23:42

Then why do you approve of animal testing? Regardless if you give a shit about animals or not doesn't change the fact this is a highly inaccurate method of testing. We have so much better technology available but vivisection is utilized because it's cheap.
take it you didnt bother to use the links (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2121131&postcount=23) i posted last page.

GallowsBird

25th May 2011, 23:46

Then why do you approve of animal testing? Regardless if you give a shit about animals or not doesn't change the fact this is a highly inaccurate method of testing. We have so much better technology available but vivisection is utilized because it's cheap.

Yes it is a cost saving measure, while still being of course expensive; it is a lot cheaper than the alternatives (such as using Human tissue as to get the fill result would mean the extraction of many, many cells)... everything is about cost in this capitalist society.

I think the fact that animal testing proved that Strychnine is safe for people whereas Aspirin is harmful is a bit of a give-away to the faults of vivisection.

Also tens of millions of animals are tortured and killed not to find the cure for cancer or an antidote to some poison but merely so someone doesn't get a slight itch from their brand new shaving lotion and decide to sue the company. What a lovely world we live in! :mellow:

Property Is Robbery

25th May 2011, 23:48

Yeah I looked at them. So you're a technocrat right? It doesn't make any sense that you would support such an outdated method that does not get positive data even half the time. Also it said something about vaccines in one of the links. The H1N1 vaccine was tested on animals, the vast majority of which died, however they still gave it to humans.

Ele'ill

25th May 2011, 23:52

to non-human animals.

There is still emotional distress and physical pain felt by these sentient creatures. The only difference is these creatures aren't Homo sapiens.

Fawkes

26th May 2011, 01:05

The notion that avoiding 'suffering' whatever that is absolves us of any reason to extend moral consideration to the lives of animals is just as speciesist as the belief that we need not extend moral consideration to animal suffering. Would killing you painlessly and instantly without giving you advanced knowledge be a morally acceptable thing to do? I don't think so - concern for whether not someone suffers - which is to say the quality of their life - implies that their good and bad experiences have moral relevance - and if their experiences have moral relevance, than it only seems reasonable to be concerned not just with the quality of their experiences but also with the quantity of their experiences. In this way an animal has just as profound of interests in living well, and continuing to have positive experiences - and not being killed - as a human does.
No offense, but I really don't give a shit about your morals, just as the vast majority of people on Earth probably don't care either.

The only difference is these creatures aren't Homo sapiens.

And that is about as major of a difference as there could possibly be. So many of the arguments that are continually put forth by animal rights believers/activists are rooted in this asinine anthropomorphic analysis of "animal's oppression" as being somehow related to or similar to the oppression of humans. Even the term "specieism" is blatantly evocative of sexism, racism, etc. Not only is this contrived linkage of oppression insulting to us humans that face violence and derision on a daily basis, but it is totally ahistorical. Oppression and all of the various "-ism" manifestations of it is a set of systems that serve to create social stratification and marginalization of different groups in society so as to facilitate the perpetuation of capitalism. That just flat out is not the case with non-human animals.

Also, why should animals be treated humanely?

Comrade J

26th May 2011, 02:09

Yes it is a cost saving measure, while still being of course expensive; it is a lot cheaper than the alternatives (such as using Human tissue as to get the fill result would mean the extraction of many, many cells)... everything is about cost in this capitalist society.

Dr Mindbender has already covered this. It's incredibly expensive, and rarely used if labs can avoid it. But sometimes it is simply necessary to test on them, despite the immense cost.

I think the fact that animal testing proved that Strychnine is safe for people whereas Aspirin is harmful is a bit of a give-away to the faults of vivisection.It shows absolutely nothing; there have been a phenomenal amount of tests using animals that have allowed scientists to learn about vaccinations, chemotherapy, antibiotics, heart disease, lung disease, brain disease, genetics, bone marrow, mutation and many more. Ironically, many of these vaccinations and medical procedures etc. are now used on animals! So simply put - if you are against animal testing, never vaccinate or treat your family pet, never take a pill yourself, and never have a surgical operation. If you live in the US, you won't need to take out health insurance, because animals have died to create and perfect the treatments you would receive.

Also, you're clearly unfamiliar with the science of medicine and biochemistry, so a little lesson on aspirin for you - tests on animals allowed biologists to learn more about how the human kidney works, specifically something called "glycosidic bonds" which are between glucuronides and carbolyxic acids, and are really important for toxin removal. Glucuronides are what the body creates out of toxins by joining the toxic compound to glucuronic acid so that it is soluble and can pass out of the kidneys. The research was driven by the fact that animals died or became sick from aspirin, because they lack something that humans must have - this turned out to be the glucuronides. This was crucial in the future research and treatment of kidney disease.

Also tens of millions of animals are tortured and killed not to find the cure for cancer or an antidote to some poison but merely so someone doesn't get a slight itch from their brand new shaving lotion and decide to sue the company. What a lovely world we live in! :mellow:... which is why most people have voted in favour of solely-medical research, and not cosmetic. :rolleyes:

Ele'ill

26th May 2011, 03:14

And that is about as major of a difference as there could possibly be. So many of the arguments that are continually put forth by animal rights believers/activists are rooted in this asinine anthropomorphic analysis of "animal's oppression" as being somehow related to or similar to the oppression of humans.

Physical pain and emotional distress are felt by both humans and other animals. "Not being human" doesn't validate us violating their autonomy.

Even the term "specieism" is blatantly evocative of sexism, racism, etc. Not only is this contrived linkage of oppression insulting to us humans that face violence and derision on a daily basis, but it is totally ahistorical. Oppression and all of the various "-ism" manifestations of it is a set of systems that serve to create social stratification and marginalization of different groups in society so as to facilitate the perpetuation of capitalism. That just flat out is not the case with non-human animals.

So the violence and oppression humans face from themselves aren't applied to other creatures who feel similar physical pain and emotional distress from human actions?

Also, why should animals be treated humanely?

Because they feel physical pain and emotional distress the same as we do. How could we think it's alright to subject them to what we ourselves deem intolerable?

thesadmafioso

26th May 2011, 03:25

Physical pain and emotional distress are felt by both humans and other animals. "Not being human" doesn't validate us violating their autonomy.

So the violence and oppression humans face from themselves aren't applied to other creatures who feel similar physical pain and emotional distress from human actions?

Because they feel physical pain and emotional distress the same as we do. How could we think it's alright to subject them to what we ourselves deem intolerable?

A question of this degree of complexity cannot be handled in such a blunt fashion. It is not as if support for this form of scientific research correlates with a desire to inflict harm upon animals, but rather that a decision was made in regards to the overall degree of harm which would be prevented through advocating for these measures. Testing on animals may in a narrow sort of way be deplorable, but when viewed in terms of the potential for relieving suffering on a much larger scale amongst humans that trade off becomes sensible. It is a matter of trading the risk of potentially causing harm to animals for the possibility for bettering the lives of far more humans.

You may protect your position in a highly moralistic shield of doing no damage to innocent animals, but that does not negate the reality that many of these animals suffer in order to relieve far more suffering.

jake williams

26th May 2011, 03:44

They can test many many things including drugs on human cells.
Yes, and that's one of the main types of medical testing that goes on, for obvious reasons. But you can't actually be arguing that while drugs affect humans and mice absolutely and totally differently, they have exactly the same effect on human cells in a test tube as they do on whole humans. And of course they don't.

Technology has advanced so much but not very much in the field of testing.
Technology has advanced considerably, but not to the point where we can model everything that goes on in a whole organism over a period of days or months, especially with the computing efficiency where we could do this for thousands of drugs we're testing at any given time. Which is why we still have to tests on animals, something no one thinks is ideal. No one, I should hope, thinks it's fun to give mice cancer. If we could do things more quickly and more easily, we would. I still don't think you appreciate how complex it is to model the effects of drugs. We're not getting that technology to the point where it's more effective than animal testing for a very long time, no matter how much we try.

Exactly we are "fucking complex" and while we are similar to rats and primates, we are obviously not identical.
Really? I thought humans and rats were identical.

No one thinks rats and humans are identical. Do you actually believe that medical researchers who do animal testing, many of whom have to spend a lot of their time comparing the animal testing they do and the human testing they do, aren't aware that there the differences between animal tests and human tests? I'm not asking rhetorically. Do you actually believe this?

Comrade J

26th May 2011, 03:59

Thesadmafioso makes a good point about the longterm benefits of animal-testing.

Mari3L, the whole "animals suffering" argument is redundant and only makes sense in isolation, out of the long-term context. I am surprised that someone who is clearly as intelligent as you are would take such a subjective emotional standpoint on this issue.

It is true that some of the animals that are tested on will suffer, be in pain, die. But the technologies, procedures and medicines that are developed through testing will be long-lasting and eternally useful, thus preventing or alleviating suffering/pain amongst an incalculable number of humans and animals in the future. We who support animal-testing don't enjoy the idea of causing pain, it is simply that we see past the momentary suffering of an animal to the ultimate end result, which already has and will continue to benefit future generations and prevent/alleviate their suffering.

Your position is therefore the one that would in fact cause the most suffering overall, so perhaps it's time to put an end to this nonsensical moralistic rhetoric.

fishontuesday

26th May 2011, 05:13

Not to sound like some youtube commenter but the one guy who voted cosmetic only, might have actually done so by mistake.

Manic Impressive

26th May 2011, 05:26

Until we can use nazis for these testings, someone has to do it...
erm didn't see anyone else pick up on this and I know it's only a joke but lets never lower ourselves to their level, otherwise we just become what we despise.

Saying that though I think perhaps we should have nature reserves for anarcho primitivists so that school children can go and see how ancient people used to live. Kinda like a safari park. Is that reactionary? :lol:

Anyway I voted all. I would perhaps oppose cosmetic testing as it is fairly frivolous but then to me that includes stuff like deodorant and cleanliness products which are necessary. So it should really be decided on a case by case basis.

La ComÃ©die Noire

26th May 2011, 05:37

CommunityBeliever

26th May 2011, 06:03

violating their autonomyI understand the need to eliminate suffering since suffering is a weakness. However, I don't see anything wrong with "violating autonomy."

1) Entities are already determined by previous conditions.
2) Human intelligence is vastly superior to other animals, so humans are the better decision makers.
3) The better decision makers should make the decisions.

Actually, I support the violation of autonomy in a variety of cases. Namely to uplift animals so that they can be at the same level as humans.

For example, electrodes implanted in the pleasure center of the brain (http://www.wireheading.com/) together with and GPS monitoring and mini-cameras will potentially allow us to use computers to completely control animals. We have already applied this technology to some rats, turning them into ratbots (http://www.revleft.com/vb/album.php?albumid=772). This same technology works perfectly fine on humans.

Applied consistently, computer controls could be used to reprogram all animals, including humans, and guide them into the norms of good behaviour. In this way, all violent or destructive behaviour will be abolished.

The future strong AI will have the computational resources to oversee this transformation. Well some people may argue that this transformative process is essentially a violation of autonomy, we are already slaves to our reward circuity.

Fawkes

26th May 2011, 06:42

Did you know that if it weren't for the Nazis testing the effects of hypothermia on human subjects we wouldn't know half of what we do about it now?

Just a thought to those who would obtain knowledge at all costs.

Nobody here is suggesting we obtain knowledge at all costs nor is anyone here in support of utilizing humans as test subjects in research experiments. There's a major difference in using non-humans and humans for medical/scientific research, and the arguments against using humans are not ones that pander to knee-jerk moralistic sensibilities as are the arguments against using non-human animals.

Not to sound like some youtube commenter but the one guy who voted cosmetic only, might have actually done so by mistake.
No, Astra Zeneca better back the fuck off them bunnies, but Revlon's got my go ahead all day.

Physical pain and emotional distress are felt by both humans and other animals. "Not being human" doesn't validate us violating their autonomy.
Yes it does because the result of those violations of their autonomy is an advancement of medical science that is ultimately beneficial (or at least has the potential to be) to all people.

So the violence and oppression humans face from themselves aren't applied to other creatures who feel similar physical pain and emotional distress from human actions?
No, not even close. Some people argue for animal testing by claiming that animals are not sentient creatures and that they do not exhibit emotions. Those people are dumb. Animals do feel physical and emotional pain as a result of human actions, but the purpose of, origins of, and mechanisms used in the enacting of this pain is in no way remotely similar to the systems of oppression that exist in human society that serve the function of division and social stratification. The pain enacted upon animals in research studies is done for the purpose of attaining some form of understanding of how biological systems (in most cases) work and how the findings from such research can be used to create something beneficial for humans. The violence and oppression humans are exposed to serves to create tension, division, and marginalization of various groups of people so as to perpetuate the existing order. The two are completely different.

Because they feel physical pain and emotional distress the same as we do. How could we think it's alright to subject them to what we ourselves deem intolerable?
Well, for one thing, the fact that they experience physical and emotional pain doesn't necessarily mean they do so in the same manners that we do. However, that's not too big of an issue. It is alright for us to subject them to things that would be deemed intolerable if done to a human because we define certain things as being intolerable because of the negative repercussions that would result from such inhumane things being carried out against humans. If the torturing of humans was considered to be acceptable, an entirely new precedent would be set for how we interact with one another. A supportive or even passive sentiment regarding the infliction of physical pain against other humans is a threat to all people. That is not the case when such an attitude is exhibited in regards to the infliction of physical pain on animals. Growing an ear on the back of a mouse does not pose a threat to the safety and well-being of people, it in fact does the opposite. Mengele's "experiments", on the other hand, did pose a very real threat to the safety of humans.

GallowsBird

26th May 2011, 10:13

Dr Mindbender has already covered this. It's incredibly expensive, and rarely used if labs can avoid it. But sometimes it is simply necessary to test on them, despite the immense cost.

And that is bulls**t, to be blunt. It is still the cheapest way (other than using computer simulations) compared to using human genetic material for instance.

It shows absolutely nothing; there have been a phenomenal amount of tests using animals that have allowed scientists to learn about vaccinations, chemotherapy, antibiotics, heart disease, lung disease, brain disease, genetics, bone marrow, mutation and many more. Ironically, many of these vaccinations and medical procedures etc. are now used on animals! So simply put - if you are against animal testing, never vaccinate or treat your family pet, never take a pill yourself, and never have a surgical operation. If you live in the US, you won't need to take out health insurance, because animals have died to create and perfect the treatments you would receive.

I do tend to avoid medicines and I am not from the US. However that statement is very ridiculous as we are somewhat beholden to pharmaceutical companies and medical professionals. The fact that we have to use health care that is tested on animals is besides the point; the actual point is that we shouldn't have to, or at least there should be less product testing on animals, as usual people are derailing the argument in the same way right-wingers say "If you love communism so much, move to North Korea' or some such.

Also, you're clearly unfamiliar with the science of medicine and biochemistry, so a little lesson on aspirin for you - tests on animals allowed biologists to learn more about how the human kidney works, specifically something called "glycosidic bonds" which are between glucuronides and carbolyxic acids, and are really important for toxin removal. Glucuronides are what the body creates out of toxins by joining the toxic compound to glucuronic acid so that it is soluble and can pass out of the kidneys. The research was driven by the fact that animals died or became sick from aspirin, because they lack something that humans must have - this turned out to be the glucuronides. This was crucial in the future research and treatment of kidney disease.

I am aware of that, but yes medicine isn't my field (though I do know about "science of medicine and biochemistry" so I don't need your "lesson" Prof) as I take it isn't yours either (unless you are a Medical Researcher or Doctor rather than some kid online as you seem to be). The fact some valuable information came from it still doesn't disprove my point though as it was very nearly classified as harmful and not usable by humans. I dare you to find some valuable information on how Strychnine is beneficial to people though. The fact remains that most medicines exist in spite of animal testing not because of it.

And again this is besides the point as the main issue is that different methods can and should (and have been) found to, at least, reduce the use of live test subjects (and yes they are alive as much as most humans think of them as toys) in medical research.

... which is why most people have voted in favour of solely-medical research, and not cosmetic. :rolleyes:

But again that is besides the point as in the world today they don't only use them for medical research. I doubt very much that they'll pay much attention to a little insignificant poll on some dubious corner of the internet. :rolleyes:

Lord Testicles

26th May 2011, 13:04

Did you know that if it weren't for the Nazis testing the effects of hypothermia on human subjects we wouldn't know half of what we do about it now?

Just a thought to those who would obtain knowledge at all costs.

What point are you trying to make? I don't think anyone here has stated that we must pursue knowledge at any and all costs.
I really think it says more about you if you are trying to draw comparisons between testing on human beings without their consent and testing on animals.

La ComÃ©die Noire

26th May 2011, 13:16

Nobody here is suggesting we obtain knowledge at all costs nor is anyone here in support of utilizing humans as test subjects in research experiments. There's a major difference in using non-humans and humans for medical/scientific research, and the arguments against using humans are not ones that pander to knee-jerk moralistic sensibilities as are the arguments against using non-human animals.

Whose talking morals? Put morals aside and look at it from a purely pragmatic perspective whose the best animal to test products for homo sapiens on? That's right, Homo sapiens. You must contain your knee jerk moralism if we are ever going to cure cancer.

Not using humans for test subjects is a moral choice. A moral choice I support. The question is how much of the rest of living creatures should that apply to?

I really think it says more about you if you are trying to draw comparisons between testing on human beings without their consent and testing on animals.

I don't like the word "specieism, but humans aren't as special as you think.

Rooster

26th May 2011, 14:28

There's more than just moral reasons as to why they don't experiment on humans. Rats and mice breed faster, population studies can be done quicker, certain types of rats have been bred that you could not do with humans, the genome of these animals have been mapped out (mice share 99% of their genes with humans), you can clone mice and other animals, and so on. I have first hand experience of animal testing and I can say that computer simulations could be used but they won't be nearly as accurate, as useful or as safe, as testing on animals. The whole point of medical experimentation isn't anything to do with profit, in many ways, it inhibits profit from medication especially in the UK. This is why you get some companies trying to circumvent the strict guidelines towards product and medicinal safety. If you want an example of the unpredictability of working on humans then you can look at that case in the UK a few years ago when a number of people almost died from being test subjects. That's the whole reason why medical experimentation is carried out on animals, to reduce that.

Kamos

26th May 2011, 14:35

Only women wear lipstick? :confused:

News to me.

Men who wear lipstick tend to get called gay (and not in a nice way, you can be sure of that). That's how today's society works.

Fawkes

26th May 2011, 15:27

Whose talking morals? Put morals aside and look at it from a purely pragmatic perspective whose the best animal to test products for homo sapiens on? That's right, Homo sapiens. You must contain your knee jerk moralism if we are ever going to cure cancer.

Not using humans for test subjects is a moral choice. A moral choice I support. The question is how much of the rest of living creatures should that apply to?

I do look at it from a pragmatic perspective, read my last post:

Well, for one thing, the fact that they experience physical and emotional pain doesn't necessarily mean they do so in the same manners that we do. However, that's not too big of an issue. It is alright for us to subject them to things that would be deemed intolerable if done to a human because we define certain things as being intolerable because of the negative repercussions that would result from such inhumane things being carried out against humans. If the torturing of humans was considered to be acceptable, an entirely new precedent would be set for how we interact with one another. A supportive or even passive sentiment regarding the infliction of physical pain against other humans is a threat to all people. That is not the case when such an attitude is exhibited in regards to the infliction of physical pain on animals. Growing an ear on the back of a mouse does not pose a threat to the safety and well-being of people, it in fact does the opposite. Mengele's "experiments", on the other hand, did pose a very real threat to the safety of humans.

Rjevan

26th May 2011, 16:26

An uneasy "for some medical research, and not cosmetic" with sympathy for "totally against it".

Jazzratt

26th May 2011, 17:29

For example, when the technology (http://www.revleft.com/vb/album.php?albumid=772) allows, I would like to see the autonomy of all carnivores "violated" to prevent them from eating other animals or doing anything violent. I also wouldn't have any problem with the future Strong AI violating the autonomy of humans by turning them into drones since it will be a million times smarter so it should make the decisions. It's always something with you isn't it. You can start by making a reasonable argument and then you draw a cock all over it by being aggresively wrong like this.

I don't like the word "specieism, but humans aren't as special as you think. This is it really. In the grand scheme of things and from an absolutely disinterested position this is quite true. The thing is that humans aren't in disinterested position, nor should they be. Humans are special to humans, at least those of us lucky enough not to be sociopaths, that's just how it goes. It's not like I'm an anarchist because I think the abolition of class society is going to be helpful for fucking mice if you catch my drift.

Inquisitive Lurker

27th May 2011, 00:12

I fully support animal testing for all medical purposes. I am completely opposed to cosmetics testing, because it is unnecessary. The whole industry is unnecessary and should be abolished. Sorry ladies, but makeup is an example of over-production and over-consumption.

On a separate subject, my brother-in-law, a chemistry PhD, works for a company that produces software (and the hardware to go with it) that tests drugs and chemicals against protein groups. It can do in an month what laboratory testing would do in a year. No expense, no animals. Though after a positive result is found, they'll probably verify it in a laboratory.

Dr Mindbender

27th May 2011, 00:29

The whole industry is unnecessary and should be abolished. Sorry ladies, but makeup is an example of over-production and over-consumption.
Are you fucking nuts?

Inquisitive Lurker

27th May 2011, 00:33

Are you fucking nuts?

Most makeup is designed to mimic the signs of sexual arousal. Red lips, flushed cheeks, bright dilated eyes. These all happen naturally when a woman is, as it were, in heat.

Makeup and cosmetics of all kinds are an unnecessary product, wasted labor power, over-production, over-consumption. They serve no need. In a socialist society, they would not be produced.

Dr Mindbender

27th May 2011, 00:38

Most makeup is designed to mimic the signs of sexual arousal. Red lips, flushed cheeks, bright dilated eyes. These all happen naturally when a woman is, as it were, in heat.

Makeup and cosmetics of all kinds are an unnecessary product, wasted labor power, over-production, over-consumption. They serve no need. In a socialist society, they would not be produced.
First point- theres no such thing as 'over-consumption' as you put it. Produce is destroyed rather than being given away to sustain market value. If anything we suffer from underconsumption.

Second point - the choice between a fairly treated workforce and luxury or niche goods is a false dichotomy. This is what automation could be used for.

Lastly-If we're only going to produce things on the basis that they are 'needed' its going to be an incredibly dull society and not one that i would relish being part of. If people want to wear produce that makes them look on heat then let them do so and fuck anyone who says they cant.

Jazzratt

27th May 2011, 09:06

Most makeup is designed to mimic the signs of sexual arousal. Red lips, flushed cheeks, bright dilated eyes. These all happen naturally when a woman is, as it were, in heat. I see so instead of wearing make up women should be in a constant state of arousal (the logistics of which I don't really want to think about)? You're nuts.

Makeup and cosmetics of all kinds are an unnecessary product, wasted labor power, over-production, over-consumption. They serve no need. In a socialist society, they would not be produced. Really? Fucking really?

We had a loonball like you once who said that we shouldn't have "dress clothes" in a communist society because they don't serve a purpose and would getin the way of work. If you guys are somehow in charge of production in a socialist society then it's going to be a horrible fucking place.

Also "unnecessary" isn't defined as "shit I don't use." For future reference, when you want to start banning things for spurious reasons.

Communist Pear

27th May 2011, 09:57

I support it for all medical use, but not cosmetic.

With a few conditions however. The animal testing should only be as the direct last step before something is given to humans. So after other methods have been used for determinating it's safety-profile, since they will never give a 100% guarantee. Unfortunately some drugs have been determined safe in animals and then are found to be very dangerous to humans (see: http://www.outsourcing-pharma.com/Preclinical-Research/Northwick-trial-tragedy-scientists-reveal-how-cytokine-storm-started).

I do not really see how animals are necessary in cosmetic testing though. :confused:

CommunityBeliever

27th May 2011, 16:52

It's always something with you isn't it. You can start by making a reasonable argument and then you draw a cock all over it by being aggresively wrong like this.

What I support is the use of biotechnology and genetic engineering to uplift sentient lifeforms of their physical flaws (such as carnivory, suffering, disease) and their mental flaws (selfishness, greed, ignorance etc).

Well this may seem to violate such a nebulous concept as "autonomy", lifeforms are determined by previous conditions anyways. The way David Pearce put it in Reprogramming Predators (http://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-project/reprogramming-predators.html) is:

Nor does the augmented (http://www.wireheading.com/misc/animal-augment.html) animal ever experience a sense of being made to act against its will. Yes, the ex-predator is "enslaved" to its reward circuitry; but so are humans. Indeed indefinitely generous doses of pure pleasure could be administered to members of the managed species in reward for "virtuous" behaviour.

MaximMK

27th May 2011, 16:59

Animals are living beings that can feel pain too. They don't deserve to be butchered so some girls look better. Killing animals for these pathetic purposes is just like killing other people for being different from you. It is stupid.

Quail

27th May 2011, 17:11

I only support animal testing for medical reasons where there is no alternative. It would be good to develop alternatives so that we can move away from using animals and I fully support any efforts to do so.

Also, just as a point, but I don't think anyone who is 100% against animal testing suggests we just burn the results and progress that came out of animal testing. That wouldn't make any sense.

Inquisitive Lurker

27th May 2011, 19:19

I see so instead of wearing make up women should be in a constant state of arousal (the logistics of which I don't really want to think about)? You're nuts.

The point is that cosmetics degrade women by turning them into sex objects. The anthropological effect is broadcasting "Take me! Take me now! I'm ovulating!"

Not a very progressive product I'd say.

Fawkes

27th May 2011, 20:23

Lord Testicles

27th May 2011, 20:30

I don't like the word "specieism, but humans aren't as special as you think.

I don't think humans are particularly special, whatever that means, but I do think we are superior, better and more special than lab rats. ;)

The point is that cosmetics degrade women by turning them into sex objects.

So you're saying that there is no chance that people (not just women) might just want to wear make-up?

Vanguard1917

27th May 2011, 21:23

Rss

27th May 2011, 21:32

I'm all for animal testing to better human conditions, but cosmetics should be tested on humans who intend to use them.

Tablo

27th May 2011, 21:35

I voted some. I've been having second thoughts about my views on animals lately. :P

Normally I would have voted in favor of all testing...

Jazzratt

27th May 2011, 21:47

The point is that cosmetics degrade women by turning them into sex objects. The anthropological effect is broadcasting "Take me! Take me now! I'm ovulating!" Maybe on you, you fucking weirdo. To me the effect is largely "I am wearing make up." If you feel you can't look at a woman in make up without immediately thinking of her as an ovulating sex object I suggest you seek help. Professional help.

Rooster

27th May 2011, 21:51

It is not up to us marxists to decide on the moral merits of certain commodities. If people want to wear make up then let them wear make up.

Dr Mindbender

27th May 2011, 21:52

The point is that cosmetics degrade women by turning them into sex objects. The anthropological effect is broadcasting "Take me! Take me now! I'm ovulating!"

Not a very progressive product I'd say.

You tell me what is more progressive, prohibiting people for wearing make up on the off chance that they might as you put it , be 'exploited as a sex object' or respecting peoples autonomy and let them wear what the fuck they want?

This is going along the same logic as the argument used against rape victims who 'provoked it' by wearing revealing or suggestive clothing. The onus is not on the wearer to change their aesthetics, the onus is on the exploiter to change their behaviour.

Jazzratt

27th May 2011, 21:54

Vanguard1917

27th May 2011, 23:56

I'm all for animal testing to better human conditions, but cosmetics should be tested on humans who intend to use them.

Yeah, if those slags wanna wear eye shadow in the first place, they should get all the skin irritations they deserve!

MarxSchmarx

28th May 2011, 07:14

Cosmetics is no more morally repugnant than eating almost all meats.Except that, for example, people need food more than they need cosmetics.

I question that. There are plenty of vegans and vegetarians who live basically fine lives.

Moreover do even regular meat eaters need meat that results from a brutal slaughter? Can't they get the meat from other more humane sources? Why is meat that is gained from brutally killing an animal (like throwing a living lobster into a pot of boiling water) any more a necessity than doing horrific experiments on kittens to make sure an eye liner is safe? Both appeal to vanity, luxury, excess, etc..., in fact on this point I am in basic agreement with the animal rightists.

Rss

28th May 2011, 12:01

Yeah, if those slags wanna wear eye shadow in the first place, they should get all the skin irritations they deserve!

All natural products shouldn't have any severe side-effects, so I don't see a problem.

El Chuncho

28th May 2011, 13:32

An uneasy "for some medical research, and not cosmetic" with sympathy for "totally against it".

I am like you, though I generally avoid products tested on animals. I do accept that if experiments have to be conducted to find a cure that is ravishing humans and animals, that some lab-rats should potentially be sacrificed for the greater good. However, if we are verging into a question of morality (and I do not mean religious morality), then I see no difference in torturing animals for experimentation to torturing humans for experimentation. In both cases, a living, feeling being is suffering. Mankind is more advanced than a lab rat but it doesn't mean that man is better than a lab rat, they are just different animals and one evolved to be the dominant species.

I usually loath Richard Dawkin's views, but on speciesism I think he makes a valid point:

''Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees!...The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead''

Socialism has never been about destroying nature or torturing other species for prophet or science, and I find it a bit galling that many socialists on revleft seem to think it is (which I would put down to the average age group here; so teenagers and under 23s). I have seen many people talk about conservation, environmentalism and a respect for animal life as if these are reactionary traits. It is absolute nonsense. Being a true socialist doesn't mean you should be a speciesist*, or someone who wants to build factories on and pave over every piece of countryside we have left (and peasants, who mostly live in the country and are agrarian workers, have a valuable part to play in any revolution and afterwards).

*And speciesism is a frightening thought. How would they treat intelligent life from other worlds if mankind does, somehow, manage to make contact?

El Chuncho

28th May 2011, 13:52

Also, just as a point, but I don't think anyone who is 100% against animal testing suggests we just burn the results and progress that came out of animal testing. That wouldn't make any sense.

Indeed, but a lot of the ardent speciesists like to paint people who think it wrong to torture innocent, weaker living beings as idiots. In the end, I think they are reprehensible. I find it easier to justify my position as anti-animal torture..sorry, testing, than hardcore supporters justify their position. At the end of the day they are supporting the suffering of living beings, whereas we (that includes people who agree with animal testing in severe circumstances and those that do not agree with it at all) are not.

Coggeh

29th May 2011, 02:37

Maybe on you, you fucking weirdo. To me the effect is largely "I am wearing make up." If you feel you can't look at a woman in make up without immediately thinking of her as an ovulating sex object I suggest you seek help. Professional help.

While you are right absolutely in your reply you have to take in certain factors that in actual fact cosmetics (in the derogatory view of the term) represents sexism essentially to deny this is denying basic reality upon the mass view of working class ,not only males but females too, that it used in a sexist sense, make-up is a way of saying :according to accepted backwards traditions a subservient view of women towards men is acceptable because of cultural relativism, while obviously this cannot be taken so crudely as the person you have quoted from, but to deny that make-up based on the fact that "make-up makes you beautiful" (which women are bombarded daily about through mass media etc) is acceptable in any real terms is absolute nonsense.

Coggeh

29th May 2011, 02:43

This is going along the same logic as the argument used against rape victims who 'provoked it' by wearing revealing or suggestive clothing. The onus is not on the wearer to change their aesthetics, the onus is on the exploiter to change their behaviour.
Jazratt:

Thank you. I was trying to articulate this in my own reply but got frustrated as I couldn't find a good way of wording it (hence giving up and just taking the piss out of him, though with an underlying point).

It is absolutely not and that is a cheap, misunderstanding view of the points made. People aren't being chauvinist in terms of womens rights here they are simply saying that the origins and practice of women wearing make-up is sexist essentially. Yes i understand the cultural view that it is acceptable (my girlfriend of 4 years wears make-up and i've no problem with that) but to confuse the origins with some male-chauvinist viewpoint that rape victims attract there predators(if your will) because of their attire, is a cheap point and one that is disgraceful in my mind because you don't deal with the entire point when dealing with another comrades misunderstanding.

Coggeh

29th May 2011, 02:48

It is not up to us marxists to decide on the moral merits of certain commodities. If people want to wear make up then let them wear make up.

Actually, it is. not that it would be a dictatum upon which some bureaucratic organisation would decide morals, but we have to realise that the perceived morals of the working class are deduced from facts by marxists and not some abstract universal truth.

So in terms of make-up, i think that most will agree that yes: in many ways it is reactionary but it is an accepted view of the working class and the masses, the same way smoking is an accepted (though really harmful) thing to do (im not being anti-smoking, i smoke myself but the fact cannot be excused) in that sense we should not call for a ban or a restriction on smoking (smoking is one example of many). Because, it is a form of recreation, a practice or any other thing that has gained a certain mass acceptance among people and we should accept that in many forms it comes forth towards us and deal with it not by some virtuous "moral" dictating but by understanding: what is the mood, what is the material conditions towards certain demands and how are they perceived and formulating an approach based on the results of such understanding.

Coggeh

29th May 2011, 03:17

The point is that cosmetics degrade women by turning them into sex objects. The anthropological effect is broadcasting "Take me! Take me now! I'm ovulating!"

Not a very progressive product I'd say.

Eh. make up cannot be "anthropological" to say such things would be to say that make-up and the relation to ovulation is natural even though make-up is based on artificial human constructed view of beauty. Your contradicting yourself my good man.

And yes during "primitive communism" women did bleach there hair, wore a blush derived from a herb/berry mix but the difference is so did men. I do not disagree with make up in general( you want to wear it fine) but throughout social systems since then it has been a sexist tool by the patriarchal dominated ruling stratum . So yes in a socialist society that would be removed essentially but the essence of the sexist view would remain in many respects but we combat that not by banning make-up but dealing with sexism and the view of women themselves.

Bad Grrrl Agro

29th May 2011, 04:51

I support testing animals on their math skills.:thumbup:

MarxSchmarx

29th May 2011, 05:18

I support testing animals on their math skills.:thumbup:
QhtfizONYOc

Tenka

29th May 2011, 05:51

All natural products shouldn't have any severe side-effects, so I don't see a problem.

All-natural irritants and poisons are everywhere. Natural =/= Healthy, sorry to point out the obvious.

But anyway, the human species should not be overly concerned for the welfare of other species except where it's beneficial to the human species, too... or except where the species is cute, like Kiwis. Animals used for testing--rats, for example (not to say they aren't cute)--tend to breed at a ridiculous rate and generally not live any long, pain-free lives even if they don't come into contact with humans. In the absence of an alternative that's less wasteful in all respects, animal testing is fine by me.

Sentinel

29th May 2011, 15:13

Just something I've noticed over the years on Revleft:

It's interesting how you can see patterns in certain people's posting. Despite the initial appearance of mildness and tolerance ('defend the animals!'), those typically taking biocentric/bioconservative positions are almost always the most authoritarian, and moral conservative ones ('cosmetics are unnecessary/degrading').

I know there are exceptions from this pattern but it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, especially as it makes perfect sense. If one is for elevating animals to the same status as humans, or for preserving the nature for it's own rather than for humanity's sake, one is essentially subtracting from the worth of human beings.

I support animal testing. As for the debate on cosmetics, well I'm another man used to wearing makeup and I definitely don't see cosmetics as either unnecessary nor degrading to anyone, quite on the contrary they play an important role in my life and I intend to keep using them for the rest of my life.

Preferably without being hospitalised by an allergic shock or whatever because of someone's moralistic beliefs.. :rolleyes:

miltonwasfried...man

29th May 2011, 15:25

Pain is pain. Animals shouldn't have to suffer anymore than we should, but in rare occasions like in cancer testing I can make an exception.

Bad Grrrl Agro

29th May 2011, 16:50

Pain is pain. Animals shouldn't have to suffer anymore than we should, but in rare occasions like in cancer testing I can make an exception.
I totally agree. But they still need to study for their math tests.

El Chuncho

29th May 2011, 18:44

Pain is pain. Animals shouldn't have to suffer anymore than we should, but in rare occasions like in cancer testing I can make an exception.

Something that many so called ''progressives'' fail to realize. Still, as other so called ''progressives'' support the ''rights'' of paedophiles, the diversity of opinion on this matter with the left isn't surprising at all.

I see no justification for the level of unfeeling for other living beings that is being displayed by many in this thread. If it is right to torture animals, then it is right to torture humans. Mankind is only the most advanced species of animals on the planet, there is nothing that separates us from other animals in a ''moral'' sense.

El Chuncho

29th May 2011, 18:47

If one is for elevating animals to the same status as humans, or for preserving the nature for it's own rather than for humanity's sake, one is essentially subtracting from the worth of human beings.

Out comes the speciesism again. I find it ironic that you are labeling people who think it is wrong that animals have to suffer as ''bio-conservative'' when you cling to one of the most imperialist and conservative beliefs; that mankind is more worthy of life and more valuable than other species, and that man should just be allowed to kill the Earth and pave over rain forests and nature - despite these being beneficial to man and other animals, and should be protected as such. Why should we see ourselves better than animals in a moral and philosophical sense when we are animals, being only in the position of dominance due to a fluke of evolution. If things happened differently we would not have evolved into the most advanced animal on the planet; and thus might have been used to experiment on.. I am glad I am not a Trotskyist if that is a main part of your dogma. You are aware than the British empire held speciesist views. right?

Would a superior alien being, who sees us as very primitive animals, have the right to perform medical experiments on humans to save his people?

Rss

29th May 2011, 19:20

All-natural irritants and poisons are everywhere. Natural =/= Healthy, sorry to point out the obvious.

But anyway, the human species should not be overly concerned for the welfare of other species except where it's beneficial to the human species, too... or except where the species is cute, like Kiwis. Animals used for testing--rats, for example (not to say they aren't cute)--tend to breed at a ridiculous rate and generally not live any long, pain-free lives even if they don't come into contact with humans. In the absence of an alternative that's less wasteful in all respects, animal testing is fine by me.

Alright, you got me there. Test cosmetics on pandas all you want. They are dumb, picky and are going way of the dodo anyways.

Would a superior alien being, who sees us as very primitive animals, have the right to perform medical experiments on humans to save his people?

Only good bug is a dead bug.

Sentinel

29th May 2011, 21:53

I find it ironic that you are labeling people who think it is wrong that animals have to suffer as ''bio-conservative'' when you cling to one of the most imperialist and conservative beliefs; that mankind is more worthy of life and more valuable than other species, and that man should just be allowed to kill the Earth and pave over rain forests and nature - despite these being beneficial to man and other animals, and should be protected as suchOf course that's not what I said at all. I'm anthropocentric, ie I think that we should always put the benefit of human beings first. Now, killing the earth, paving the rainforests etc doesn't constitute that, or does it? Nope, advocating sustainable development does, and that's what I do. Likewise, I support careful management of wild and domestic animal life, to not interrupt important foodchains etc.

What I don't do is to put the welfare of animals or plants before that of humans merely due to some unscientific moral code, or for emotional reasons.

I am glad I am not a Trotskyist if that is a main part of your dogma. To be honest, these are my highly personal views, but I'd like to hope that most marxists support a scientific and human centered outlook on these things.

Would a superior alien being, who sees us as very primitive animals, have the right to perform medical experiments on humans to save his people?I don't know if they'd have the 'right', but they probably would do it anyway..

Inquisitive Lurker

29th May 2011, 22:16

Would a superior alien being, who sees us as very primitive animals, have the right to perform medical experiments on humans to save his people?

1. The physics of the limiting speed of light and time dilation make such an encounter impossible.
2. We don't breed fast enough for research.
3. As this being shares no common evolution with us, no result would be useful.

Wanted Man

29th May 2011, 22:19

Without animal research, medicine as we know it today wouldn't exist. Animal research has enabled us to find treatments for cancer, antibiotics for infections, vaccines to prevent some of the most deadly and debilitating viruses and surgery for injuries, illnesses and deformities. (http://www.pro-test.org.uk/facts.php)

Well shit, a pro-animal testing advocacy group supports animal testing? Thanks for the link, I seriously didn't expect that.

The whole discussion is pointless, because people are just going to keep posting their Holy Links to whatever advocacy group they can find that supports their opinion.

Fawkes

30th May 2011, 05:02

Mankind is only the most advanced species of animals on the planet, there is nothing that separates us from other animals in a ''moral'' sense.

Which is why our arguments (at least most pro-testing peoples') are rooted in logic and a materialist analysis of how the world operates, not some baseless and subjective morality.

Out comes the speciesism again.
Honestly, people need to shut the fuck up with this "specieist" bullshit, it's a fucking insult to those of us that face real systematic oppression every single day of our lives.

Kuppo Shakur

30th May 2011, 05:16

Why would you do medical research on animals when you can just eat them?
:confused::confused::confused:

Lord Testicles

30th May 2011, 11:03

If it is right to torture animals, then it is right to torture humans.

No, this is the reasoning of a psychopath.

El Chuncho

30th May 2011, 13:14

No, this is the reasoning of a psychopath.

I think you have missed my point, I do not think it is right to torture any creature, whether they be humans or rats. :rolleyes: I think it is more psychopathic to agree with torturing any creature, personally; and I have seen someone put a butterfly to a lighter and burn its wings off. That is truly psychopathic behaviour (and is, in fact, considered it in psychology), just as torturing humans is. I can accept people saying that experimentation on animals is right in extreme circumstances, but speciesism (and no, I will not stop mentioning it because it is very evident in this thread) is bullshit.

El Chuncho

30th May 2011, 13:16

1. The physics of the limiting speed of light and time dilation make such an encounter impossible.
2. We don't breed fast enough for research.
3. As this being shares no common evolution with us, no result would be useful.

You really should learn about philosophical questions. None of your points have any worth, because I am speaking hypothetically. :rolleyes: Lets put it this way, Lurker, would it be acceptable for a species from Earth, that managed to evolve into a more advance species than humans, and has managed to alter humans so they breed faster, to experiment on mankind?

And I find the view that mankind should exploit the Earth for its own ''benefit'' (which often is just really greed) as disgusting as the view that stronger empires should exploit weaker nations. In both cases it is the strong oppressing the weak.

El Chuncho

30th May 2011, 13:22

I don't know if they'd have the 'right', but they probably would do it anyway..

Yeah, they probably would and you would probably whine and ***** about it being wrong and that they are just oppressing mankind. But you have to concede that if it is right for mankind to exploit other animals because they are inferior, then a more advanced species should have the same right to exploit mankind, using the same logic.

Dr Mindbender

30th May 2011, 13:52

Would a superior alien being, who sees us as very primitive animals, have the right to perform medical experiments on humans to save his people?

If a superior alien species was so inclined to do so, its unlikely theres anything we could do to stop them so its a moot point.

I think you have missed my point, I do not think it is right to torture any creature, whether they be humans or rats. :rolleyes: I think it is more psychopathic to agree with torturing any creature, personally;
It is unhelpful to the debate to refer to it as 'torturing', as though they are inflicting distress upon animals for the sake of causing distress. medical research for scientific return is not analogous to torture for the purposes of information or sadistic pleasure.

Yeah, they probably would and you would probably whine and ***** about it being wrong and that they are just oppressing mankind.
In fairness if a hostile intelligent species came to earth i think the medical research side of things would be the least of our problems.

Kuppo Shakur

30th May 2011, 14:04

Why do you pro-animal people always bring "superior alien species" into every discussion?
This isn't fucking Star Trek.

Dr Mindbender

30th May 2011, 14:25

Why do you pro-animal people always bring "superior alien species" into every discussion?
This isn't fucking Star Trek.

Not being one, i cant speak for the pro-animal people but i'm guessing since we havent found a superior species to humans on Earth yet nor are we ever going to, it wouldnt leave a lot of room for maneuver in the hypothetical scenarios department unless we en-corporate outer space.

Kuppo Shakur

30th May 2011, 14:31

What's the need for it though, it's such a useless thing to mention.
"If some superior species appeared, would you run in front of their cars and poop on their carpets?"

Dr Mindbender

30th May 2011, 14:41

"If some superior species appeared, would you run in front of their cars and poop on their carpets?"
Yes.

Inquisitive Lurker

30th May 2011, 15:15

No, this is the reasoning of a psychopath.

Sociopath, not a psychopath.

Fawkes

30th May 2011, 16:48

You really should learn about philosophical questions. None of your points have any worth, because I am speaking hypothetically. :rolleyes: Lets put it this way, Lurker, would it be acceptable for a species from Earth, that managed to evolve into a more advance species than humans, and has managed to alter humans so they breed faster, to experiment on mankind?

Of course it wouldn't be acceptable, and that's because we are humans and that would very negatively effect us.

but speciesism (and no, I will not stop mentioning it because it is very evident in this thread) is bullshit.
I'm glad you've acknowledged that the whole notion of speciesism is bullshit.

And I find the view that mankind should exploit the Earth for its own ''benefit'' (which often is just really greed) as disgusting as the view that stronger empires should exploit weaker nations. In both cases it is the strong oppressing the weak.
No, it is not. Given that this was a point I already addressed on the second page of this thread, I'll just quote myself:

And that is about as major of a difference as there could possibly be. So many of the arguments that are continually put forth by animal rights believers/activists are rooted in this asinine anthropomorphic analysis of "animal's oppression" as being somehow related to or similar to the oppression of humans. Even the term "specieism" is blatantly evocative of sexism, racism, etc. Not only is this contrived linkage of oppression insulting to us humans that face violence and derision on a daily basis, but it is totally ahistorical. Oppression and all of the various "-ism" manifestations of it is a set of systems that serve to create social stratification and marginalization of different groups in society so as to facilitate the perpetuation of capitalism. That just flat out is not the case with non-human animals.

No, not even close. Some people argue for animal testing by claiming that animals are not sentient creatures and that they do not exhibit emotions. Those people are dumb. Animals do feel physical and emotional pain as a result of human actions, but the purpose of, origins of, and mechanisms used in the enacting of this pain is in no way remotely similar to the systems of oppression that exist in human society that serve the function of division and social stratification. The pain enacted upon animals in research studies is done for the purpose of attaining some form of understanding of how biological systems (in most cases) work and how the findings from such research can be used to create something beneficial for humans. The violence and oppression humans are exposed to serves to create tension, division, and marginalization of various groups of people so as to perpetuate the existing order. The two are completely different.

It is alright for us to subject them to things that would be deemed intolerable if done to a human because we define certain things as being intolerable because of the negative repercussions that would result from such inhumane things being carried out against humans. If the torturing of humans was considered to be acceptable, an entirely new precedent would be set for how we interact with one another. A supportive or even passive sentiment regarding the infliction of physical pain against other humans is a threat to all people. That is not the case when such an attitude is exhibited in regards to the infliction of physical pain on animals. Growing an ear on the back of a mouse does not pose a threat to the safety and well-being of people, it in fact does the opposite. Mengele's "experiments", on the other hand, did pose a very real threat to the safety of humans.

Tavarisch_Mike

30th May 2011, 18:46

I find it quite strange/scary that those who are against animal-testings just go for moralitsic/philosophic-arguments and dont give real (scientific) suggestions on how we are going to deal with such things as developing new medicines.

El Chuncho

30th May 2011, 19:38

If a superior alien species was so inclined to do so, its unlikely theres anything we could do to stop them so its a moot point.

No the point is valid, and I am a little perturbed by many people not quite understanding hypothetical questions and philosophy. Members are talking as if man has an inherent right to abuse lesser animals, therefore my question and point is valid. If man has a ''right'', then wouldn't a superior being have the right to do the same to man, a lesser creature. Saying that we wouldn't be able to stop a superior alien species doing so is actually the moot point, because we are talking hypothetically about what rights they would have in regard to using humans for experimentation.

It is unhelpful to the debate to refer to it as 'torturing', as though they are inflicting distress upon animals for the sake of causing distress.

To a lesser animal it would seem like torture. Also the use of torture in this context fits the definition of torture:

''noun /ˈtôrCHər/
tortures, plural

The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain

Great physical or mental suffering or anxiety

A cause of such suffering or anxietyl''

In fairness if a hostile intelligent species came to earth i think the medical research side of things would be the least of our problems.

We are not talking about human worries, we are talking about ethics or rights. Specifically the right of more advanced creatures to experiment on humans for medical advancement. It seems like you are just dodging the issue. My main argument is not with people who feel that experimentation on other animals is justified, just their absurd view that man has some right to do so due to some abstract concept of superiority (rather than evolutionary advancement), and the lack of regard for the animals being experimented on (again, many here do see the need to experiment on animals, however, they are not as psychopathic and unfeeling about it).

El Chuncho

30th May 2011, 19:40

Why do you pro-animal people always bring "superior alien species" into every discussion?
This isn't fucking Star Trek.

Because most of us understand hypothetical concepts. :rolleyes:

El Chuncho

30th May 2011, 19:44

Of course it wouldn't be acceptable, and that's because we are humans and that would very negatively effect us.

Strange reasoning. Testing on animals negatively effects animals too. Or do humans have some moral or holy innate ''character'' that makes them better than anything else, including more advanced species? Ridiculous. If you wish to argue your point, find a reason that cannot be turned around to support anti-animal testing.

I'm glad you've acknowledged that the whole notion of speciesism is bullshit.

No, I have acknowledged that the speciesism of groups like the Human Progress Group is bullshit. Nice try, but you don't get the cookie.

No, it is not. Given that this was a point I already addressed on the second page of this thread, I'll just quote myself:

And I disagreed with your post the first time you posted it. It is, however, amusing the second time round. :lol:

CommunityBeliever

30th May 2011, 19:55

What I don't do is to put the welfare of animals or plants before that of humans merely due to some unscientific moral code, or for emotional reasons

Which is why our arguments (at least most pro-testing peoples') are rooted in logic and a materialist analysis of how the world operates, not some baseless and subjective morality.

Well animal testing does have considerable scientific value, the other forms of animal exploitation do not.

In particular, the fundamental laws of thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics) entail that whenever there is an "exchange of energy" between one trophic level and another, there is a significant loss. This implies that the development of animal products is wasteful, so veganism (or the elimination of animal products) does have a rational basis.

El Chuncho

30th May 2011, 19:57

if it involves shoving monkeys in little tubes and stitching their eyes together, or any kind of shit where it can put any type of abuse on animals. I am against that as much as I am capitalism.

Indeed. Actually I am not so much against experimenting on animals for important medical purposes, however, when it is used for cosmetics and minor medical issues, it is wrong. Also animal testing is often not very beneficial. I am sure I do not need to remind anyone of Thalidomide.

Also, there are better alternatives now, which means that animal testing is often not needed at all. Scientists are making successful gains with in vitro cell cultures. It can be argued that animal testing of past centuries was acceptable, but it is becoming more unnecessary year by year. And it is has never been acceptable for cosmetics, especially when natural substitutes work just as well.

I agree with the ALF put it that way. as far as people talking about how they don't care about animals, that is fucking ridiculous and I hope you get shoved in a tube and get lipstick put on your face.

I hope one day your autonomy is violated severely and you end up with an ear growing out of your back.

You have to put up with unfeeling sociopaths that cling to the left, unfortunately. They are just in it for the image, comrades. :thumbup1: It is fair enough to care more about humans than other animals, it is fair enough putting humans first but saying things like ''why should we care about the feelings of other animals. I don't care'' is a classic example of sociopathic behaviour, and it throws there own ''love'' for mankind into question too.

Sentinel

31st May 2011, 01:27

Yeah, they probably would and you would probably whine and ***** about it being wrong and that they are just oppressing mankind. But you have to concede that if it is right for mankind to exploit other animals because they are inferior, then a more advanced species should have the same right to exploit mankind, using the same logi

No. I wouldn't 'whine and *****' about it, I would oppose it as well as I could. As would the animals to humans testing them, if they understood how to -- or in most cases, even remotely what is going on..

Dr Mindbender

31st May 2011, 01:32

To a lesser animal it would seem like torture. Also the use of torture in this context fits the definition of torture:

''noun /ˈtôrCHər/
tortures, plural

The action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain

Yep and medical testing fails to fall within that definition so is not torture.

Kuppo Shakur

31st May 2011, 01:46

Because most of us understand hypothetical concepts. :rolleyes:
Hey, hypothetically, what if stars are sentient and they think that we are exploiting them by stealing their light-making labor.:rolleyes:

Do you get it yet?

Hint: What's your fuckin point, bruh?

GallowsBird

31st May 2011, 09:38

Yep and medical testing fails to fall within that definition so is not torture.

Except he posted the three definitions that you find in most dictionaries (he even highlighted them for you):

Great physical or mental suffering or anxiety

A cause of such suffering or anxietyl''

You shouldn't ignore parts of other posts to prove a point; that way you instantly fail in presenting a valid argument.

El Chuncho

31st May 2011, 10:55

Yep and medical testing fails to fall within that definition so is not torture.

Yes it does. Torture just means that a severe amount of pain and discomfort is being inflicted. Now you are being obtuse, I already pointed out how medical testing falls into that definition. I am sorry that you have a severe lack of empathy for other living creatures, but you should be able to see how for another animal, medical testing is torturous. :rolleyes:

In fact, I find it revealing that you ignored the two other definitions of torture, ''Great physical or mental suffering or anxiety'' and ''a cause of such suffering or anxiety'' and only left ''the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment or to force them to do or say something, or for the pleasure of the person inflicting the pain'' in my reply. Cutting the ignoring the two alternate definitions and only acknowledging the first one is a case of selective ready, which shows your level of ability in debates is quite low. In fact, I have not seen anyone just ignore evidence in the way that you just have. Well done! :lol:

El Chuncho

31st May 2011, 11:00

No. I wouldn't 'whine and *****' about it, I would oppose it as well as I could. As would the animals to humans testing them, if they understood how to -- or in most cases, even remotely what is going on..

Another stupid comment, Sentinel. Animals know that they are being made to suffer but are too weak compared to humans to actually fight against us. I would like to know how a mouse, strapped in place, can ''oppose'' scientific research.

And arguing a lack of intelligence is ridiculous, as that still doesn't give man a right to inflict pain on other animals. Nor does intelligence correspond to feelings. Mice are not as intelligent as humans, yes, however, they still have a nervous system and emotions.

El Chuncho

31st May 2011, 11:04

Hey, hypothetically, what if stars are sentient and they think that we are exploiting them by stealing their light-making labor.:rolleyes:

The stars shine naturally, mankind isn't forcing them too, whereas animals do not get strapped down and injected with potentially harmful chemicals naturally and without mans' hindrance.

Do you get it yet?

Yes, I get that you fail at hypothetical questions.

What's your fuckin point, bruh?

Work it out yourself, ''bruh'', it is quite clear.

Inquisitive Lurker

31st May 2011, 12:19

I would like to know how a mouse, strapped in place, can ''oppose'' scientific research.

First, they usually paralyze them, not strap them down. Or just kill them.

And arguing a lack of intelligence is ridiculous, as that still doesn't give man a right to inflict pain on other animals. Nor does intelligence correspond to feelings.Arguing intelligence is very relevant. Plants are life forms, but have no intelligence. We have no qualms about killing them.

Mice are not as intelligent as humans, yes, however, they still have a nervous system and emotions.That's quite an assumption to say mice have emotions. There certainly is no research to back that up.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

31st May 2011, 13:47

Animal testing works. It saves lives. If improving life for humans requires the lives of thousands of lab rats, then so be it. Because the alternative is human suffering, and only a deranged sociopath or wackaloon ideologue would disagree.

Note that students and researchers have not been taking this emotional and intimidatory crap from animal rights types lying down; they formed the Pro-Test (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/04/i_am_pro-test.php) group to counter the nonsense of animal-rights nuts.

GallowsBird

31st May 2011, 15:23

That's quite an assumption to say mice have emotions. There certainly is no research to back that up.

Well if that makes you feel better about yourself go on believing that then. :rolleyes:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5534300
http://www.thebark.com/content/do-animals-have-emotions
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23764/

Yet another non-argument blows away like dust in the wind! :sleep:

Inquisitive Lurker

31st May 2011, 18:34

Well if that makes you feel better about yourself go on believing that then. :rolleyes:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5534300
http://www.thebark.com/content/do-animals-have-emotions
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23764/

Yet another non-argument blows away like dust in the wind! :sleep:

Always read before you link.

First article shows a stress response to seeing another mouse in pain. More likely than empathy, this is fear of an immanent threat. That's not an emotion, that's the fight or flight instinct controlled by the r-complex, the reptilian brain.

Second article presents no evidence, and is a philosophical examination of anthropomorphism. And it comes from a highly biased source.

The last article is a rehash of the first article, and again shows the actions of the r-complex, the reptilian brain.

No signs of emotions in any of these stories.

Nice try. You fail.

Fawkes

1st June 2011, 00:50

Strange reasoning. Testing on animals negatively effects animals too. Or do humans have some moral or holy innate ''character'' that makes them better than anything else, including more advanced species? Ridiculous. If you wish to argue your point, find a reason that cannot be turned around to support anti-animal testing.

http://lolpics.se/pics/482.jpg

Really? It negatively effects animals?

...no shit, sherlock.

There is nothing regarding morality or some "holy innate character" in any of my arguments because I use logic to construct my arguments, unlike you with your pathetic moralizing. Humans are "better" than everything else because, as a human, it is in my best interests to do what is best for my species. If that means testing surgical methods on animals, then fine. If that means reducing my meat consumption because there is evidence to show that even the most sustainable methods of livestock farming have a very detrimental effect to humans, then fine. If you wish to argue your point, find a reason that has a logical and material basis and that actually holds even the slightest bit of weight.

No, I have acknowledged that the speciesism of groups like the Human Progress Group is bullshit. Nice try, but you don't get the cookie.
Do you live in a bubble or something? I find it impossible to believe that anybody who has had to negatively experience oppression and social stratification could get into their minds the asinine and insulting notion that vivisection is in any way remotely similar to something like heteronormativity or ghettoizing. It must be nice to possess that kind of blissful ignorance.

And I disagreed with your post the first time you posted it. It is, however, amusing the second time round. :lol:
Almost as amusing as when I got called a faggot while walking to my apartment an hour ago. You see, that is oppression. I wish I could find something amusing in your pathetic, moralistic ramblings and diminishment of oppression, but being the faggot that I am, I don't have that luxury.

Also, "whine and *****", seriously buddy?

Fawkes

1st June 2011, 01:10

Considering that this debate is already on its 7th page and has been pretty much just going in circles, maybe it would be helpful if somebody could:

1. Define what "speciesism" is

2. Explain what commonalities exist between it and the various intersecting modes of oppression such as racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc.

Rooster

1st June 2011, 01:18

So it's okay to use animals for food, clothing and other products but it's not okay to use them for scientific research? :confused:

GallowsBird

1st June 2011, 09:23

Always read before you link.

First article shows a stress response to seeing another mouse in pain. More likely than empathy, this is fear of an immanent threat. That's not an emotion, that's the fight or flight instinct controlled by the r-complex, the reptilian brain.

Fear is an emotion, something you claimed Mice don't have. :rolleyes:

Second article presents no evidence, and is a philosophical examination of anthropomorphism. And it comes from a highly biased source.

The last article is a rehash of the first article, and again shows the actions of the r-complex, the reptilian brain.

No signs of emotions in any of these stories.

Nice try. You fail.

Sorry you fail as fear is an emotion! WOOPS! :lol:

El Chuncho

1st June 2011, 10:28

So it's okay to use animals for food, clothing and other products but it's not okay to use them for scientific research? :confused:

I am a vegetarian, but at least hunting animals for foods gives them a level playing food and is more natural. Using them for scientific research is not comparable because there are more ethical methods of scientific research (which are a bit more expensive at first), and scientific research is more torturous that just killing an animal; unless we are talking about inhumane abattoirs which are wrong, anyway.

El Chuncho

1st June 2011, 10:33

First, they usually paralyze them, not strap them down. Or just kill them.

Bullshit. Unlike you, I have actually seen animal testing (related to psychology and psychiatry). Sometimes they are paralyzed, sometimes they are just strapped down and sometimes they are free to move around their little cage, it depends on what you are testing for.

Arguing intelligence is very relevant. Plants are life forms, but have no intelligence. We have no qualms about killing them.

If you had read my post you would find that I find arguing about intelligence to be an irrelevance, because their isn't exactly a set correlation between intelligence and feelings; hence humans with mental retardation can feel pleasure, pain, sadness, happiness etc. as well as a genius. Plants cannot feel man. Animals can. Try harder.

That's quite an assumption to say mice have emotions. There certainly is no research to back that up.

OK, I think you are just trolling now.

El Chuncho

1st June 2011, 10:39

Because the alternative is human suffering, and only a deranged sociopath or wackaloon ideologue would disagree.

Actually, I think you'll find that you are the one with sociopathic tendencies. Sociopathy, or Psychopathy, which are just lay terms for what we now call Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) involves the lack of empathy; that includes the lack of empathy for animals. In fact it is a famous, and common, sign of psychopathologies, including ASPD (''psychopathy/sociopathy'').

CommunityBeliever

1st June 2011, 10:48

So it's okay to use animals for food, clothing and other products but it's not okay to use them for scientific research? :confused:

You got that backwards. Who ever said that?

I would oppose it as well as I could.

Which is not at all. Any superior alien species could use technology to completely control you like a ratbot, and even if they didn't modify your brain you would probably just squirm around like an animal without technology. You'd look ridiculous.

Your ability to oppose an entity says nothing of the validity of its actions.

because their isn't exactly a set correlation between intelligence and feelings; hence humans with mental retardation can feel pleasure, pain, sadness, happiness etc. as well as a genius.

I subscribe to Minsky's depiction of emotions as "modes of thought" and since animals aren't capable of complex thoughts this naturally implies that they don't have comparable emotions. Nonetheless they have the same ability to suffer and to feel pain, and they definitely do have a certain sort of sensitivity.

El Chuncho

1st June 2011, 11:05

http://lolpics.se/pics/482.jpg

Really? It negatively effects animals?

...no shit, sherlock.

My point exactly, stupid. Your comment to why testing on humans would be wrong:

''Of course it wouldn't be acceptable, and that's because we are humans and that would very negatively effect us.''

If you actually comprehended my post, you would have noticed that my comment about animals being negatively effected disproves your nonsensical claim. The fact is that, ethically, testing on animals and humans is equally wrong because it causes living beings to suffer.

There is nothing regarding morality or some "holy innate character" in any of my arguments because I use logic to construct my arguments, unlike you with your pathetic moralizing.

Ethics is a valuable human science, but because you are obviously still in school, I'll give concede that you might not have learnt about it yet, and thus you are not wholly to blame for not understanding ethics. Take a course in psychology or philosophy and you will come in contact with ethics.

You use no real logic in your answers, I am afraid. Your reasoning to why it would be wrong for a superior species to test on humans is because it negatively effects human. That is not logically sound, because with the same line of reasoning you can twist it to defend the position that animal testing is wrong; it has negative effects for other animals.

Humans are "better" than everything else because, as a human, it is in my best interests to do what is best for my species.

And that means needlessly causing other species to suffer despite more ethical means of testing existing. Yes, we know your position.

If you wish to argue your point, find a reason that has a logical and material basis and that actually holds even the slightest bit of weight.

My logical and reasoning is sound, but you, however, just repackage the same line of reasoning without actually giving a reason to why it is OK to test on animals, to cause harm to animals with no empathy to them, when there are better methods. You also cannot seem to comprehend or defeat the hypothetical question I posted earlier.

Do you live in a bubble or something? I find it impossible to believe that anybody who has had to negatively experience oppression and social stratification could get into their minds the asinine and insulting notion that vivisection is in any way remotely similar to something like heteronormativity or ghettoizing. It must be nice to possess that kind of blissful ignorance.

Yet I am the one who can care about ghettoizing, heteronormativity and vivisection. You see, unlike you, I have a fully developed sense of empathy. I do not need to only focus on some problems in the world, but many, because I can actually feel, actually empathize with other creatures.

Almost as amusing as when I got called a faggot while walking to my apartment an hour ago.

Nice attempt at sympathy, but you being called a ''faggot'' doesn't cancel out animal testing being cruel. I am sorry, but you ''fail'', and I am not going to immaturely post a spiffy picture to tell you that. You are just failing at debating, because one aspect of oppression or cruelty doesn't cancel out another.

Also, "whine and *****", seriously buddy?

Yes, I am talking as a school-child, so you young ''hipsters'' like you will understand. If another species tested on humans you would quickly denounce it as wrong, even if the difference between this superior species and mankind is as large as the difference between a fly and man is. Again, your reasoning has no validity, because you cannot show why it is wrong for a greater being to test on an inferior species called ''humans''. Your line of reasoning can be summed up as ''It is wrong to test on humans because we are human'' and that is circular reasoning.

El Chuncho

1st June 2011, 11:07

Considering that this debate is already on its 7th page and has been pretty much just going in circles, maybe it would be helpful if somebody could:

1. Define what "speciesism" is

Speciesism is the believe that your species is better and not just more advanced due to evolution.

2. Explain what commonalities exist between it and the various intersecting modes of oppression such as racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc.

It causes suffering to living beings, physically and/or mentally.

El Chuncho

1st June 2011, 11:12

I subscribe to Minsky's depiction of emotions as "modes of thought" and since animals aren't capable of complex thoughts this naturally implies that they don't have comparable emotions. Nonetheless they have the same ability to suffer and to feel pain, and they definitely do have a certain sort of sensitivity.

True, but Minsky fails to realize that you can argue that human ''emotions'' are really just hardwired responses, like many argue for animals. Of course, ''emotions'' can be defined differently. I think it would be wrong to say that, say, Chimpanzees do not have emotions, when they are only a step under humans in development and have been shown to grasp language quite intelligently. I think greater apes at least are capable of complex thoughts, though not as complex as those of humans. Either way, though, as you have said, animals can suffer and feel pain.

But it is worth noting that both non-human apes - humans are, after all, just the most advanced species of ape - and other animals have been shown to have empathy. Take canines, for instance, which have been known to adopt human children (like Oxana Malaya, a documented feral child. Also there were older case, which Serge Aroles often claimed were hoaxes but, in most cases, his view is not conclusive, and he has supported some accounts himself) that they find alone in the world. That is a clear sign of empathy. It is worth noting that animal testing on canines and apes still happens in the modern world, it is not only tests on mice we are talking about.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

1st June 2011, 14:10

GallowsBird

1st June 2011, 21:39

Is it just me or has this moved on from being about testing on animals and whether it is needed to veering into pseudo-scientific claims that animals can't feel pain, have no "feelings" or are not truly sentient?

Members like Rjeven have said why they support it a reasonable way (while acknowledging that animals do indeed suffer in the research) not saying things like "there is no evidence animals have feelings" or "are we abusing stars then?" or some other nonesense to avoid the actual issue (and assuage their guilt? :confused: ).

This thread is becoming slightly boring.

tbasherizer

1st June 2011, 21:52

I'm personally in favour of animal research so long as it is used as the most effective way to get the neccessary data. It's too bad that certain companies may use it in ways that are excessively cruel to the animals, but that, considering the forces of competition in the market place, should tend to be the exception rather than the norm. There may be individuals in certain organizations who are extraordinarily sadistic, but the system itself isn't hellbent on torturing Bambi and her mom.

Inquisitive Lurker

1st June 2011, 21:52

Actually, I think you'll find that you are the one with sociopathic tendencies. Sociopathy, or Psychopathy, which are just lay terms for what we now call Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) involves the lack of empathy; that includes the lack of empathy for animals. In fact it is a famous, and common, sign of psychopathologies, including ASPD (''psychopathy/sociopathy'').

OK, enough with the psychological quackery. Hell, I part of me just wants to go through your post and fix all the words that you misspelled or made up.

Firstly, an antisocial personality disorder has fuck all to do with someone being sociopathic or psychopathic. There is a world of difference between all three. Personality disorders are so much more common and so much more mild.

Secondly, a person being psychopathic has fuck all to do with cruelty to animals. A psychopath suffers from improper thought processing, not so much emotional problems. There is nothing that would make a psychopath more or less likely to commit cruelty towards animals.

Finally sociopaths. It is true that cruelty to animals, especially at a young age, is a sign of a developing sociopath. But here we are talking about serious cruelty to animals, like dousing a dog with gasoline and setting it on fire, not injected mice with serum 649 and monitoring the results.

Not having empathy towards animals is not a sign of anything except not having empathy towards animals. Does a hunter have empathy towards a deer? Is he psychologically flawed? When he rubs the blood of his son's first kill on his son's face, is that a sign of a psychopathic disorder?

Thus ends the quackery correction.

El Chuncho

1st June 2011, 22:28

Are you seriously attempting to diagnose a stranger over the internet?

Of course not, a diagnosis is an official attempt at a classification of a disorder or illness. If you could actually read forum posts correctly and knew what a diagnosis is, you would know that I have not posted anything resembling a diagnosis at all. However, I do find many of your posts about people being ''sociopaths'' rather ironic as you are one of the people here showing a lack of empathy. Here is one of your ridiculous posts:

''Animal testing works. It saves lives. If improving life for humans requires the lives of thousands of lab rats, then so be it. Because the alternative is human suffering, and only a deranged sociopath or wackaloon ideologue would disagree.''

Apart from anything else, animal testing and animal torture are not the same. All sort of things are done to fruit flies in genetics research for a greater purpose than the entertainment of one being at the expense of another.

Again, like Mindbender, you are attempting to push the same argument, only repackaged. I have already stated why testing on animals has a degree of torture in it - though like Mindbender you know doubt will ignore that definition of torture that I posted and which you can find in any good dictionary. Also, I have told you why testing on animals is not needed now, please get that into your skull.

Inquisitive Lurker

1st June 2011, 22:29

Fear is an emotion, something you claimed Mice don't have.

Fear is not an emotion. Emotions are produced by the limbic system and neo-cortex. Fear is produced by the r-complex, the reptilian brain, the most primitive part of our brains.

You need to study the brain some. And animal behavior.

Fear is a fight or flight response. Very primitive.

For example, panic is r-complex, anxiety is limbic. Interesting, no? One is designed to trigger an immediate action, the other is designed to teach.

You fail again. This time because of lack of self education. Go spend a few hours on Wikipedia.

It is a basic survival mechanism occurring in response to a specific stimulus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulus_%28physiology%29), such as pain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain) or the threat of danger (like being shocked just like the other mouse). In short, fear is the ability to recognize danger and flee from it or confront it, also known as the Fight or Flight response (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight-or-flight_response).

Fear should be distinguished from the related emotional state of anxiety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety), which typically occurs without any external threat. Additionally, fear is related to the specific behaviors of escape and avoidance, whereas anxiety is the result of threats which are perceived to be uncontrollable or unavoidable.

El Chuncho

1st June 2011, 23:00

OK, enough with the psychological quackery. Hell, I part of me just wants to go through your post and fix all the words that you misspelled or made up.

Please troll, kindly fuck off and fix your own head.

Firstly, an antisocial personality disorder has fuck all to do with someone being sociopathic or psychopathic

There is a world of difference between all three. Personality disorders are so much more common and so much more mild.

You are wrong, stupid, ASPD is the disorder that was formally known as Psychopathy until the publication of the DSM-III (though the criteria was broadened). I really do not have to reply to the rest of your absurd post, but I will anyway.

Also your idea that all personality disorders are mild and much more common is farcical, ASPD is what we used to call a psychosis (but neurosis and psychosis are not preferred terms anymore). It can be severe or reasonably mild. It is, to quote the DSM-IV-TR, "a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."

Secondly, a person being psychopathic has fuck all to do with cruelty to animals.

You are wrong again. Although you do not have to be a ''psychopath'' to be cruel to animals, it is a common pattern of ASPD, and has been linked to ASPD in many studies and even on psychology websites:

http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/30/2/257.pdf

http://allpsych.com/disorders/personality/antisocial.html

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/37/18/22.2.full

http://psychology.about.com/od/psychiatricdisorders/a/dis_antisocial.htm

A psychopath suffers from improper thought processing, not so much emotional problems. There is nothing that would make a psychopath more or less likely to commit cruelty towards animals.

You are wrong again, ''psychopaths'' have a lack of empathy, which is arguably the most defining feature of their disorder. This means that they have a lack of regard for the feelings of others. I think you are mixing up ''psychopathy'' with ''schizophrenia''.

Finally sociopaths. It is true that cruelty to animals, especially at a young age, is a sign of a developing sociopath. But here we are talking about serious cruelty to animals, like dousing a dog with gasoline and setting it on fire, not injected mice with serum 649 and monitoring the results.

Serious cruelty to animals is only in the more severe cases, in milder cases the sufferer of ASPD just has a lack of empathy for other animals.

And as I have stated, though there is a small debate, ''sociopath'' and ''psychopath'' are more or less interchangeable.

Not having empathy towards animals is not a sign of anything except not having empathy towards animals.

Exactly! But a lack of empathy is a one of the symptoms of ASPD.

Does a hunter have empathy towards a deer? Is he psychologically flawed? When he rubs the blood of his son's first kill on his son's face, is that a sign of a psychopathic disorder?

Actually, many hunters do have empathy for their pray, and it is hardly normal to rub blood all over your sons face...in fact, I have the feeling that you are intentionally trolling this forum. Such comments like the one above are beyond ridiculous.

Inquisitive Lurker

1st June 2011, 23:09

Actually, many hunters do have empathy for their pray, and it is hardly normal to rub blood all over your sons face...in fact, I have the feeling that you are intentionally trolling this forum. Such comments like the one above are beyond ridiculous.

You've never heard of "blooding?" Hunters do it with first kills with most animals, deer, bear, turkey, grouse, pheasant, you name it. They dip their finger in the wound and make a smear on the virgin killer's face. I think it actually goes back to the Native Americans, but I wouldn't swear to it.

Apparently you don't know much about hunting, or have had any exposure to it. Maybe it has to do with where you live. Not much hunting in England.

EDIT: Wait a second, they DO practice blooding in England. I've got it straight from Eddie Izzard. On fox hunts, they smear the blood on the faces of the younger boys. Obviously the ban has changed that, but they DO do this in your country. I'm on the other side of the ocean and I know more about what's going on in your backyard. Whoops, sorry, your back garden.

Inquisitive Lurker

2nd June 2011, 00:28

You are wrong, stupid, ASPD is the disorder that was formally known as Psychopathy until the publication of the DSM-III (though the criteria was broadened).

A couple of things. First, you are making a reference to the DSM-II, a truly ancient book (1968) (the one that preceeded the DSM-III (1980)). And Psychopathy was never a diagnosis (I have this straight from the lips of a man who has been a practicing psychologist for nearly 40 years).

Also your idea that all personality disorders are mild and much more common is farcical, ASPD is what we used to call a psychosisAgain, wrong, unless you are once again going back to the the DSM-II (1968).

It can be severe or reasonably mild. It is, to quote the DSM-IV-TR, "a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood."Which has what to do with cruelty to animals? You know where most antisocial personality disorders are? Behind desks. In board rooms. Inside marble buildings making laws. Behind badges. Funnily, the cops that test positive for sociopathic traits are also the most effective cops (most arrests).

You are wrong again, ''psychopaths'' have a lack of empathy, which is arguably the most defining feature of their disorder. This means that they have a lack of regard for the feelings of others. I think you are mixing up ''psychopathy'' with ''schizophrenia''.No, here you are confusing psychopaths with sociopaths. Sociopaths are the ones that lack empathy.

Serious cruelty to animals is only in the more severe cases, in milder cases the sufferer of ASPD just has a lack of empathy for other animals. Wrong, sociopaths very often show four traits.

Cruelty to animals.
Fire starting.
High tolerance for pain.
Risk taking.

And as I have stated, though there is a small debate, ''sociopath'' and ''psychopath'' are more or less interchangeable.

No they're not. They are two separate spectrums. See the MMPI-2 for further information.
Neither is used anymore.

Odd that you didn't know point 2 and just throw that in my face, here you are referencing DSM-III (1980) and DSM-IV-TR (2000). Difference is, I actually have the DSM-IV (1994). Right next to me. It's sort of red/maroon. How odd you, acting like an expert, missed the most blatant fact. The terms aren't used anymore as diagnoses.

Odd.

The descriptive terms are still used, especially in testing and in describing other diagnoses. So it would be proper to call someone "psychopathic" but not a "psychopath."

El Chuncho

3rd June 2011, 12:15

A couple of things. First, you are making a reference to the DSM-II, a truly ancient book (1968) (the one that preceeded the DSM-III (1980)). And Psychopathy was never a diagnosis (I have this straight from the lips of a man who has been a practicing psychologist for nearly 40 years).

No, I am not. I am referencing the DSM-III, which changed the name of the disorder (Psychopathy) to ASPD. If you don't believe me:

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/dsm-iv/content/article/10168/54831

''Traditionally, affective and interpersonal traits such as egocentricity, deceit, shallow affect, manipulativeness, selfishness, and lack of empathy, guilt or remorse, have played a central role in the conceptualization and diagnosis of psychopathy (Cleckley; Hare 1993; in press); Widiger and Corbitt). In 1980 this tradition was broken with the publication of DSM-III. Psychopathy- renamed antisocial personality disorder- was now defined by persistent violations of social norms, including lying, stealing, truancy, inconsistent work behavior and traffic arrests.''

Which has what to do with cruelty to animals? You know where most antisocial personality disorders are? Behind desks. In board rooms. Inside marble buildings making laws. Behind badges. Funnily, the cops that test positive for sociopathic traits are also the most effective cops (most arrests).

''Sociopathic'' individuals shouldn't be in the police force due to their lack of feelings for others, if many are in the police forces of the world, it would explain the corruption and selfishness. But that is neither here nor there, I have already stated that there are severe and moderate cases of ASPD.

No, here you are confusing psychopaths with sociopaths. Sociopaths are the ones that lack empathy.

Wrong. The two terms are interchangeable, but when people divide them one of the traits they have in common is a lack of empathy. Again from the psychiatric times source about psychopathy:

''Traditionally, affective and interpersonal traits such as egocentricity, deceit, shallow affect, manipulativeness, selfishness, and lack of empathy, guilt or remorse, have played a central role in the conceptualization and diagnosis of psychopathy''

Wrong, sociopaths very often show four traits.

I never claimed otherwise. You need more than one symptom to be classified as someone with ASPD (psychopathy/sociopathy).

Difference is, I actually have the DSM-IV (1994). Right next to me. It's sort of red/maroon. How odd you, acting like an expert, missed the most blatant fact. The terms aren't used anymore as diagnoses.

It is odd that you missed me mentioning that blatant fact! ASPD is used instead of sociopath and psychopath. Please try to study psychology pr psychiatry more carefully, if I was your teacher I would be worried.

From me:

''ASPD is the disorder that was formally known as Psychopathy until the publication of the DSM-III (though the criteria was broadened). I really do not have to reply to the rest of your absurd post, but I will anyway.''

'' Sociopathy, or Psychopathy, which are just lay terms for what we now call Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) involves the lack of empathy''

I still have a feeling that you are deliberately trying to troll me. If not, then, I can only say that you are woefully wrong about this issue.

El Chuncho

3rd June 2011, 12:19

EDIT: Wait a second, they DO practice blooding in England. I've got it straight from Eddie Izzard. On fox hunts, they smear the blood on the faces of the younger boys. Obviously the ban has changed that, but they DO do this in your country. I'm on the other side of the ocean and I know more about what's going on in your backyard. Whoops, sorry, your back garden.

Blood sports are the domain of the aristocracy. I am not an aristocrat nor any form of hunter. Unlike in the US, the UK doesn't have any big hunting seasons which a large section of the majority enjoy. However, I wouldn't call rubbing blood on the face of your son a normal action. It seems barbaric and a tad deranged!

Dr Mindbender

3rd June 2011, 13:13

Blood sports are the domain of the aristocracy.

Actually you're bang wrong. In my experience (in south east asia specifically) cock fighting is extremely big both in impoverished rural and urban communities.

It was still legal in Britain and Ireland until as recently as 15 years ago where there is still an underground circuit.

Inquisitive Lurker

3rd June 2011, 13:19

Blood sports are the domain of the aristocracy.

Two words: Dog Fighting.

El Chuncho

3rd June 2011, 20:53

Actually you're bang wrong. In my experience (in south east asia specifically) cock fighting is extremely big both in impoverished rural and urban communities.

It was still legal in Britain and Ireland until as recently as 15 years ago where there is still an underground circuit.

But it is not legal here (unlike the aristocracy's ''pleasure''), and not common with everyday people, same with dog fighting. Cock fights and dog fights are illegal and only a small fringe of people get their kicks from such ''sports''.

Hunting foxes and hunting wild fowl are ''sports'' enjoyed by the aristocracy, mainly, and some wealth upper middle-class members of society.

I have seen hunts occur, but have not participated in them, much like most English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh people.

Inquisitive Lurker

3rd June 2011, 21:59

But it is not legal here (unlike the aristocracy's ''pleasure''), and not common with everyday people, same with dog fighting. Cock fights and dog fights are illegal and only a small fringe of people get their kicks from such ''sports''.

Hunting foxes and hunting wild fowl are ''sports'' enjoyed by the aristocracy, mainly, and some wealth upper middle-class members of society.

I have seen hunts occur, but have not participated in them, much like most English, Scottish, Irish or Welsh people.

Your stance on hunting foxes and wild fowl being the domain at the aristocracy and the wealthy, and thus being bad, is going to be very interesting when I return to the subject of abolishing cosmetics. I'll probably do it next week.

Rooster

3rd June 2011, 22:11

So, in regards to animals, we have to respect a moral universalism?

the last donut of the night

3rd June 2011, 23:18

people > animals

pretty simple

Ele'ill

4th June 2011, 00:01

people > animals

pretty simple

Why?

Dr Mindbender

4th June 2011, 00:17

Why?

There is probably a catalogue of reasons but off the top of my head there are a few :-

* In the first instance, As humans ourselves, our loyalty should be to the human species.

* Humans are the only species able to organise on a political level.

* The human living experience is engendered by duty to our fellow man. Animals have no burden of duty to either themselves, each other or to us.

*As the only known species that can both transmit and recieve radio signals we are the only known intelligent species that conforms to the scientific definition.

* Humans are the only known species on Earth that can start fire. That alone makes us pretty damn unique.

Ele'ill

4th June 2011, 00:22

There is probably a catalogue of reasons but off the top of my head there are a few :-

Thanks, I understand your position. We've discussed this before (I think) but I was specifically looking for a reply from the last donut.

I will however comment on your post tomorrow. I have to get drunk. Goodnight.

Hebrew Hammer

4th June 2011, 00:42

I support animal testing strictly for legitimate medical research, not for cosmetics. I don't see any value in such research. If you're ugly, you're ugly, no matter how much clown paint you use or what new special top dollar product you use, it isn't going to change that, sorry. Animals don't need to suffer on the behalf of your ugly ass.

Kuppo Shakur

4th June 2011, 00:47

i support animal testing strictly for legitimate medical research, not for cosmetics. I don't see any value in such research. If you're ugly, you're ugly, no matter how much clown paint you use or what new special top dollar product you use, it isn't going to change that, sorry. Animals don't need to suffer on the behalf of your ugly ass.

self-projection fail

Hebrew Hammer

4th June 2011, 00:51

self-projection fail

I'm an ugly bastard, it's true.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

4th June 2011, 15:26

Of course not, a diagnosis is an official attempt at a classification of a disorder or illness.

So it was a cheap rhetorical shot.

If you could actually read forum posts correctly and knew what a diagnosis is, you would know that I have not posted anything resembling a diagnosis at all. However, I do find many of your posts about people being ''sociopaths'' rather ironic as you are one of the people here showing a lack of empathy. Here is one of your ridiculous posts:

''Animal testing works. It saves lives. If improving life for humans requires the lives of thousands of lab rats, then so be it. Because the alternative is human suffering, and only a deranged sociopath or wackaloon ideologue would disagree.''

Pointing out that animal testing saves lives is showing a lack of empathy? You really are a stupid fucknut.

Again, like Mindbender, you are attempting to push the same argument, only repackaged. I have already stated why testing on animals has a degree of torture in it - though like Mindbender you know doubt will ignore that definition of torture that I posted and which you can find in any good dictionary.

Animal testing can be painful for the animals involved, this is true. But to say that amounts to "torture" in anything other than than the informal sense of "a painful experience" is to use loaded language!

Also, I have told you why testing on animals is not needed now, please get that into your skull.

The idea that we can do away completely with animal testing is biologically and medically ludicrous on every level.

RedSunRising

4th June 2011, 15:29

Instead of using innocent animals why not use scumbag humans like rapists and child molestors?

Inquisitive Lurker

4th June 2011, 15:37

If you had read my post you would find that I find arguing about intelligence to be an irrelevance, because their isn't exactly a set correlation between intelligence and feelings; hence humans with mental retardation can feel pleasure, pain, sadness, happiness etc. as well as a genius. Plants cannot feel man. Animals can. Try harder.

OK, let's discuss anencephalic humans. They have hind brains, and are capable of detecting pain, but lacking forebrains, they lack the ability to experience it. Thus feelings without intelligence is very relevant. The same can be said of people with some of the more extreme cases of microcephaly.

Rss

4th June 2011, 16:41

people > animals

pretty simple

Some animals > some people.

It is simple. Rescue dogs which save workers from ruins are more valuable than some of more parasitic bourgies or other class enemies.

Inquisitive Lurker

4th June 2011, 16:47

Some animals > some people.

It is simple. Rescue dogs which save workers from ruins are more valuable than some of more parasitic bourgies or other class enemies.

Said animals were trained by humans and have no idea what they are doing. They are trained to play a game with scent. That's all it is, a game to them.

the last donut of the night

4th June 2011, 18:04

Why?

Although some animals have some semblance of culture, rational thought, and language (and this is very, very limited even among the "smartest" animals, such as chimps, dolphins, whales, etc), only humans have developed the rational thinking process necessary to build complex social structures, social links that go above the natural animal troupe, and language as well. We're just more evolved, that's all. Another fundamental point we shouldn't ignore that we naturally tend to care about other members of our species above other creatures, meaning that a hunter-gatherer tribe will not ignore killing an animal if it means feeding the group's children. It's a basic emotional relation we have with each other that supersedes (some) emotional connection to other animals. Hence, animal testing is OK by me if it saves human lives because, well, I have greater emotional ties to a child with HIV than some chimp in a cage. It may be selfish, but it's the way it is.

Dr Mindbender

4th June 2011, 18:15

Some animals > some people.

It is simple. Rescue dogs which save workers from ruins are more valuable than some of more parasitic bourgies or other class enemies.

'Parasitic bourgies' are an unfortunate by product of their social conditioning. While they possess the capacity and ability to be worth more than parasites, unfortunately, for the most part, they choose not to use it.

Rescue dogs are never presented with that choice in the first place so while i understand where you're coming from, its not really an analogous comparison.

bcbm

5th June 2011, 00:19

only humans have developed the rational thinking process necessary to build complex social structures

you should check out the article i posted maybe a month ago about weaver ants. non-human animals are capable of some pretty cool shit. and i'm not sure why it is a one vs the other, better than whatever competition, we should use our position as "smart animals" (so smart we're trying as hard as possible to wipe ourselves out, genius) to protect the rest of the life on the planet and help it flourish and develop, not be a fucking destructive cancer on the planet

Lanky Wanker

5th June 2011, 02:12

Obviously I'm against animal abuse/cruelty, plus the fact that a lot of the stuff they test is much different in animals than in humans, but the fact that a human can consent to it and earn money from it as opposed to an animal with no say in it is also a big part of the reason I don't agree with it. I would say that I'd rather have a mouse die than a human, but to be honest I find it offensive to animals to put certain people above them (such as the example everyone here is using - Nazis). Why don't we test the dangers of different substances on child molesters or George Bush? I'd feel a lot less guilty about that than harming an animal.

Comrade_Oscar

5th June 2011, 02:25

I am in fully support of ALL scientific/medical research, but not any cosmetics. I take this view because our fellow man is more important than ANY animal could ever be. If a new medicine was being developed and it needed to be tested on animals to make sure it is safe, but it could save human lives the trade off would be well worth it. But testing cosmetics on an animal is just ridicules and should be stopped.

Lord Testicles

5th June 2011, 11:15

All of you that are seriously suggesting that we test on "undesirable" humans in lieu of animals need to step back and take a long hard look at yourselves and ask "What the fuck is wrong with me?"

Lanky Wanker

5th June 2011, 12:14

All of you that are seriously suggesting that we test on "undesirable" humans in lieu of animals need to step back and take a long hard look at yourselves and ask "What the fuck is wrong with me?"

Well why would I want to try torturing and/or killing an innocent animal over someone like Adolf Hitler or a Nazi skinhead? I think we can both agree that the Nazis in this situation have done (and will continue to) do more bad than the mouse. I'm not saying we should go and drug every single jail inmate, if that's what you think.

Lanky Wanker

5th June 2011, 12:30

Some animals > some people.

It is simple. Rescue dogs which save workers from ruins are more valuable than some of more parasitic bourgies or other class enemies.

I agree. Even if the dogs don't have a say in it or don't know what they're doing, naturally they are still far less evil creatures than many humans. Also, if people are fine with the idea of using animals to our advantage (for medical/cosmetic research), surely rescue dogs and guide dogs for the blind are useful too, regardless of whether or not they know what they're doing?

And just a reminder to everyone: I'm NOT saying every animal is better and worth more than every human on earth.

Jazzratt

5th June 2011, 13:19

Well why would I want to try torturing and/or killing an innocent animal over someone like Adolf Hitler or a Nazi skinhead? I think we can both agree that the Nazis in this situation have done (and will continue to) do more bad than the mouse. I'm not saying we should go and drug every single jail inmate, if that's what you think. You'll forgive me if I don't think that subjecting people to testing against their will doesn't sound like justice so much as it sounds like simple revenge. I kind of think its worth treating even our most unpleasant captives without subjecting them to unecessarily cruel and unsual punishments. Animals, not being of our species, need not be extended these same considerations.

Vanguard1917

5th June 2011, 14:17

Well why would I want to try torturing and/or killing an innocent animal over someone like Adolf Hitler or a Nazi skinhead?

Because forcibly using human beings as lab rats is barbaric, and socialists aren't barbarians.

Since you mention Nazis, it's perhaps worth remembering that they were also strongly against animal testing and passed legislation to outlaw it -- all the while conducting tests on people they considered "undesirable".

Inquisitive Lurker

5th June 2011, 14:25

Because forcibly using human beings as lab rats is barbaric, and socialists aren't barbarians.

Since you mention Nazis, it's perhaps worth remembering that they were also strongly against animal testing and passed legislation to outlaw it -- all the while conducting tests on people they considered "undesirable".

Humans are used as lab rats, willingly. Especially college students, who are desperate for the money. They go through many experiments, and also drug trials.

Vanguard1917

5th June 2011, 14:37

Humans are used as lab rats, willingly.

Hence why i used the word 'forcibly'.

Lanky Wanker

5th June 2011, 15:17

Because forcibly using human beings as lab rats is barbaric, and socialists aren't barbarians.

Since you mention Nazis, it's perhaps worth remembering that they were also strongly against animal testing and passed legislation to outlaw it -- all the while conducting tests on people they considered "undesirable".

Well then I suppose they don't have a problem with testing on "undesirables" either. All I'm saying is hateful people like Nazi Skinheads are a bit different from a whole race of people who were treated like shit for no good reason.

Inquisitive Lurker

5th June 2011, 15:26

All I'm saying is hateful people like Nazi Skinheads are a bit different...

No one is really different. They are the same as you, just raised and developed into a different viewpoint. "There but for the grace of (the non-existent) God go I."

Lanky Wanker

5th June 2011, 17:31

No one is really different. They are the same as you, just raised and developed into a different viewpoint. "There but for the grace of (the non-existent) God go I."

What do you mean "they are the same as you"? They're humans, and maybe some of them have the same favourite colour as me, but other than that I don't understand what you mean. Also, not all Nazis are raised as Nazis...

Inquisitive Lurker

5th June 2011, 19:12

What do you mean "they are the same as you"? They're humans, and maybe some of them have the same favourite colour as me, but other than that I don't understand what you mean. Also, not all Nazis are raised as Nazis...

Hence why I said "developed." They once were "normal" people, and then they went off on their own way. You went off on your way. It's the judgment of both of you that your way is the right one.

The greatest tyrant in the world is not so different from you or me. We all have the capability to follow those paths. It does not make those that follow those paths lesser humans. Though it may make them "the enemy," and decisions may have to be made about dealing with them, but such decisions should be made with cold utilitarian logic, and not with the passion of hatred.

Ele'ill

5th June 2011, 20:28

Although some animals have some semblance of culture, rational thought, and language (and this is very, very limited even among the "smartest" animals, such as chimps, dolphins, whales, etc), only humans have developed the rational thinking process necessary to build complex social structures, social links that go above the natural animal troupe, and language as well. We're just more evolved, that's all.

Ok, so by 'greater than' you meant 'more evolved'. What does that have to do with physical pain and emotional distress that we has humans experience along with these other animals. Is the measuring bar used to determine which creatures are worthy of torture based on how 'evolved they are'? Evolved enough to feel physical pain and emotional distress but not evolved enough to start a fire (although lots of animals trump this feat ten fold) so we should fucking dissect them alive because of something they simply cannot control?

Another fundamental point we shouldn't ignore that we naturally tend to care about other members of our species above other creatures, meaning that a hunter-gatherer tribe will not ignore killing an animal if it means feeding the group's children.

Sure, that's understandable in survival situations.

It's a basic emotional relation we have with each other that supersedes (some) emotional connection to other animals.

I can certainly relate better to humans than to a cheetah.

Hence, animal testing is OK by me if it saves human lives

Has it? Will it? How much of the data is trustworthy and used?

because, well, I have greater emotional ties to a child with HIV than some chimp in a cage.

I see two sentient creatures suffering.

but it's the way it is.

If I had a revolution for every time this was used as an excuse.

Inquisitive Lurker

6th June 2011, 02:19

Let us return to the subject of cosmetics. Now, one wag thought it would be funny to vote for cosmetic only testing. Good on you. Beyond that wanker, 69.5% support medical animal testing, but not the testing of cosmetics. If we include those totally against animal testing, that raises it to 85.8%

My contention is that the entire cosmetic industry is A. unnecessary, B. degrading C. rampantly Capitalist in both over production and over consumption, and D. a hypocrisy when used by the working class.

I shall be taking a Western approach to this subject, as that is where civilization developed (Near East, Europe, North Africa, etc.)

Cosmetics have been around from approximately 5500 years. For the vast majority of that time, they were exclusively used by the aristocracy and priest caste. I am not including woad and war paint as cosmetics.

Fast forward to the Middle Ages in Europe and the same time period in the Arab world. Still, only the upper echelons used cosmetics, and their kept women, the first sex workers.

Fast forward to the post-Renaissance world, and the Golden Age of England. Cosmetics remain in the hands of the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, as well as their kept women and freelance sex workers.

Fast forward to the 19th century. Now, for the first time, less than 200 years ago, do cosmetics make it into the hands of the common woman, mainly the bourgeoisie and the developing petty-bourgeoisie. Women of culture. They powdered their faces to make themselves look more frail. However, the culture as a whole still frowned on makeup, thinking them more appropriate for sex workers than for their wives.

Then comes the twentieth century, and everything begins the change. The Roaring Twenties, the first sparks of Woman's Lib. Now makeup finally becomes a commercial commodity. Now it is something to make a profit on. By 1950, it finally was in common use.

So in the 5500 year history of cosmetics, they have only been used by the working class, to imitate the classes above them, for 50+ years.

We survived for 2.4 million years without cosmetics. We survived for 5500 years without them. They are not needed. People look how people look. If we all play on an even playing field, makeup is not needed.

For a good 500 years, makeup has been used heavily by the sex workers, not exactly an emancipated class. Is this what you want to imitate? The purpose of such makeup is to imitate the signs of sexual arousal (bright eyes, darkened skin under the nails, darkened lips, flushed cheeks).

The capitalist machine tells you that you need makeup, that he or she won't be attracted to you without it. You must buy, and you must buy a lot. Colors upon colors, lipstick, blush, nail polish, eyebrow brush, eye liner, eye shadow, mascara. You are told to buy it and you do. And then the new shades come out, the new trends, the new styles in glossy magazines.

Cosmetics are a sign that the capitalists have their hook into you. That they have the power to tell you what to do, and what beauty is.

Cosmetics must go.

Il Medico

6th June 2011, 07:14

I support testing for medical purposes. While I'm not exactly a fan of the idea of animals suffering, if it can help save or improve even one human life, then it is more than worth it.

As for the cosmetics debate, I like to get prettied up from time to time and fuck you if you try to say I can't.

GallowsBird

6th June 2011, 12:33

You fail again. This time because of lack of self education. Go spend a few hours on Wikipedia.

Sorry for returning to this thread but I didn't notice that!

Wikipedia! Wikipedia! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Incidently if you had an education you'd realise that "emotion" is a rationalisation of animal instincts, that dictionaries define "fear" as an emotion and that it is classified as one by Psychologists. :rolleyes:

Inquisitive Lurker

6th June 2011, 13:50

As for the cosmetics debate, I like to get prettied up from time to time and fuck you if you try to say I can't.

Learn to be secure with yourself the way you are. That's liberation.

Inquisitive Lurker

6th June 2011, 14:32

Wikipedia! Wikipedia! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Those that mock Wikipedia don't know how well it works. They should spend time reading it, and better yet, contributing to it.

Double-blind comparative studies between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britanica have shown Wikipedia to be as accurate if not more accurate than the Encyclopedia. The only complaint was the poor writing quality of Wikipedia, something that they have been since working on improving.

Wikipedia scores over normal encyclopedias because it is written by real people, not encyclopediaists. It contains the information normal people are actually looking for, not just what someone deemed worthy of including.

Il Medico

6th June 2011, 18:38

Learn to be secure with yourself the way you are. That's liberation.
Here is the aforementioned Fuck You!

And who says I'm insecure? Because I like to wear makeup? What bullshit is that? Listen mate, if you don't like putting on make up, fine, but other people do. So take your pseudo-moralizing bullshit and shove it up your arse. Wanker.

Ele'ill

6th June 2011, 19:12

Back on the track devoid of insults and silly jests. Thanks.

I think the main problem here is that there is a group of 'pro animal research' people that imagine 'animal research' being a group of kind scientists with concerned expressions working around the clock to solve medical mysteries to advance humans forward further out of the dark ages but I assure you that is not the case- this is a for profit industry. The waste is immense. The needless suffering is immense. The alternatives are immense.

Inquisitive Lurker

6th June 2011, 19:49

Here is the aforementioned Fuck You!

And who says I'm insecure? Because I like to wear makeup? What bullshit is that? Listen mate, if you don't like putting on make up, fine, but other people do. So take your pseudo-moralizing bullshit and shove it up your arse. Wanker.

If you are happy and secure with the way you look, what do you need the make up for? Do you think you need to look better in the eyes of others? Do you think you need to mimic the natural effects of ovulation so people will pay attention to you?

Give yourself time to think about it long and hard. Why do you think you need makeup?

And if you can't think of an answer, that's the scariest answer of all. It means the marketing owns you.

Inquisitive Lurker

6th June 2011, 19:57

I think the main problem here is that there is a group of 'pro animal research' people that imagine 'animal research' being a group of kind scientists with concerned expressions working around the clock to solve medical mysteries to advance humans forward further out of the dark ages

Not having done animal research myself, but having lived with 4 people who have, they are genuinely trying to solve medical mysteries, in psychology, biology, immunology, and chemistry. Closest I got to medical research was killing mice and rats to feed to owls and hawks at a wildlife rehabilitation center. It's amazing how often you'd see mice with cancer. Odd. Not so much the rats.

but I assure you that is not the case- this is a for profit industry. The waste is immense. The needless suffering is immense. The alternatives are immense.

Almost everything done today is for a for profit industry, so that's not a very good argument.
Suffering is minimal. Vivisection is extremely rare these days. Most animals that are tested on are not subject to any pain, until the experiment is over and it is time to dispose of the "bio-waste."
The alternatives are not immense. I speak from second hand experience, as I've mentioned my brother-in-law works for a company that produces hardware and software to test chemicals and drugs against proteins and cells. All simulated, blindingly fast. This does eliminate a lot of animal testing, but this technology is in its infancy. Even when there is a positive result in the machine, it will need verification in the lab, and eventually with humans.

Quail

6th June 2011, 20:06

If you are happy and secure with the way you look, what do you need the make up for? Do you think you need to look better in the eyes of others? Do you think you need to mimic the natural effects of ovulation so people will pay attention to you?

Give yourself time to think about it long and hard. Why do you think you need makeup?

And if you can't think of an answer, that's the scariest answer of all. It means the marketing owns you.
Not everyone who wears make up "needs" to. I usually don't, but when I do, it's not because I think I am unattractive without it, but I enjoy making myself look different. There are problems with the cosmetics industry and the way make up is advertised (being in a capitalist society and all), but that doesn't make it inherently a bad thing.

Inquisitive Lurker

6th June 2011, 20:18

Not everyone who wears make up "needs" to. I usually don't, but when I do, it's not because I think I am unattractive without it, but I enjoy making myself look different. There are problems with the cosmetics industry and the way make up is advertised (being in a capitalist society and all), but that doesn't make it inherently a bad thing.

It makes it an inherently useless thing, among my other points.

Ele'ill

6th June 2011, 20:36

Not having done animal research myself, but having lived with 4 people who have, they are genuinely trying to solve medical mysteries, in psychology, biology, immunology, and chemistry.

For what and whose purpose?

Almost everything done today is for a for profit industry, so that's not a very good argument.

It completely changes the incentive involved in medicine/pharmaceutical.

Suffering is minimal. Vivisection is extremely rare these days. Most animals that are tested on are not subject to any pain, until the experiment is over and it is time to dispose of the "bio-waste."

http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/faq.html

http://www.animalsuffering.com/resources/facts/vivisection.php

http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_8_All-you-need-to-know-in-33-facts

http://www.navs.org.uk/about_vivisection/27/46/361/

:rolleyes:

The alternatives are not immense.

http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/humane_research.html

I speak from second hand experience, as I've mentioned my brother-in-law works for a company that produces hardware and software to test chemicals and drugs against proteins and cells. All simulated, blindingly fast. This does eliminate a lot of animal testing, but this technology is in its infancy. Even when there is a positive result in the machine, it will need verification in the lab, and eventually with humans.
[/LIST]

Perhaps you and your brother are misinformed. Intentionally or through apathy. I'm not interested in your anecdotes.

Il Medico

6th June 2011, 20:50

If you are happy and secure with the way you look, what do you need the make up for? I don't need make up. Make up, like all luxuries is a want. And like most people I enjoy my wants. I don't need a comfy office chair, but I want one, I don't need nice shoes, but I want a pair, or five. You see, outside of your weird spartan world where people only use things they need, there exist reality where people enjoy their wants as well.
Do you think you need to look better in the eyes of others? No. And in fact I think me wearing make up actually has the opposite effect with most people.
Do you think you need to mimic the natural effects of ovulation so people will pay attention to you?
Mate, I don't know why you are so obsessed with ovulating, but it is getting kinda creepy.

Inquisitive Lurker

6th June 2011, 21:08

Mate, I don't know why you are so obsessed with ovulating, but it is getting kinda creepy.

It's called science. Apply it to all aspects of your life.

And ovulation is what most makeup is designed to mimic. Extra estrogen in the blood. Breasts swell, skin becomes firmer, eyes brighten and dilate, face flushes, lips darken, the skin under your nails darken.

The next time you are putting on makeup, be conscious of what you are doing. Consciousness, is that such a bad thing? Awareness?

Inquisitive Lurker

6th June 2011, 21:24

Perhaps you and your brother are misinformed. Intentionally or through apathy.

My brother-in-law designed the original software as his PhD thesis at Yale. Now he oversees a dozen programmers and hardware designers. He knows what this technology can do, and where it will be in 5, 10, 20 years. It will be a long time before animal testing will be eliminated, if ever.

Check out his company (http://www.schrodinger.com/).

Ele'ill

6th June 2011, 21:32

My brother-in-law designed the original software as his PhD thesis at Yale. Now he oversees a dozen programmers and hardware designers. He knows what this technology can do, and where it will be in 5, 10, 20 years. It will be a long time before animal testing will be eliminated, if ever.

Check out his company (http://www.schrodinger.com/).

But you telling me your brother's opinion and linking to his company's site doesn't refute anything I've posted. It only vaguely comes to a belated point of contention with the general idea that alternatives exist and are often more suitable. I fail to see relevance.

Il Medico

6th June 2011, 22:33

It's called science. Apply it to all aspects of your life.

And ovulation is what most makeup is designed to mimic. Extra estrogen in the blood. Breasts swell, skin becomes firmer, eyes brighten and dilate, face flushes, lips darken, the skin under your nails darken.

The next time you are putting on makeup, be conscious of what you are doing. Consciousness, is that such a bad thing? Awareness?
Despite your weird terminology, I think I understand what you're getting at. What you're trying to say is that make up is designed to make you look sexy! One word comes to mind, duh. That's kinda the reason to wear it. Same reason people buy a finely tailored suit or a nice dress, because it makes them look good. (which for whatever reason you have decided in your mind is a bad thing)

Though your assertion that the 'sexy effect' of make up is purely a matter of mimicking ovulation seems to have one snag imo (besides being awkward in conversation). Both women and men can look good in make up. Humble examples such as myself and Tim Curry prove the latter. So if men can look sexy wearing make up, if it was really just a ovulating thing it would seem kinda weird don't you think? I mean I don't know about you but 'appears to be ovulating' isn't usually something I look for when judging a man's sexy level.

Inquisitive Lurker

6th June 2011, 23:35

Despite your weird terminology, I think I understand what you're getting at. What you're trying to say is that make up is designed to make you look sexy! One word comes to mind, duh. That's kinda the reason to wear it.

Not sexy, in heat. In estrus. Don't forget you are an animal.

Does that thought make you proud?

Do you enjoy being a sex object?

It's sad that I, a man, am preaching women's lib.

Maybe you should go hang out in that forum for awhile.

Lord Testicles

6th June 2011, 23:49

It's sad that I, a man, am preaching women's lib.

Actually, you're just being a condescending prick.

Inquisitive Lurker

7th June 2011, 00:52

Sometimes brutality is the best teacher. Especially for stubborn students.

Quail

7th June 2011, 01:22

Not sexy, in heat. In estrus. Don't forget you are an animal.

Does that thought make you proud?

Do you enjoy being a sex object?

It's sad that I, a man, am preaching women's lib.

Maybe you should go hang out in that forum for awhile.
How is taking away a person's choice to paint their face "women's lib"?

Getting on some kind of moral high horse about people (men and women) who want to wear make up doesn't fit into my definition of women's lib. In a capitalist society, of course the industry is going to be fucked up and exploitative, but you're going to have to provide a convincing argument that there is something inherently wrong with decorating oneself. It really is no different to choosing to dress in a certain way, or getting a certain haircut.

Inquisitive Lurker

7th June 2011, 02:15

How is taking away a person's choice to paint their face "women's lib"?

Getting on some kind of moral high horse about people (men and women) who want to wear make up doesn't fit into my definition of women's lib. In a capitalist society, of course the industry is going to be fucked up and exploitative, but you're going to have to provide a convincing argument that there is something inherently wrong with decorating oneself. It really is no different to choosing to dress in a certain way, or getting a certain haircut.

Go reread post 195 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2134187&postcount=195) and consider the historical implications of cosmetics, to say nothing of the social implications.

MarxSchmarx

7th June 2011, 03:55

The waste is immense. The needless suffering is immense. The alternatives are immense.

With all due respect, we have to understand that each of these claims are rhetoric, not argument.

Take "waste". I don't understand what is being wasted with animal testing as opposed to other experiments. If one in a million rhesus monkies has a severely adverse reaction to a drug, shouldn't that raise alarm bells? I don't think it's "wasteful" to err on the side of caution when tasting for human safety.

But more problematic is the "needless suffering". I don't see where our wants end and need begins. I could probably live basically OK in a house with a small number of roaches every now and then. My needs would be basically be unaffected. But frankly I don't want to ever encounter them. I want a house free of roaches, so I impose considerable, arguably needless, suffering on more roaches than is "necessary". And yet few people would criticize me for setting roach poison if I see even one roach every half year.

As far as alternatives go, this goes back and forth, but I don't think our ignorance of how physiological systems in living organisms work should be brushed aside so callously.

Quail

7th June 2011, 07:11

So in the 5500 year history of cosmetics, they have only been used by the working class, to imitate the classes above them, for 50+ years.
Working class people want the same luxuries as people higher in the social hierarchy? Shocking.

We survived for 2.4 million years without cosmetics. We survived for 5500 years without them. They are not needed. People look how people look. If we all play on an even playing field, makeup is not needed.There are an awful lot of things we survived without for a very long time. Electricity, for example. Just because we survived without it for a long time, doesn't mean that having it is necessarily a bad thing.

For a good 500 years, makeup has been used heavily by the sex workers, not exactly an emancipated class. Is this what you want to imitate? The purpose of such makeup is to imitate the signs of sexual arousal (bright eyes, darkened skin under the nails, darkened lips, flushed cheeks).Here we go. This is pure moral bullshit. Besides, makeup isn't only to imitate sexual arousal. If I wear dark eyeliner, black lipstick and white powder, or paint a butterfly on my cheek, I'm not exactly making myself look sexually aroused, but I am using cosmetics. Is it okay to use cosmetics if they don't imitate sexual arousal?

The capitalist machine tells you that you need makeup, that he or she won't be attracted to you without it. You must buy, and you must buy a lot. Colors upon colors, lipstick, blush, nail polish, eyebrow brush, eye liner, eye shadow, mascara. You are told to buy it and you do. And then the new shades come out, the new trends, the new styles in glossy magazines.The same could be said of pretty much anything. The problem here is capitalism and class society, not cosmetics. Also, you might want to stop treating us all like mindless zombies. Yeah, there is social pressure to use cosmetics or buy certain things, but not everyone rushes out to buy them immediately.

black magick hustla

7th June 2011, 08:15

you should check out the article i posted maybe a month ago about weaver ants. non-human animals are capable of some pretty cool shit. and i'm not sure why it is a one vs the other, better than whatever competition, we should use our position as "smart animals" (so smart we're trying as hard as possible to wipe ourselves out, genius) to protect the rest of the life on the planet and help it flourish and develop, not be a fucking destructive cancer on the planet
idk in not gonna get on some argument about philosophy of mind but an animal doing something that we can apply all sorts of patterns and stuff does not signifiy thought in the same way molecules are not thinking when they arrange themselves in fractals in snowflakes

black magick hustla

7th June 2011, 08:17

i dont think men are qualitatively different than lab rats and we are prone to predictable behavior in relation to the configuration of our cages. its not surprising when ghetto youth end up dealing smack after all. the will doesnt exist in the way christians and bourgeois legalistic philosophy thinks it does but i am certainly willing to lay down for my species. the best humanism is understanding that we are like cockroaches but that makes us fucking awesome

black magick hustla

7th June 2011, 08:25

Not everyone who wears make up "needs" to. I usually don't, but when I do, it's not because I think I am unattractive without it, but I enjoy making myself look different. There are problems with the cosmetics industry and the way make up is advertised (being in a capitalist society and all), but that doesn't make it inherently a bad thing.

"its useful because its pretty"-some french mathematician i dont remember his name

inquisitive lurker has a MA in philosophy and bases scientific proofs on popsci books and analogies dont listen

Jazzratt

7th June 2011, 12:39

The next time you are putting on makeup, be conscious of what you are doing. Consciousness, is that such a bad thing? Awareness? Lurker here gives, perhaps for the first time in his life, some helpful advice. I know that if you're not very concious and aware of what you're doing when pushing an eyeliner pencil around your eye things can become unpleasant very swiftly.

Everything else you said is pure cack, though.

Inquisitive Lurker

7th June 2011, 13:31

inquisitive lurker has a MA in philosophy

When did I tell you that? I mean, I do have a Masters in Philosophy from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, but I don't remember telling anyone about it.

Inquisitive Lurker

7th June 2011, 13:34

Everything else you said is pure cack, though.

Then attack the data. What I gave was an accurate history of cosmetics. Attack the facts. You can't. Post 195 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2134187&postcount=195).

Lord Testicles

7th June 2011, 14:02

Then attack the data. What I gave was an accurate history of cosmetics. Attack the facts. You can't. Post 195 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2134187&postcount=195).

I don't see any citations in that post, so the only thing that qualifies that post as historic fact is your say so, which is less than satisfactory. But I have to ask, why is woad conveniently discarded? It's war paint, ie. make-up for warriors.

Sometimes brutality is the best teacher. Especially for stubborn students.

This is exactly what I meant by condescending. Teach us more oh, brutal learned one.

Jazzratt

7th June 2011, 14:36

Then attack the data. What I gave was an accurate history of cosmetics. Attack the facts. You can't. Post 195 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2134187&postcount=195). In additon to what skinz was saying it's also pretty obvious that most of what you're talking about is, at best an irrelevance. It's like saying "x product has historically only been used by the military/priesthood/aristocracy/other undersireable group therefore it's wrong." The history of cosmetics is interesting enough from an academic standpoint if that's what keeps your watercraft bouyant but saying things like:

So in the 5500 year history of cosmetics, they have only been used by the working class, to imitate the classes above them, for 50+ years.

We survived for 2.4 million years without cosmetics. We survived for 5500 years without them. They are not needed. People look how people look. If we all play on an even playing field, makeup is not needed. is basically saying nothing at all. Yeah we didn'ty use some kinds of products before and now we do. Shock fucking horror.

You can, if you really must, live your life using only necessary products but don't come crying to me if living off of water, bread and pottage; dressing in hessian and sleeping in a rude shelter (with a fire in the winter) isn't quite as fulfilling as you envisaged.

Inquisitive Lurker

7th June 2011, 19:21

I didn't cite my sources because the data was not controversial, just basic facts. Half of it came from Wikipedia, and half came from half a dozen miscellaneous website, plus basic knowledge.

Additional posts regarding makeup mimicking ovulation / estrus comes from my own study of human biology. How someone can not be interested in the biology of their own species I can not understand. Don't you want to know how your kidney's work?

Inquisitive Lurker

7th June 2011, 19:44

Here we go. This is pure moral bullshit. Besides, makeup isn't only to imitate sexual arousal. If I wear dark eyeliner, black lipstick and white powder, or paint a butterfly on my cheek, I'm not exactly making myself look sexually aroused, but I am using cosmetics. Is it okay to use cosmetics if they don't imitate sexual arousal?

You darken your lips, your brighten your eyes, by making yourself pale you imitate the fraility of 19th century. Only the butterfly stands out. Which I would put in the same category as woad, war paint, and tattoos. Not designed to perform a natural or unnatural appearance.

Inquisitive Lurker

7th June 2011, 19:46

paraphrasing History is irrelevant.

Should I let that statement stand on it's own, or should I mention someone named Marx?

El Chuncho

7th June 2011, 22:10

So it was a cheap rhetorical shot.

No, it wasn't, you stupid ass. You, and others of the same position, claimed that people who do not agree with inflicting pain on animals needlessly were sociopathic, I merely pointed out that a lack of empathy is the main trait of what you are calling a ''sociopath'', including a lack of empathy for animals. You have a lack of empathy for animals, and therefore your absurdist claim was not only imbecilic but hypocritical.

I am sorry that you are too moronic to understand any points that I am making.

Pointing out that animal testing saves lives is showing a lack of empathy? You really are a stupid fucknut.

I have already told you why it is not needed anymore, dumbass. I remember your idea of a ''debate'' from when you were making a defense of people downloading child pornography and Richard Dawkins. After experiencing your childish comments in those threads, I already know that your ethics and intelligence are a bit skewed, so I am tempted to just ignore your points (as you have been ignoring mine). You are quite clearly not made for debating, Nox.

Animal testing can be painful for the animals involved, this is true. But to say that amounts to "torture" in anything other than than the informal sense of "a painful experience" is to use loaded language!

It is included as a definition in the dictionary, cretin.

The idea that we can do away completely with animal testing is biologically and medically ludicrous on every level.

Not if mankind actually makes use of methods that I have already mentioned.

El Chuncho

7th June 2011, 22:16

All of you that are seriously suggesting that we test on "undesirable" humans in lieu of animals need to step back and take a long hard look at yourselves and ask "What the fuck is wrong with me?"

You should should ask yourself the same question. You stated in your post that you hate animals. You didn't just say that humans are more important than lesser animals or that you think they are comparatively expendable, but that you actually hate animals (''animals'' is also a very varied collection of creatures (and Apes are very close to humans in behaviour and intelligence in the scheme of things). That is quite a strange position too. As is common in this thread, I see those who do not have empathy for non-humans are spouting hypocrisy.

Jazzratt

7th June 2011, 23:18

Should I let that statement stand on it's own, or should I mention someone named Marx? Well you could pretend that's what I said if you want. I mean if you can't concieve of someone talking in specifics rather than generalities (history is useful, the history of makeup is interesting but almost totally irrelevant today).

Additional posts regarding makeup mimicking ovulation / estrus comes from my own study of human biology. So it's your inane pet theory. Gotcha.

How someone can not be interested in the biology of their own species I can not understand. Don't you want to know how your kidney's work? :lol: There's ineterst in how kidneys function and, fuck it, the physical effects of ovulation - things that are both interesting and serve a utility - and all this moronic guff about make up being a bourgeois decadence. If you really can't draw a distinction then you're pretty much a lost cause; the signal-to-noise ratio in your interest in "the biology of [your] own species" is a bit heavy on the noise really.

the last donut of the night

8th June 2011, 03:11

Ok, so by 'greater than' you meant 'more evolved'. What does that have to do with physical pain and emotional distress that we has humans experience along with these other animals. Is the measuring bar used to determine which creatures are worthy of torture based on how 'evolved they are'? Evolved enough to feel physical pain and emotional distress but not evolved enough to start a fire (although lots of animals trump this feat ten fold) so we should fucking dissect them alive because of something they simply cannot control?

As much as some may oppose it, it's impossible to ignore the fact that animal testing largely serves a practical reason, which ultimately benefits human lives. Yes, these procedures are employed by big corporations which have no interest in whether their products help people on a wide scale, but whether they make huge profits off medicine. However, important scientific discoveries can only be made after a lot of experimenting, and when it comes to substances humans will use, testing must be done on some subject. And to verify hypotheses, scientists need to use specimens in some way resemble humans (this depends on what is being tested, of course) -- animals. It's a necessary procedure in the medical field.

Of course, there are other methods of testing medicines, but animal testing can give the most accurate results in terms of success or failure of aforementioned substances. No one can deny that some animals do feel emotional distress, fear, pain, etc. But at the same time no one can deny they'd rather have other humans having their health endangered because, well, testing it out before wasn't a possibility.

Another thing, before I go to bed: you critique me for measuring the dignity of animals on how "evolved they are". Should we create, then, a scale for the animals that feel pain, show certain emotions, have rudimentary cultural capacities, and by that determine what animals are "ok" to test or not? Can you, for example, create empathy on a scale that could be disputed by several different researchers?

PS: I know this isn't complete, but I need to go to bed. Hope it's not too jumbled to read.

Lord Testicles

8th June 2011, 12:44

You should should ask yourself the same question. You stated in your post that you hate animals. You didn't just say that humans are more important than lesser animals or that you think they are comparatively expendable, but that you actually hate animals (''animals'' is also a very varied collection of creatures (and Apes are very close to humans in behaviour and intelligence in the scheme of things). That is quite a strange position too. As is common in this thread, I see those who do not have empathy for non-humans are spouting hypocrisy.

Quote me where I said that I hate animals, because you'd think if I hated animals I wouldn't like steak so much, but go on, quote me.

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 12:51

Quote me where I said that I hate animals, because you'd think if I hated animals I wouldn't like steak so much, but go on, quote me.

By that logic someone who likes strawberries hates plants.

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 12:54

So it's your inane pet theory. Gotcha.

No, it is established scientific fact. Increased estrogen levels in the blood bring about changes in the body. Take estrogen replacement therapy (for post-menopausal women) as proof.

Lord Testicles

8th June 2011, 13:17

I didn't cite my sources because the data was not controversial, just basic facts. Half of it came from Wikipedia, and half came from half a dozen miscellaneous website, plus basic knowledge.

Wikipedia says that "Even the poor wore eye make-up in ancient Egypt" and then it goes on to say "In the Middle Ages it was thought sinful and immoral to wear makeup by Church leaders, but many women still adopted the fad" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cosmetics) So your history of make up is nowhere near comprehensive or it would seem accurate which makes it even less relevant.

By that logic someone who likes strawberries hates plants.

Surely by that logic someone who likes strawberries doesn't hate plants.

Inquisitive Lurker

8th June 2011, 13:20

Surely by that logic someone who likes strawberries doesn't hate plants.
Yeah, I misread that. I thought you said that you were being accused of hating animals because you liked steak.

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

15th June 2011, 02:52

No, it wasn't, you stupid ass. You, and others of the same position, claimed that people who do not agree with inflicting pain on animals needlessly were sociopathic, I merely pointed out that a lack of empathy is the main trait of what you are calling a ''sociopath'', including a lack of empathy for animals. You have a lack of empathy for animals, and therefore your absurdist claim was not only imbecilic but hypocritical.

A sociopath's lack of empathy is a general trait, not one limited to animals, you nitwit. A willingness to sacrifice animal lives in the service of improving human lives in general is not sociopathic, whatever else you may choose to call it.

So what's your "non-sociopathic" alternative? Having humans dying because of inadequate testing of new medicines and procedures? Not bothering to introduce new medicines and procedures?

What about testing them on humans? Well, since forcible medical tests are grossly unethical, you'll have to find volunteers. Good luck finding them, especially if you're testing a surgical procedure. I suppose you could sweeten the deal by offering cash in return for being a human guinea pig, but then you would be placing the burden of medical testing on society's most desperate.

That is why I said only a sociopath or ideologue opposes animal testing. Because all the alternatives involve more suffering on the part of humans.

I have already told you why it is not needed anymore, dumbass. I remember your idea of a ''debate'' from when you were making a defense of people downloading child pornography and Richard Dawkins. After experiencing your childish comments in those threads, I already know that your ethics and intelligence are a bit skewed, so I am tempted to just ignore your points (as you have been ignoring mine). You are quite clearly not made for debating, Nox.

I see you that could take the time to compose a mini-rant over my supposed failings, but neglected to include a link or anything of any kind that would actually, you know, support your assertions.

It is included as a definition in the dictionary, cretin.

Have you forgotten that animal testing is subject to ethical review? Scientists who want to use animals have to justify it. But never mind that, let's just use specious arguments to say that since animal testing can be painful, and torture involves pain, therefore animal testing is torture.

Not if mankind actually makes use of methods that I have already mentioned.

Which again, you have failed to even link to, let alone describe so that a skeptical person such as myself can perhaps look them up.

El Chuncho

2nd January 2012, 03:51

A sociopath's lack of empathy is a general trait, not one limited to animals, you nitwit.

I never said it was limited to animals, you child, but I am a little suspicious of idiots like you who talk about animals as if they are just a commodity with no real feelings. I'll admit that I do not think you are at all sincere in your feelings for mankind as you have also defended paedophile looking at pornography of abused children as if the children in the pornography didn't have to go through sexual torture. However, that is another issue, and, I guess, just an opinion from me.

A willingness to sacrifice animal lives in the service of improving human lives in general is not sociopathic, whatever else you may choose to call it.

Awww, you are such a great and magnificient champion of mankind, Nox.

So what's your "non-sociopathic" alternative? Having humans dying because of inadequate testing of new medicines and procedures? Not bothering to introduce new medicines and procedures?

Read some of my posts again, stupid. I have already given alternatives to animal testings.

What about testing them on humans? Well, since forcible medical tests are grossly unethical, you'll have to find volunteers.

I have never defended the idea of testing on humans. If humans did volunteer, it would be fine, though, because it is their free choice.

That is why I said only a sociopath or ideologue opposes animal testing. Because all the alternatives involve more suffering on the part of humans.

Yet, like the simple child that you are, you have not read my posts, and the posts of many others, properly. If you had, you'll find that I, and others, have given many alternatives to animal testing that would mean that neither animals or humans would suffer. I am arguing that no one should suffer, you are arguing that animals should. You are clearly a closet sociopath, hence you are pretending to be in the moral high ground whilst conveniently ''ignoring'' the other methods of medical testing that I have offered.

I see you that could take the time to compose a mini-rant over my supposed failings, but neglected to include a link or anything of any kind that would actually, you know, support your assertions.

I don't need to as I am talking to YOU about something YOU said. And about the part about child pornography, I cannot post a link now because your fellow mods completely atomized that thread... as I am sure you are actually aware of.

Have you forgotten that animal testing is subject to ethical review? Scientists who want to use animals have to justify it. But never mind that, let's just use specious arguments to say that since animal testing can be painful, and torture involves pain, therefore animal testing is torture.

OK, let me re-iterate something:

I have already given alternatives to animal testing, and to claim that animal testing is not torture to the animal involved is yet more evidence of your hidden sociopathic tendencies sneaking through, Nox... in my humble opinion.

Which again, you have failed to even link to, let alone describe so that a skeptical person such as myself can perhaps look them up.

I did earlier. Maybe if you paid attention to my posts you would not have missed that fact.