Political Crossfire Forums

anselfir · Joined: 16 Apr 2005 Posts: 23116 Location: ZzZzZzZz

well, the opposition argument is based on some osrt of pity or whatever cutsy bleh bleh. teh actual number of animals used is very very small, so no argument about destruction of blah blah. so yes.

Infinite911911 · Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:48 pm Post subject:

oneofthem wrote: well, the opposition argument is based on some osrt of pity or whatever cutsy bleh bleh. teh actual number of animals used is very very small, so no argument about destruction of blah blah. so yes.

Yay!!! For not knowing what your talking about! As many as 115 million animals are experimented on and killed in laboratories in the U.S. every year. Is that a small number to you? And remeber, that's just the U.S.

George W Bush · Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:13 pm Post subject:

someone mentioned Mengle. I think thats valid.
This is a smaller scale Halocaust.
Killing animals for the purpose of a "superior" race of beings.
Hitler did think himself the superior race, and someone in another thread mentioned "animals dont have rights",
and, what a coincidence, Hitler thought the same about non-aryans!
GO FIGURE.

Infinite911911 · Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:26 pm Post subject:

George W Bush wrote: someone mentioned Mengle. I think thats valid.
This is a smaller scale Halocaust.
Killing animals for the purpose of a "superior" race of beings.
Hitler did think himself the superior race, and someone in another thread mentioned "animals dont have rights",
and, what a coincidence, Hitler thought the same about non-aryans!
GO FIGURE.

and yet at least 19 people here (latest vote count) are "blind" to the facts...

Kumar · Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 16662 Location: Lisbon

Of course I support it. Humans are more important than animals.

Infinite911911 · Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject:

Rohit wrote: Of course I support it. Humans are more important than animals.

Humans are animals. A human life is no different then an animal life. We are all one in the eyes of God/Nature.

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

I would really like one of the people here that do not want animal testing of any kind, including medicine, to go up to someone with AIDS and tell them that tehy should die so that some rats or monkeys don't have to. Listen to yourselves, you are saying that animals are more important than humans. THAT IS SICK.

Kumar · Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 16662 Location: Lisbon

Infinite911911 wrote: Rohit wrote: Of course I support it. Humans are more important than animals.

Humans are animals. A human life is no different then an animal life. We are all one in the eyes of God/Nature.
It is abnormal to assign equal value to all species. If you want to go down that road, then how dare we kill millions of bacteria a day. We are all mass murderers.

Anyways, it makes me uncomfortable that you would risk the lives of humans by injecting them with untested drugs because we can't hurt Mr. Bananas.

Canada_Rocks · Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 9046 Location: Vancouver

TNBiologist wrote: I would really like one of the people here that do not want animal testing of any kind, including medicine, to go up to someone with AIDS and tell them that tehy should die so that some rats or monkeys don't have to. Listen to yourselves, you are saying that animals are more important than humans. THAT IS SICK.

Tell ya what. they are working on a cure for aids...go nuts. Just don't squirt some Pert Plus into amonkeys eyes to see if it stings or not.

Canada_Rocks · Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 9046 Location: Vancouver

Infinite911911 wrote: Rohit wrote: Of course I support it. Humans are more important than animals.

Humans are animals. A human life is no different then an animal life. We are all one in the eyes of God/Nature.

WTF. I would have never guessed you felt that way. I am touched. We have some common ground afterall.

Let's all join hands and sing "we are the world" :wink:

Canadian_Patriot · Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 323

Humans are superior or we otherwise would'nt dominate or world and beyond . We are the most adaptable and the most intellegent we won the genetic arms race. If animals were our equalls they would have guns and technology too and they don't.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5633 Location: Fulton, Ks

Canadian_Patriot wrote: Humans are superior or we otherwise would'nt dominate or world and beyond . We are the most adaptable and the most intellegent we won the genetic arms race. If animals were our equalls they would have guns and technology too and they don't. Actually the exact opposite could be claimed. We have responsibilities and stuff while animals have the common sense to do what they want when they want :-D

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11171 Location: Podunk, Colorado

George W Bush wrote: someone mentioned Mengle. I think thats valid.
This is a smaller scale Halocaust.
Killing animals for the purpose of a "superior" race of beings.
Hitler did think himself the superior race, and someone in another thread mentioned "animals dont have rights",
and, what a coincidence, Hitler thought the same about non-aryans!
GO FIGURE.
Don't even go there. Animals are animals. they don't compare to humans.
What Hitler did was absolute evil, what humans are doing to animals is nurture.

If animals testing benefits man kind, I am all for it. It serves a definite purpose. I doubt people would like a medicine that wasn't tested and kills it first human test subjects, its better for a rat to die than a human.

I am against animal cruelty though.

Infinite911911
Quote: Humans are animals. A human life is no different then an animal life. We are all one in the eyes of God/Nature.
The Bible also says man has a right to "subdue" nature.

Canada_Rocks · Joined: 07 Jan 2005 Posts: 9046 Location: Vancouver

The Underground wrote: Canadian_Patriot wrote: Humans are superior or we otherwise would'nt dominate or world and beyond . We are the most adaptable and the most intellegent we won the genetic arms race. If animals were our equalls they would have guns and technology too and they don't. Actually the exact opposite could be claimed. We have responsibilities and stuff while animals have the common sense to do what they want when they want :-D

If only genetics, life and biology believed it was in an arms race......

And to think that Life, biology and genetics thought in terms of idiot neo-conservatives.....arms race :lol: I always thought it was an equilibrium.

Back to alberta wtih you Canadian patriot :lol:

Canadian_Patriot · Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 323

First of all I don't live in Alberta second I am neither left of right I have my own opinions and equilibrium is hardly what i would call our situation as a planet.

Every Living being has it's purpose and it's own responsibilities. We create our own stress and responsibilities to push forward and continue. If an animal cannot self sustain and adapt then it is simply not strong enough to survive in a harsh world.

We are at war with nature and a genetic arms race is on we constantly change grow and evolve all life does. the fact we even exist is in itself again'st all odds yet hear we are. humans are physically superior to a lot of animals and the ones we aren't we can hit it with a bullet or an arrow.

we could never match a lion in combat it's natural weaponry is to strong for us to over come but with a gun or bow we can easily out match a lion. A spider however due to it's size is not a match for our feet but some spider have strong enough venom to easily kill a grown man if they bite us. We have ingenuity on our side and the means to make tools and technology and with those on out side we can easily best even the largest creatures or better yet the entire planet. we have in our power the ability to destroy almost every life form on the planet.

As for the Hitler and holocaust remark we fought back again'st Hitler and won if he was superior he could have won but he wasn't and he lost.

Animal holocaust my ass we aren't wiping life out just merely monopolizing it for the sake of food and other goods. Cows and beef are a perfect example they serve their purpose to feed us and we breed them to ensure that species survival. If i were a holocaust we would be exterminating.

Holocaust hardly, monopolization and and farming yes. We farm and harvest our goods and that means to kill an inferior being to live then so be it.

It is not survival of the fittest or the smartest but the most adaptable and we are definatly adaptable and smartest.

revolution_reversal · Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:38 am Post subject:

Sorry, much of animal testing is useless. As well I beleive in the concept of consent, so no animal can give that, therefore I think its up to humans to save themselves. Most diseases coemf rom domestication and sedentary life therefore its our own fault not the animals.

Canadian_Patriot · Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 323

You think animals are the only ones who get experimented on by governments.

Just after the Korean war when troops returned home they started handing out commie pamphlets and behaving irradically. the CIA picked up on this and said I wonder if we can do this. that was the beginning of project MK Ultra which was a study to see what chemicals did what to the brain and what chemicals could be used for mind control and truth syrums etc.

The tuskegee experiment dealt with giveing black men in the southwest syphilis. this was done to see how they would die, how long it took to spread,

In total from all experimentation done on civilians in the U.S. totals about half a million. Now these days they test on mass population in remote jungles in south america and in other remote corners of civilization so people don't know about it so they don't question it.

What about human rights where are they.

Kumar · Joined: 21 Jul 2004 Posts: 16662 Location: Lisbon

revolution_reversal wrote: Sorry, much of animal testing is useless. As well I beleive in the concept of consent, so no animal can give that, therefore I think its up to humans to save themselves. Most diseases coemf rom domestication and sedentary life therefore its our own fault not the animals.
hehe, domestication successfully built up immunity in Europeans to diseases carried by most of these animals. Contact with these pathogens is a fact of life according to necessity.

But please, answer this question. You have no moral qualms with injecting patients with untested, potentially lethal drugs because it would hurt your sensibilities to inject a rat with it?

Lost_In_Ambivelence · Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 108 Location: USA

Rohit wrote: But please, answer this question. You have no moral qualms with injecting patients with untested, potentially lethal drugs because it would hurt your sensibilities to inject a rat with it?

I actually support this. I think this would lead to pharmas only doing life saving research rather that just cosmetic crap. Think, if you were told that you might have bigger boobs but the stuff was untested and you might die, would you do it? However, if someone said, you have AIDS and have about 6 months to live. We have a new drug that might cure it but we don't know the side effects. The person would likely go for it. It would allow people to show how much they really want something.

This is not to say that I think animals and humans are the same. I just think that it would direct research dollars where it is best spent, saving lives and not into making 30 year olds look 27.

revolution_reversal · Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 10:22 am Post subject:

Rohit wrote: revolution_reversal wrote: Sorry, much of animal testing is useless. As well I beleive in the concept of consent, so no animal can give that, therefore I think its up to humans to save themselves. Most diseases coemf rom domestication and sedentary life therefore its our own fault not the animals.
hehe, domestication successfully built up immunity in Europeans to diseases carried by most of these animals. Contact with these pathogens is a fact of life according to necessity.

But please, answer this question. You have no moral qualms with injecting patients with untested, potentially lethal drugs because it would hurt your sensibilities to inject a rat with it?

Did the person give their consent?