Europe bans Canadian seal products

[jayswin]

I usually don't have a sig, as I find them kind of distracting, but sometimes you find something that's too good to pass up.

[mmanzz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Nope, I am a vegan and I value an adult seal's life just as much as a baby's.
Maybe the people who lost work should not have over fished the Cod that they are whining are being eaten by the seal's. There was never a problem with nature before the hunt started was there? The Seal has just as much right to life as any other creature. Maybe we should have a human hunt as our numbers are extremely out of control. As for the people who lost their whopping $2300 income from butchering an innocent animal I say good, that's karma. Now get a real job!

What is your "real job"?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by flameswin

I usually don't have a sig, as I find them kind of distracting, but sometimes you find something that's too good to pass up.

There's a Star Trek Voyager episode where the crew is secretly experimented on by superior beings.

Those aliens did talk to the Voyager people when they were discovered.

PROOF!!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

You must have missed my post, Joe baught the farm actually. Your answer to the alien question is a total copout! The aliens won't be able to talk to you nor do they want to. You can talk to your fellow humans, big deal, cows can communicate with eachother as well. Saying this is where I draw the line is you basically saying it is different because I am a human and therefore no matter what only I as a human count. I gave you a perfect example of your view toward animals being used by putting you in the same situation they are and you dropped the ball with that answer because that answer contradicts your own argument. We can use the animals because we are superior to them as humans but if a superior race came and put us in that same position they would be in the wrong? How so? You can't have it both ways.

I fixed my post because I was posting it before you mentioned joe dying.

As for having it both ways with the Aliens. I'm not doing that at all.

I've set the bar at killing animals that are sentient, have culture.
Whether or not aliens can talk to us is irrelvent. They would be able to see that we are sentient and have culture. And by MY moral standards it would be wrong for them to kill us as we are above the threshold where I think killing members of a species is wrong.

But by THEIR standars it may not be. That's the thing about morals, they are not absolute.

What I'm saying is that I've clearly stated my morals, and given examples of how I abide by them myself. (I'll shoot a deer to eat, but not a coyote for fun). Whether or not others abide by my morals is irrelevant.

What I take issue with you about is that you have claimed to follow one set of morals, but have contradicted yourself several times. (You'll experiment on criminals to save a rat, but let 100 rats die to save a friend).

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

What I'm saying is that I've clearly stated my morals, and given examples of how I abide by them myself. (I'll shoot a deer to eat, but not a coyote for fun). Whether or not others abide by my morals is irrelevant.

What I take issue with you about is that you have claimed to follow one set of morals, but have contradicted yourself several times. (You'll experiment on criminals to save a rat, but let 100 rats die to save a friend).

Bumping an earlier argument of mine that was never addressed.

Originally Posted by Gozer

From where I'm sitting, you [dissintowner] appear to have no ideological base. You flounder from issue to issue and take the "purest" angle possible in any conflict of nature and society and wrap it up with dramatics and hyperbole.

[Boblobla]

I have no idea what I would be doing at work today was it not for this thread.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Suzles

Thalidomide was tested on pregnant rats and the deformities never occurred.

Before the children with deformed limbs were born?

Can you give me a link where it says this? (I've provided one that says otherwise).

Again, you're arguing against yourself. Now you're advocating multi-species trials.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Suzles

I suppose as well the real advantage to testing on humans is that they are capable of verbalising any side effects. Some of it must be guess work if an animal gets an itchy ear, or an intermittent stomach cramp, etc. And the main difference is that the human doesn't have to die at the end of the trial but the animal does.

Didn't you say that you used to euthanize animals?

What verbalisation or consent did you get from them that warranted them being put down?

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Didn't you say that you used to euthanize animals?

What verbalisation or consent did you get from them that warranted them being put down?

A deer with two missing front legs after being hit by a car. A hedgehog with a garden fork through its head. A badger nearly cut in half by a wire noose (bowels exposed and trailing). A fox with gangrene. That would be all the consent I would need don't you think?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Suzles

A deer with two missing front legs after being hit by a car. A hedgehog with a garden fork through its head. A badger nearly cut in half by a wire noose (bowels exposed and trailing). A fox with gangrene. That would be all the consent I would need don't you think?

Holy crap! You euthanize hedge hogs by stabbing them in the head with a garden fork!? You are dangerous.

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Before the children with deformed limbs were born?

Can you give me a link where it says this? (I've provided one that says otherwise).

Again, you're arguing against yourself. Now you're advocating multi-species trials.

Quote The original animal tests by Chemie Grünenthal did not show indications of this unexpected and serious side-effect. (10) Furthermore, in several European countries, including England and Sweden, the licensees of thalidomide carried out their own animal tests, independently from the German firm, and came to the same results as Chemie Grünenthal. (11) If the tests had predicted peripheral neuritis and if the firms acted upon the results in a responsible manner, the drug would not have been released in the first place and a major disaster would have been avoided.

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Again, you're arguing against yourself. Now you're advocating multi-species trials.

How come? I advocate for testing drugs on humans only. I keep saying that animal testing for humans is pointless.

[Gozer]

Suzles, is it your assertion that because one drug was not effectively screened in the 1950s, that is proof that testing on animals is "pointless"?

I haven't seen any other argument, and I find the conclusion off this single case to be specious.

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by peter12

Holy crap! You euthanize hedge hogs by stabbing them in the head with a garden fork!? You are dangerous.

Gosh. That is really funny. Ha Ha

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Suzles, is it your assertion that because one drug was not effectively screened in the 1950s, that is proof that testing on animals is "pointless"?

I haven't seen any other argument, and I find the conclusion off this single case to be specious.

For the thousands of people that were affected - absolutely. How many times would you want this sort of disaster to happen?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Suzles

For the thousands of people that were affected - absolutely. How many times would you want this sort of disaster to happen?

So you believe that the failure of a single test is worth the near infinite pain and misery of an official policy of testing medical treatments on prisoners?

Strange. You know, in my experience, catch-all answers are always wrong and overly simplistic.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Suzles

For the thousands of people that were affected - absolutely.

What alternative would you suggest? Not testing new drugs?
Only testing new drugs on people who volunteer for it, and holding back testing until there are sufficient human volunteers?

Originally Posted by Suzles

How many times would you want this sort of disaster to happen?

None, but - to me - this case suggests we should consider doing test on pregnant animals and other more thorough testing.

I don't get where you connect the "failed once" and the "pointless" dots.

[Suzles]

How many commercials are seen on US television asking for people to come forward (or for the family of the deceased) as a result of death or serious illness after taking FDA approved drugs? These drugs were all approved for use in humans as a result of testing on animals.

[CaptainCrunch]

Thalidomide was more of a result of sloppy science then anything else. They did animal testing and the birth deformity issues never came up because they didn't test the drug on pregnant animals.

Once the drug was pulled off of the market and tested on pregnant animals the birth defects were identified in the test animals.

The error would have happened on human test subjects using the sloppy methods used to initially test the drug because they wouldn't have tested on human pregnant females.

The Thalidomide issue was more based on lax regulations and poor testing methods as oppossed to the failure of using animals to test drugs.

What the Thalidomide situation does is call for more thourough testing of drugs which would in effect call for the use of more animal experimentation and not less.

[FlamingLonghorn]

this thread amuses me...