vivsection

[johnny limelight]

vivisection is totaly uneccecary and the only reason why most "doctors" and "Scientest" agree with vivisection is mostly for financial reasons if they say anything about the TRUTH there funding will be cut. and like ive siad before what do gian knoledge wise from sowing a monkeys eyes shut for sensory deprivation test? that information is already available! And as ive said in Previos post an animals anatomy is completly differents from a humans so what do we gain? nothing but mass murder and expliotation. I don know the exact name of the place but theres a reasech lab here in the states that Vivisects 1000 animals a day wtf is that? hows that advancing medicine?

i may get some "warning points" what ever they are and as if i really care. tell me again why am i to run off. you see i have the moral high ground- you dont and no matter how many times you parrot the lie it can never become a truth.

it is you who is prostituting an unethical and immoral crime not me so the onus of proof belongs with you.

I havent been on in a while but I have real life outside of cyberspace.

i hope the charm less shit LSD is still on. maybe he finally overdoesed and wont respond, I can only hope.

but if your here LSD, please show me the published papers where it claims that micros show pain suffering and the rest of emotions
that all sentient being do. i look forward to that.

finally I hope you finally stoped that rather childish way of highlighting every other word as it makes you look totally silly and i would rather have a grown up conversation with you- you stop highlighting and i will stop the "so called" spam.

all the best

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Johnny Dime&Pipe
vivisection is totaly uneccecary and the only reason why most "doctors" and "Scientest" agree with vivisection is mostly for financial reasons if they say anything about the TRUTH there funding will be cut. and like ive siad before what do gian knoledge wise from sowing a monkeys eyes shut for sensory deprivation test? that information is already available! And as ive said in Previos post an animals anatomy is completly differents from a humans so what do we gain? nothing but mass murder and expliotation. I don know the exact name of the place but theres a reasech lab here in the states that Vivisects 1000 animals a day wtf is that? hows that advancing medicine?


Considering your atrocious spelling alone it's safe to say that you are hardly a credible source on the scientific value of vivisection to the medical reasearch community.

Recess is over kid, drop the bong and head back to class.


it is you who is prostituting an unethical and immoral crime not me so the onus of proof belongs with you.

Perhaps it is time for you look up what exactly "ethics" and "morality" mean; they have nothing to do with the question of the "burden of proof" of any subject.


I havent been on in a while but I have real life outside of cyberspace.

Just wait until you graduate high school in a few years, the crap you do now will seem trivial.


but if your here LSD, please show me the published papers where it claims that micros show pain suffering and the rest of emotions that all sentient being do. i look forward to that.

Who the hell knows what a "micro" is but in any case, if it's one of your code-words for micro organisms than such papers would never exist as the only species capable of feeling emotional pain are human beings.

Your poor little animals are incapable of even realising the fact that they are caged for medical research and will soon be on the chopping block in the name of the betterment of human society.

Get over it pal, the animals don't care.

[LSD]

<_< Hi, Johnny, I&#39;m so glad you chose to come back.

As I PMed you, however, spaming and flaming are not permitted on this board. I&#39;m glad to see that you chose to actually present arguments this time, as your last couple of posts were complete spam.

If you maintain a civil tone (and lay off the personal attacks) this might just turn into a productive thread, although to be honest, I&#39;m not particularly hopeful...


you stop highlighting and i will stop the "so called" spam.

:lol:

Sorry, but it doesn&#39;t work that way. This board has rules against spamming and flaming; at present it has no rules against bolding words.


Vivisection is totaly uneccecary and the only reason why most "doctors" and "Scientest" agree with vivisection is mostly for financial reasons

Nonsense.

97% of Nobel Prize wining doctors support animal research; these are people who are already financialy supported and are world famous in their field.

They have nothing to fear insofar as money is concerned and yet the overwhelming majority still stated that animal research has been and continues to be essential for medical progress.

I find them a far more credible source of medical data than I do you.


And as ive said in Previos post an animals anatomy is completly differents from a humans so what do we gain?

And as I&#39;ve pointed out numerous times, that&#39;s a ludicrous argument.

Again, the only reason that you know that animal physiology is different is because some researcher collected the data. Do you honestly believe that he doesn&#39;t recognize the significance?

Different animals share different traits with us and so different experimentations are done on different animals.

And think about it, if vivisection didn&#39;t work, how come it works?

The list of medicines and procedures developed thanks to animal researc is very very long. Do you expect us to believe that this is all "conspiracy"? That insulin wasn&#39;t "really" synthasized thanks to animal research?

Sorry, but such nonsense has no place in a reasoned debate. The evidence is simply overwhelming and every serious scientist in the field knows it.


it is you who is prostituting an unethical and immoral crime not me so the onus of proof belongs with you.

You&#39;re begging the question.

You have to prove that vivisection is an "unethical and immoral crime" before you can accuse me or supporting such a thing.

So far you have failed to actually provide a single solid coherently reasoned argument. Instead you have resorted to flames and nonsensical pathetic fallacies. I suppose that that may be emotionaly satisfying for you, but it&#39;s not going to convince anyone of anything.


please show me the published papers where it claims that micros show pain suffering and the rest of emotions that all sentient being do.

Why would I do something ridiculous like that since I never claimed that "micros" were in any way "sentient"? Rather I denied that "sentience" is at all relevent as a benchmark&#33;

You see the question that you need to be asking yourself is not why is it wrong to kill animals, but why is it wrong to kill humans and does that reason transcend special barriors. The answer to the latter question is, of course, no; but the answer to the first is probably not what you&#39;re expecting.

People like to talk about a "sanctity of life" and such, but it&#39;s all complete nonsense. Rather, human life must be protected by society because of the nature of society.

That is, society exists as a collection of independent moral actors who collectively agree to abide by a set of correlational guidelines. These guidelines, however, are not extended to nonmembers.

So a wolf, for example, is not bound by human laws and while humans will defend themselves from wolves, they not expect that a wolf will restrain himself because "murder is wrong".

The world exists in a non-societal state. It is an externalistic organism and, as such, operates at a different level relative to humanity. Similarly, a cow, does not have the ability to comprehend human societal reltions and so cannot be a part of them.

Accordingly, like the wolf, the cow interacts with human society at a non-member level and since society has no externalistic obligations, society&#39;s sole interest at this level is to serve its membership.

If that means eating it, so be it; if it means experimenting on it, so be it as well.

And if you wish to claim otherwise, if you wish to contend that externalistic obligations do exist within human society, then it is up to you to prove it.

[johnny limelight]

Your poor little animals are incapable of even realising the fact that they are caged for medical research and will soon be on the chopping block in the name of the betterment of human society.

oh yea cause animals are so stupid that they dont know their in cages.

you really are a retard arent you?

97% of Nobel Prize wining doctors support animal research; these are people who are already financialy supported and are world famous in their field.

Of cousre they have to fear about there budgest bieng cut ass well as their spedning&#33; thats how they make a living. Sure scientest are smarter than me but that does make up for a lack of dissregard for life.


And think about it, if vivisection didn&#39;t work, how come it works?

But does it? If so then why has no cure for cancer been found? How about Alzheimer&#39;s disease, Huntington’s, Parkinson&#39;s, or diabetes, after about 150 years or so of vivisection you would have thought they would have found an answer if it worked.

Why are diseases like asthma, birth defects continued to rise?

Oh lets talk about those drugs that are tested on animals…..if vivisection works then why are many people every year dying from those very same drugs?

Conclusion being I can only state that these animal tests are irrelevant, unworkable, false, and mis-guiding.

First you explain what "sentience" has to do with this debate

Well as I have said that it is immoral and unethical to test on all sentient animals, sentient being all animals that show similar human characteristics such fear, love, pain, suffering, perception and other emotions. People such live by their moral code and if pro vivisectionist believes that vivisection is a moral crusade for the good of mankind then they such give themselves up for these test, but like pro war supporter who are ready to send other peoples sons they prefer to send what they see as LOWER species to do the painful job.

when you burn the shit out of a dog just to test scalding ointment, that&#39;s fucked up; especially when you have sythetic skin alternatives.

MOST OF THE REASEARCH DONE IS ALRAEDY AVAILBLE AND LOTS OF IT IS VERYY UNECCECARY&#33;

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Why is vivisection immoral? I agree that humanity should discourage unnecessary suffering when it comes to animals. However, humans can benefit (moreso than animals lose) from vivisection. Even as a vegetarian, I recognize the importance of balancing what is right and what is in your self-interest.

If you think humanity should sacrifice its interests because animals feel pain, I don&#39;t think many people will agree with you. If that is your argument, I would like to see some justification for it.

[LSD]

Of cousre they have to fear about there budgest bieng cut ass well as their spedning&#33;

Again, though, these are Nobel Laureates we are talking about. The are, by definition, financially sound as they&#39;ve recieved the 1.3 million dollar prize that goes with the Nobel.

Not to mention that the fame and prestige that goes with winning a Nobel makes any of these scientists pretty much immune from serious pressure.

So the fact that 97% of them think that animal research is nescessary is a pretty noteworthy fact. These are the best of the best in medicine and all of them have enough money and acclaim to last them the rest of their lives.


ure scientest are smarter than me but that does make up for a lack of dissregard for life.

What&#39;s a "lack of dissregard"? :huh:

If you&#39;re saying that these scientists are "morally" inferior to you because they fail to share your opinion on vivisection, that&#39;s what&#39;s called begging the question.

You cannot premise your argument against vivisection by asserting that it is immoral. If you want to prove that animal research is bad, you are obligated to prove it&#33;


But does it? If so then why has no cure for cancer been found

Because we&#39;re still working on it.

I&#39;m not going to bore you with the details, but cancer is very hard to fight. Put simply, the cells that are cancerious are virtually identical to the calls that are not and so any chemical that kills the former also tends to kill the latter.

Still though, scientists are trying. Even as you read this, around the world, millions of very smart people are hard a work developing potential medical breakthroughs?

And you know how they&#39;re doing that? That&#39;s right, animal testing.

In fact, just recently it was announced that a research team had developed a possible vaccine against AIDS. For them to come to this conclusion, however, they, of course, had to do many many experiments.

Now, in vaccinological research, experimentation means injecting live animals with a potential vaccine and then giving them the disease in question. If they live, the vaccine was successful, if they dont, it wasn&#39;t.

Obviously, more die than live.

Was this research "wrong"? As there is no feasible alternative, should thise team not have tried? Should no teams try? Should we allow AIDS and other diseases run unchecked because of some metaphysical nonsensical "kinship" with "nature"?

Or are you perhaps suggesting that we research on humans? :o

That we be completely counterproductive and kill members of society in our efforts to help society. Sorry but, again, humans are not "equal" to animals, not insofar as human society is concerned.

Both practically and materially, there is an immense difference between animal research and human research, and your failure to recognize this has the source of most of your confusion in this thread.

Human society has a fundamental duty to better the lives of its members. If that means killing nonmembers to develop tools of helping members, then that is not only an acceptable act, it is a required one.


Oh lets talk about those drugs that are tested on animals…..if vivisection works then why are many people every year dying from those very same drugs?

Here&#39;s a better question, why aren&#39;t people dying of diabetes en masse anymore? Why is the Yellow Fever under control?

How come, in your infancy, you got to be vaccintated against the measles and mumps and how come rabbies is no longer epidemic among dogs? How come polio been virtually eliminated as a serious threat?

How come? Because of animal testing.

That&#39;s right, if vivisection had not been done in the past, every single diabetic alive today would be dead. Even today, animal products are still used in making injectable insulin.

If you really believe that medical research on animals is "wrong", you are in effect condemnig millions and millions of people to death. These are people suffering from diseases that could potentially be cured in the next couple of decades. But none of that research will be done if we stop vivisective experimentation.

Again, I don&#39;t know if you know anyone with a serious illness, but if you do, chances are quite high that one of the procedures they will undergo will have been developed thanks to animal research?

Anethesia? Check.
Chemotherapy? Check.
Organ transplantation? Check.

There is simply no area of medicine today that has not been imeasurably improved thanks to experiments done on animals. It may seem "cruel" to you, but the facts of the situation cannot be denied. No matter how "cute" these animals may appear to you, their deaths have saved billions of human lives.

And in the grand scheme, that&#39;s far more important than a few dead rats.


Well as I have said that it is immoral and unethical to test on all sentient animals

Yes, you have indeed said that. What you have not done is proven it&#33;

Arguing that it is unethical to test on sentient animals because testing on sentient animals is unethical is an example of what we call begging the question.

It means that you are assuming the very thing that you are purportedly proving.

The fact is that "sentience" is an irrelevent quality. Animals are not deserving of human societal rights because they are incapable of partipating in human society. Again, society only has obligations to its members and its membership only consists of independent rational actors able to engage in a moral framework.

With a few excpetions due to marginal circumstances, that includes the entire human race and, as such, human societal obligations are owed to all inidivual humans.

Not a single nonhuman life-form, however, can say the same. Not one is able to even concieve or rights, let alone respect them; and as such, their relationships to society is entirely externalistic.

We have the same obligation to a mouse that a wolf has: none&#33;


People such live by their moral code and if pro vivisectionist believes that vivisection is a moral crusade for the good of mankind then they such give themselves up for these test

Clearly, again, you are confused on this issue.

Researchers who believe that animal research is acceptable (which includes, again, 97% of Nobel winning medical researchers), do not believe so out of "moral" reasons, but out of practical ones.

You seem to be assuming that all people share your metaphysical mindset and see all animals as somehow "equal". Such an analysis is distinctly incorrect. Researchers do not experiment on themselves because they do not wish to be hurt; they research on animals because, societally speaking, it doesn&#39;t matter if aniamls get hurt.


MOST OF THE REASEARCH DONE IS ALRAEDY AVAILBLE AND LOTS OF IT IS VERYY UNECCECARY&#33;

Evidence?


when you burn the shit out of a dog just to test scalding ointment, that&#39;s fucked up; especially when you have sythetic skin alternatives.

I entirely agree&#33;

I&#39;m not pushing for animal torture here, I am just opposing "animal liberation". I think that animals should be offered certain protections, I think that it&#39;s a good idea to minimize harm if we can, but I don&#39;t pretend for a second that it&#39;s a social obligation.

Look, I love animals, I have a 10 year old golden retriever who I love dearly, but I know that she is not capable of participating in human society. So while I want nothing to happen to her and take excellent care of her, I certainly don&#39;t think that she should be given human rights.

[MolotovLuv]

Vivisection is extremly cruel, disgusting and degrading and there are plenty of options available that are not as openly cruel and oppresive as animal experimentation. Why should we force creatures to live in absolute shit so a few humans (the ones that can actually afford the medicine and what-not that is supposedly discovered through animal experimentation). As folks who are supposedly against the oppressors, to not only accept but preach the use of animal experimentation shows how much you care about the oppressed. Animal experimentation is a very lucrative business for some people so quit eating up all the bullshit.

Anyways, I highly suggest reading A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation by the MMRC.

"The MRMC is a nonprofit health advocacy organization composed of scientists and medical professionals who identify and promote efficient, reliable, and cost-effective research methods. The MRMC focuses exclusively on the scientific merits of different research approaches, even though some undoubtedly raise serious and important ethical concerns."

[johnny limelight]

Evidence?
At the oxford torture labs macaque monkeys were placed in front of computer screens in small cages. There they had to identify different colour screens for rewards of food. After half had parts of their visual cortex of brains removed and retested. This experiment was conducted for the sole perpurse of identify the role of the parts of brain involved in “priming”. These results were already known with experiments taken out on humans when scanning their brains whilst taking out visual tasks





Look, I love animals, I have a 10 year old golden retriever who I love dearly


No you dont. your a liar an an animal killer. i know people like you asnd you all bullshit about "loving animals". but you dont have a dog you lying murdering piece of shit cock-sucker.

how fucking stupid do you think I am?

[MolotovLuv]

Would you mind sending your dog into a lab for scientific testing? If not than why would you ever wish it on another? :blink:

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Johnny hittin&#045;that&#045;bong+--> (Johnny hittin&#045;that&#045;bong)oh yea cause animals are so stupid that they dont know their in cages.[/b]

"Stupidity" has nothing to do with it.

All animals besides the human being to not have the ability to rationalise; therefore any animal besides a human is not able to distinguish the fact that they are caged.

Period.


Well as I have said that it is immoral and unethical to test on all sentient animals, sentient being all animals that show similar human characteristics such fear, love, pain, suffering, perception and other emotions

We don&#39;t test on human beings, the only sentient animal cabale of the feeling the emotions you describe.

By the way, "perception" is not an emotion nor is it strictly a "human characteristic".


how fucking stupid do you think I am?

Is that a rhetorical question? :lol:


MolotovLuv&#045;me&#045;tender
Would you mind sending your dog into a lab for scientific testing? If not than why would you ever wish it on another?

If it was beneficial to the human species then I would slice that ***** up myself.

[LSD]

Vivisection is extremly cruel, disgusting and degrading and there are plenty of options available that are not as openly cruel and oppresive as animal experimentation.

No there aren&#39;t, that&#39;s the whole fucking point.


Animal experimentation is a very lucrative business for some people so quit eating up all the bullshit.

Agrobusiness is also a lucrative business, that doesn&#39;t mean that we shouldn&#39;t eat grain.

The nature of capitalism is that it&#39;s pervasive, that means that whether we like it or not living in modern society means participating in capitalism. Otherwise, of course, there would be no need for revolution; we could just "leave" the system.

Obviously, that&#39;s not the case.


Would you mind sending your dog into a lab for scientific testing?

Yes.


If not than why would you ever wish it on another?

Because it&#39;s nescessary.


No you dont. your a liar an an animal killer. i know people like you asnd you all bullshit about "loving animals". but you dont have a dog you lying murdering piece of shit cock-sucker.

:rolleyes: OK, Johnny, that&#39;s another warning point for you and, since you&#39;re curious, yes I do have a dog, in fact she&#39;s lying at my feet at this very moment.

Insofar as your "torture" example, I believe you are refering to this experiment (http://jocn.mitpress.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/3/338)?

In terms of its "value", neither of us are biologists or psychologists, so we are hardly in a position to judge its usefulness. But from what I can tell, the scientists were attempting to confirm the role of certain cerebral areas in memory as well as understand the effect that neurological lesions can have on said functions.

In my estimation, both are worthwhile causes and nescessary parts of understanding how the human brain works.

To claim that we "already" had this knowledge thanks to "brain scans" is simply naive and ignorant. A "brain scan", whatever that is, (PET perhaps?) does not tell us everything about neuronic activity.

More than that it, obviously, does not tell us anything about damaged brains. Understanding how and why legions reduce memory helps us understand the nature of memory formenation as well as the diseases which affect it.

From reading this abstract as well as the internet "criticisms" of it, I have seen absolutely no evidence that this experimentation was not scientific nor that it did not comply with reasonable ethical standards given the subject.

Certainly this experiment does not confirm the ludicrous assertion that "MOST OF THE REASEARCH DONE IS ALRAEDY AVAILBLE AND LOTS OF IT IS VERYY UNECCECARY" (sic).

[red team]

Would you mind sending your dog into a lab for scientific testing?

Yes.

Even for mascara toxicity testing? These have already been repeated by competitors thousands of times. So afterwards you&#39;ll have a painfully blinded pet and a toxicity report on yet another cosmetic product in a market saturated with cosmetic products. Worth it wasn&#39;t it?



If not than why would you ever wish it on another?
Because it&#39;s nescessary.

Not always necessary. Sometimes it&#39;s trivial and redundant.

[LSD]

Not always necessary. Sometimes it&#39;s trivial and redundant.

And in those cases it should be opposed. But Johnny isn&#39;t arguing against "trivial" vivisection, he&#39;s arguing against all vivisection; a position which, if adopted, would end medical sciene.

Also I think you&#39;re somewhat confused on the meaning of "mind". When you say that you "mind something" it means that you don&#39;t want it to happen. Obviously I don&#39;t want my dog used in any experiments, nescessary or otherwise. ;)

My emotional attatchment to my pet makes her safety more important to me than, say, testing some vaccine for a disease I&#39;ll never encounter. But I&#39;m rational enough to know that my emotions should not dictate public policy.

It&#39;s somewhat hypocritical, but that&#39;s the nature of our existence. It doesn&#39;t always fit nicely. I suppose that&#39;s a good deal of the fun... :)

[johnny limelight]

It&#39;s somewhat hypocritical,

:lol: :lol: ya think?

its also complete BULLSHIT cause you dont have a fucking dog. this is so PATHETIC, that youd make up this shit just to "win" this argument.

your a sad little cocksucker, you know that?


yes I do have a dog, in fact she&#39;s lying at my feet at this very moment.


Yeah? prove it&#33; cause youll never convince me ya mudering little less shit

[LSD]

:lol:

Does anyone else think that this thread has degenerated somewhat? :rolleyes:

But what the hell, I&#39;ll play Johnny.

Here ya go:
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/7127/dsc00557zm8.jpg

Happy now?

Oh, and CyM has met my dog, as has VermontLeft, actually, and so&#39;s Kozo who posts on this board occasionally (although I can&#39;t remember what his member name is).

So, now that I&#39;ve proven that I do in fact have a dog, does this mean that you concede the nescessity of vivisective research?

I don&#39;t quite understand the connection myself, but then I&#39;m not insane... (although I am a little high ;))

[MolotovLuv]

This is stupid, just because you have a dog doesn&#39;t mean shit because your perfectly content in knowing other animals will be killed and tortured for your "medical science." Animals feel pain, and they also know when they are in cages. Just because animals cannot perform human tasks doesn&#39;t make them any less ALIVE.

"Look, I love animals, I have a 10 year old golden retriever who I love dearly, but I know that she is not capable of participating in human society. So while I want nothing to happen to her and take excellent care of her, I certainly don&#39;t think that she should be given human rights. "

Are you suggesting that humans that cannot "participate" in human society have no value and should therefore be used as a resource? And what do you consider participation in human society to be? If you can get a job? If you can speak a language? Your argument doesn&#39;t make any sense, on one hand you love your dog, but on the other hand if it was a benefit to human society for you would butcher her. Well according to you animal experimentation is the ONLY way to further medical science, so within the next few days I hope you&#39;ll do humanity a favor and cart your beloved pet to the nearest lab, hell maybe you can help strap her down to the table and get started because every "life" counts right? :rolleyes:

[ichneumon]

just to add a bit to this LOVELY dialog,

i&#39;ve seen vivisections and will most likely be doing them before the end of the month - on bugs. they squirm in obvious pain as they are cut open, alive, and their gutsacks removed for analysis.

why? well, we&#39;re trying to understand how migration relates to infectious diseases, and we use migratory insects as models. we can&#39;t kill the bug without killing the parasites, so they have to be vivisected.

and fyi, we all hate doing it. i would NOT do the same thing to any kind of vertebrate, especially a mouse.

not that this is relevant to the ethics of the practice, but that y&#39;all now have someone to scream at directly.

(can i be banned for inciting flames?)

[Sentinel]

I find it unbelievable that people who post here with communist symbols as avatars are against vivisection. And to make it clear, I&#39;m talking about the vivisection that is conducted for the purpose of bettering living standards of humans, finding and developing cures for diseases or other methods to reduce human suffering. The vivisection that matters in other words.

This said category of anti-vivisectionists closely resembles primitivists as both let a pointless idealism and, frankly put, fucking childish emotional &#39;thinking&#39; hinder a full endorsement of human progress, which is what communism really is about.

While I agree that the testing of, say, cosmetics on animals seems like unnecessary, I would definitely be in favor of restricting anyone on this board who is anti-human to the degree that they oppose vivisection as a tool of medical or otherwise important science.


Originally posted by Ace Ironbody
Here ya go:

Aww that is a cute dog. I&#39;ve always wanted a golden retriever myself, they are kind and beautiful animals. I can&#39;t have any pets as I&#39;m away from home for long periods, working onboard a ship. :(

[red team]

Mine: :)

http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a14676/dogpic_9.jpg

[SecurityManKillJoy]

All beings are self-similar in that they have consciousness. Humans, however, have more &#39;accurate&#39; empirical conscious-awareness than animals, or so we can assume for right now, and animals also have no idea-based conscious-awareness like people developed over many years and incorporated into idea-based society and used it to modify nature. Therefore it is perhaps justified to vivisect the animals because they relatively have no conscious-awareness on what&#39;s happening or at least no subconscious or conscious idea-based hate against pain, and even if they weren&#39;t caged up they still have conscious-awareness limits and are thus stuck in a pattern of basing their actions on their raw bodily influences or "instincts".

At any rate I&#39;d thus say that vivsection causes contradictions, though, in that animals are self-similar from consciousness&#39; standpoint, and yet we limit their already low quality and quantity of conscious-awareness by caging them and experimenting them. Also so long as capitalist society which determines humans by making many of them poor and thus making them unable to afford the fruits of vivisection, then of course not even fellow humans will benefit completely. In a later society I&#39;d say it would be necessary to help our self-similar animal beings in some way through some solution (obviously a solution can&#39;t be formulated yet or maybe it could). It may be said, though, that it really doesn&#39;t matter if they are exploited or not due to their unknowing state but this only puts us in a hole of keeping fellow conscious beings limited forever and ever.

Anyway I thus want to say that I support vivsection, but even so I can see the subjective moral contradictions to doing things to them because of their consciousness, even if they aren&#39;t very consciously aware. But that means I&#39;d hope that people in the future or right now would come up with solutions to make animals more consciously-aware and not vivisect those ones, and get off that method in general in the long-run.

[MolotovLuv]

"This said category of anti-vivisectionists closely resembles primitivists as both let a pointless idealism and, frankly put, fucking childish emotional &#39;thinking&#39; hinder a full endorsement of human progress, which is what communism really is about."

I am in that category of anti-vivisectionists because I have a different perception of human "progress." How many animals have to be slaughtered and denied a natural life so you can do the same research that can be done in other ways and there are plenty of doctors and scientists that aren&#39;t making a killing off of murder and even some who were past vivisectionists who come right out and say vivisection is a myth. We don&#39;t get valuable information from this shit, only useless studies and incorrect information. We are advanced enough as a society to use alternative methods available, and research other alternative means. I don&#39;t consider that a primitivist stance.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by MolotovLuv+--> (MolotovLuv)Animals feel pain, and they also know when they are in cages.[/b]

Yes, animals do feel physical pain but you are wrong about them "knowing" they are caged.

This is simply wrong; in order to understand what a "cage" is, an animal must have the ability to rationalise.

And they don&#39;t.


Originally posted by [email protected]
i&#39;ve seen vivisections and will most likely be doing them before the end of the month - on bugs. they squirm in obvious pain as they are cut open, alive, and their gutsacks removed for analysis.

You are confusing their "squirming" as "feeling pain" because you have humanised the insect.

It&#39;s a fairly common psychological phenomenon among many people; usually only for larger "domestic type" animals but it does not necessarily exclude insects.

I do not believe that there is even one species of insect that actually "feels pain", physical or otherwise.


MolotovLuv
How many animals have to be slaughtered and denied a natural life so you can do the same research that can be done in other ways

How many?

As many as it takes.

In addition, if there were "other ways" to conduct this research it would already have replaced vivisection.

You simply can&#39;t fathom that you&#39;re wrong; so be it, it certainly won&#39;t stop vivisection from creating medicines and procedures that may one day save your life.

[Sentinel]

I don&#39;t consider that a primitivist stance.

Neither do I, I meant being against (important) vivisection resembles primitivism as both stances are based on emotionality and naive, &#39;romantic&#39;, and in my opinion dangerously foolish, idealism rather than logic and reasoning.

Vivisection clearly is the most effective method we have on successfully testing new methods, medicins etc, next to experimenting on humans that is.

Which I hope you&#39;re not proposing.

The day we can make the research more effective in some other way, I&#39;ll support stopping vivisection, as an outdated method. Before that it&#39;s necessary and I&#39;d fight to keep it.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Do any of you have evidence that vivesection is actually neccessary? Not "90% of scientists say it is" kind of "evidence" but real evidence. An argument with scientific backing, a study, et cetera.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 14 2006, 05:05 PM
Do any of you have evidence that vivesection is actually neccessary? Not "90% of scientists say it is" kind of "evidence" but real evidence. An argument with scientific backing, a study, et cetera.
I&#39;ll go ahead trust the judgement of the almost complete medical science community homes.

In addition, try doing a search, you will find plenty.

[MolotovLuv]

I actually tend to view vivisection as a primitive form of scientific research because for a long time it has not advanced us and in some cases harmed us. Of course I am not for human vivisection either, which some former "scientists" have advocated along side animal research in the name of this so called "human progress."

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 07:46 PM
I actually tend to view vivisection as a primitive form of scientific research because for a long time it has not advanced us and in some cases harmed us. Of course I am not for human vivisection either, which some former "scientists" have advocated along side animal research in the name of this so called "human progress."
It&#39;s a good thing only a small portion of the people feel the same way as you; otherwise we would all be in some serious shit.

[MolotovLuv]

How is that when so many people can&#39;t afford the BASIC medicine? Animal research hasn&#39;t gotten us any further, so much money is wasted and so many lives (yes they are lives) are terminated for useless shit and your bullshit studies. :angry:

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+Sep 15 2006, 12:33 AM--> (Vinny Rafarino @ Sep 15 2006, 12:33 AM)
Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 14 2006, 05:05 PM
Do any of you have evidence that vivesection is actually neccessary? Not "90% of scientists say it is" kind of "evidence" but real evidence. An argument with scientific backing, a study, et cetera.
I&#39;ll go ahead trust the judgement of the almost complete medical science community homes.

In addition, try doing a search, you will find plenty. [/b]
Your the one criticizing those against vivesection under the premise that its benefits and neccessity are somehow self-evident. It isn&#39;t my job to prove it.

Furthermore, an argument from authority is hardly valid. By that logic, I can say I trust the economics experts who say communism possible. There was a time when medical doctors might&#39;ve agreed that certain races were superior to others. That doesn&#39;t make it so.

I would tend to agree that vivesection is the lesser of two evils, but I have actually never seen any proof that it is neccessary. As for a search, I can find arguments both pro and con.

If it is neccessary, for the benefit of humanity, to perform vivisection, it can sometimes be justified. I might agree with that statement. Is it neccesary in many cases? No. Is it justified in cases where it might be. Sometimes not. Sometimes yes? I have seen no proof of this.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by D A B+--> (D A B)Your the one criticizing those against vivesection under the premise that its benefits and neccessity are somehow self-evident. It isn&#39;t my job to prove it.[/b]

You&#39;re right, it isn&#39;t your "job".

There is no need to "prove" something that&#39;s already proven. The redundancy would be silly.


Furthermore, an argument from authority is hardly valid. By that logic, I can say I trust the economics experts who say communism possible. There was a time when medical doctors might&#39;ve agreed that certain races were superior to others. That doesn&#39;t make it so.

Believe what you want, I really don&#39;t care. Furthermore, 90 percent of economist do not say "Communism is possible".

In addition to that, there was never a time when 90 percent of the MD community agreed that "certain races were superior to others".

Keep reaching jack, keep reaching.


I would tend to agree that vivesection is the lesser of two evils, but I have actually never seen any proof that it is neccessary. As for a search, I can find arguments both pro and con.

That&#39;s odd, I can google "vivisection" and find an amazingly large amount of scientific evidence supporting vivisection.

Yet the information against vivisection is pure speculation and grossly redundant.


If it is neccessary, for the benefit of humanity, to perform vivisection, it can sometimes be justified. I might agree with that statement. Is it neccesary in many cases? No. Is it justified in cases where it might be. Sometimes not. Sometimes yes? I have seen no proof of this.

I have never stated that there are no companies that abuse vivisection for means that are not absolutely beneficial to the advancement of the human species.


Molotovluv
How is that when so many people can&#39;t afford the BASIC medicine?

This has nothing to do with vivisection.


Animal research hasn&#39;t gotten us any further,

Anyone who believes this simply has not taken the time to research the topic.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

So something is proven because it is proven. I can follow the reasoning...
As for the economics thing, I meant to say impossible. On the issue of MDs and racialism, you may be right. Regardless, I think we can agree that, in certain cases, the majority of experts in a field have been wrong (which is all I was trying to prove through the argument). You can take your high percentage and flail it around all you want. It doesn&#39;t prove what you&#39;re trying to argue - or, at the very least, you haven&#39;t justified why it does.

I am not against vivisection. I am not really for it either. However, this thread has generally been pro-vivisection people berating anti-vivisection people without bringing many facts or arguments to the table that are legitimate. Even though being for vivisection is the standard, I think opponents deserve to be addressed in a logical manner before being brushed aside with such hostility.

Essentially, you have two arguments:

Vivisection is neccessary. It is proven to be neccessary by science. These scientific proofs "can be found" yet I have not presented them. Regardless, I have (for reason X) a legitimate cause to belittle opposing views.

Scientists are the most legitimate authority on matters of science. A matter both scientific and ethical, vivisection, is legitimate because an overwhelming majority of scientists support it. It is fair to assume that, in this case, vivisection is legitimate because the scientific community has enough qualification in ethics and science to make that judgment.

The first one is hardly legitimate because you aren&#39;t bringing any facts to the table. The second one has a case, but it is not a definitive proof of anything. It may, however, be a strong argument that we should assume and act as if vivisection is legitimate.

However, I could make a counterargument that the death of an animal is not a legitimate risk on matters of uncertainy because death is permanent. I probably wouldn&#39;t make that argument, anyway.

I&#39;ll be honest with you. I was looking for an excuse to use some of the philosophy I learned in uni. I think I improved your second argument a bit (no offense to you).

This brings up an interesting ethical question, however, when it comes to extending vivisection to humans. In a communist society, could. Oh, well, vivisection is probably going to disappear eventually.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by B A D
Regardless, I think we can agree that, in certain cases, the majority of experts in a field have been wrong (which is all I was trying to prove through the argument).

We can most definitely not agree.

And when we refer to "experts" we are definitely not saying something like "9 out of 10 morbidly obese people think eating a bucket of lard every morning is healthy" just to give you some room to breathe.


You can take your high percentage and flail it around all you want. It doesn&#39;t prove what you&#39;re trying to argue - or, at the very least, you haven&#39;t justified why it does.

Justify what?

That 9 out of 10 MD Ph. D research scientists agree that vivisection is valuable to their work because they have a direct relationship with it?

What the hell is there to justify?

Nothing.


this thread has generally been pro-vivisection people berating anti-vivisection people without bringing many facts or arguments to the table that are legitimate. Even though being for vivisection is the standard, I think opponents deserve to be addressed in a logical manner before being brushed aside with such hostility.


Why should we not brush them aside? Because your misplaced guilt demands it?

Do we not "brush aside" others that present absurd arguments? Would you not "brush aside" some religious nut on the street babbling about the "end of the world"? Would you "brush aside" some cuckoo wierdo in an aluminum foil hat talking about a secret government plot to melt his brain with death rays from outer space unless he gives them his secret chili recipe?

You know what I think?

I think opponents of vivisection need a swift kick it the ass as well as a one way ticket to hippy island.


I&#39;ll be honest with you. I was looking for an excuse to use some of the philosophy I learned in uni. I think I improved your second argument a bit (no offense to you).

As a holder of a minor degree in philosophy I recommend: forgetting the useless shit was ever invented.

[LSD]

This is stupid, just because you have a dog doesn&#39;t mean shit

Apparently it does to Johnny.


Just because animals cannot perform human tasks doesn&#39;t make them any less ALIVE.

Of course not, it just makes them not a part of human society and as such not entitled to its protections.


Are you suggesting that humans that cannot "participate" in human society have no value and should therefore be used as a resource?

Oh, the argument from marginal cases.

Just to run through it quickly, again, the mentally handicapped that are so seriously damaged as to be comparable to animals (the marginal cases, as it were) are afforded protections because, firstly, they are still human and as such are members of a community which is composed of rational actors; secondly, because these people are potential rational actors who are merely unable to excerzie their capacity; and thirdly, because the protection of such people is important to assure the protection of both potentiary rational actors (e.g., children) and former rational actors (e.g., the elderly).

The point is that there is a difference between capacity and being able to utilize that capacity. The mentally challanged are capable, they are just prevented from using that capacity by a debilitating medical condition.

And remember, most of the mentally challanged are still able to convieve of moral concepts. Most are able to distinguish right and wrong and make, at the very least, rudimentary ethical determinations. They are able to enter into rational dialogues and participate, at some level, in human society. No animal is&#33;

And even for those rare few who are entirely unable to rationaly think, almost universally, they are so disabled that they are barely even afforded rights; they are rather afforded protections.

That is, their humanity and relationship with the community makes them de facto members of society even if they are themselves unable to participate due to intervening circumstances.


And what do you consider participation in human society to be?

The ability to comprehend and rationalize human societal relationships.

Humans, overwhelmingly, are moral beings and live in complex societal interrelationships. The granting of rights by society directly accompanies the according of responsibilities. No animal can fulfill these responsiblites and therefore no animal can even be relied upon to obey even the most basic prohibitions of human society.

Humans live within a web of reciprocal rights and obligations created by our capacity for rational dialogue. We can distinguish between right and wrong, accept responsibility, and apportion blame. Animals cannot do so. It is by virtue of our participation within the human community that we have the protection of that community and by that virtue alone. Those creatures which are not part of society are, by definition, not members of it.

It stetches credulity to even imagine that a squirrel can be relied upon to equally participate in society. They simply can&#39;t. And any attempt to reconstitute rights to crowbar their inclusion can only harm society in general.


Well according to you animal experimentation is the ONLY way to further medical science

Not according to me, according to every expert in the field, including 97% of Nobel prize winners.


so within the next few days I hope you&#39;ll do humanity a favor and cart your beloved pet to the nearest lab

Why on earth would I do that?

One more dog isn&#39;t going ot make a difference and, again, I don&#39;t want to see my dog get hurt.

I think your problem here is that you&#39;re unable to seperate your emotions from your politics. I love my dog, I don&#39;t want to see her injured, but I&#39;m mature enough to recognize that that emotion should not impact public policy.

All the scientific evidence says that research on animals is nescessary for medical research to progress. I can&#39;t ignore that just cause it might make me "feel better".

Look, I get how tempting it is to imagine that vivisection is some enormous "conspiracy", but objective reality cannot be denied for the sake of emotion. There a lot of realistic improvements that can be made in the area of animal treatment, but abolishing vivisection is not one of them&#33;



We don&#39;t get valuable information from this shit, only useless studies and incorrect information.

This has really got to be one of the stupidest anti-vivisection lines around, but somehow it never seems to die.

I mean, do you honestly think that researchers are that stupid? That if you know about these physiological differences, they don&#39;t?

The only reason that you can point to these specific biological facts is because some animal researcher collected the data. Believe me, they&#39;re smart enough to know how to interpret it as well.

Different animals are used for different purposes, specifically because of biological differences between them.

And really, what&#39;s the alternative? Human testing&#33;? :o


We are advanced enough as a society to use alternative methods availabl

Such as?


Animal research hasn&#39;t gotten us any further

Oh yeah? Then how come, in your infancy, you got to be vaccintated against the measles and mumps and how come rabbies is no longer epidemic among dogs? How come polio been virtually eliminated as a serious threat?

How come? Because of animal testing.

That&#39;s right, if vivisection had not been done in the past, every single diabetic alive today would be dead. Even today, animal products are still used in making injectable insulin.

If you really believe that medical research on animals is "wrong", you are in effect condemnig millions and millions of people to death. These are people suffering from diseases that could potentially be cured in the next couple of decades. But none of that research will be done if we stop vivisective experimentation.

Again, I don&#39;t know if you know anyone with a serious illness, but if you do, chances are quite high that one of the procedures they will undergo will have been developed thanks to animal research?

Anethesia? Check.
Chemotherapy? Check.
Organ transplantation? Check.

There is simply no area of medicine today that has not been imeasurably improved thanks to experiments done on animals. It may seem "cruel" to you, but the facts of the situation cannot be denied. No matter how "cute" these animals may appear to you, their deaths have saved billions of human lives.

And in the grand scheme, that&#39;s far more important than a few dead rats.

[ichneumon]

You are confusing their "squirming" as "feeling pain" because you have humanised the insect.

actually, insects have the same pain receptors as humans do. what you believe about the subject is irrelevant. consider a mutant insect that can&#39;t feel pain - does this have survival value? no. believe what you like, but this is science and i&#39;m the scientific observer. besides, political goons are not known for their objectivity :P

to the point - i&#39;ve NEVER met a sadistic scientist. i&#39;ve met MANY who could not deal with animal experiments, who were haunted and damaged by what they had done, even though they KNOW it&#39;s for the benefit of all. it is not something that we do for FUN. get that through your heads. it&#39;s a horrible, nasty thing that has to be done because THERE IS NO OTHER WAY. it&#39;s also very expensive and time consuming, and it destroys and alienates perfectly good scientists. the animals are sacrified, but we also sacrifice a part of our humanity - and to the idiot hardcore socialists who think we should be robots and *like* doing it, bugger off. now.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by ichneumon
actually, insects have the same pain receptors as humans do.

That is an absolute scientific fallacy. Insects most definitely do not have a neurological and nervous system structure that facilitates the feeling of "pain".

Similar to humans?

Not even close.

Insects do not have nociceptors; which are absolutely necessary for feeling the sensation known as "pain".

Come on homes, don&#39;t you think a self professed "scientific observer" should know this?

After all, it&#39;s only remedial entemology.

Never mind jack, I highly doubt you even know what a nociceptor is, much less how it relates to the neurvous system.


consider a mutant insect that can&#39;t feel pain - does this have survival value? no. believe what you like, but this is science and i&#39;m the scientific observer

Science fiction is not classified as "science".

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 15 2006, 08:41 AM

I&#39;ll be honest with you. I was looking for an excuse to use some of the philosophy I learned in uni. I think I improved your second argument a bit (no offense to you).

As a holder of a minor degree in philosophy I recommend: forgetting the useless shit was ever invented.
Nah. Philosophy is important. Russell explains why quite eloquently.

[ichneumon]

In genetic screens for mutations that alter responses to noxious stimuli in Drosophila larvae, Daniel Tracey and his colleagues uncovered Painless, a TRPA (ankyrin-repeat TRP) subfamily member. Painless mutant larvae fail to avoid strong mechanical stimuli and heat. Although Painless is required for behavioral responses to robust prodding, responses to light touch are present in mutant larvae. Moreover, sensory nerves in wild-type larvae contain neurons that spike vigorously in response to temperatures >38°C; such activity is absent in painless mutants (Tracey et al., 2003Go). The painless gene is expressed in sensory neurons that extend multiple branched dendrites beneath the epidermis, similar to vertebrate nociceptors.

ref: Journal of Neuroscience paper (http://http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/24/42/9220)

they have analagous structures. science fiction indeed&#33;&#33; do try to keep up.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Exactly.

Science fiction indeed.

I&#39;ve actually read this whole study some time ago.

Have you?

The fly larvae in question are, for the most part, anomalies within the Insecta class of the Arthropoda phylum.

Your example fails to show that most, if not almost all, species within the arthropoda phylum do not have, even speculative, dendritic cellular activity; not that that would be an absolute indicator of universal TRPA nociceptive cellular activity anyway.

Period.

I suggest you run your examples by someone who knows what they say before posting them.

[Comeback Kid]

Lets not test on animals and test on the dolt that started this thread.