Europe bans Canadian seal products

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think I prefer Tower.

Your too funny, all you have is personal attacks over and over. You have your views, I have mine. You don't like mine, too freakin bad. You want to sit behind a computer screen and slag me, go ahead. Have at er and make me laugh some more.

[MelBridgeman]

would you disown your son if he clubbed a seal..

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think you are mistaking hostility for our human bewilderment and rational outrage. You know, it's like we are a bunch of barking dogs. We're upset about something. You understand that example, right?

I don't find anything rational about your outrage anymore then you see any rationality to mine. The thread has become pointless except to hammer at eachother at this point. You have your views, I have mine, end of story.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

would you disown your son if he clubbed a seal..

my son would never do that, he has been taught better then that.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Do you know how many tests fail because they show great signs in those animals but fail when they are finally tested on a person? I understand where your coming from but look at both sides, how do you know that if all that research money had been used to test on life serving criminals that the advances would not be greater then what we have? The cure for cancer, even longer life expectancy, more modern medical miracles? You don't.

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier in the thread.

Testing on animals is torture, so its not worth the medical advancements to torture living beings. I get that angle, I don't agree with it but I get it. Life is sacred.
But then you turn around with this garbage, where humans should be subjected to torture and death in the pursuit of medical advancement.

How do you reconcile that with your Life is Sacred foundation? If I have mischaracterized your views, what are your basic principles?

From where I'm sitting, you 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.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

See, that right there is the crux of our arguments.
If you honestly can't see the difference between the value of a human life and a rat then you are seriously messed up.

Here's a little thought experiment.

You're standing next to a railroad switch. You can't stop the train, but you can send it down one of two tracks.
On one track is a person tied down, on the other is a cage or rats.

Now please don't go ahead and tell me it's a ridiculous example, because that is the point.

How many rats would have to be in the cage before you sent the train down the track with the person?
Me, I don't care how many rats there are, they're gonna get it.
You, according to the values you claim to adhere to, all it takes is two rats, hell even with 1 rat it's a coin flip which track you send it down.

Now replace the rats with kittens?
Baby Seals?
Cows?
Panda?

Does your answer change?

what if you relace the person with all of the Pandas in the world, but there are twice as many rats? Are they all still equal?

Damn, logic sure is a tough habit to kick.

In a nutshell, no matter what the outcome it is tragic. I would mourn the rat but save the person, The choice is simply preference on who I want to save but the rats death would still make me feel horrible, the better choice is not to send the train at all. I would save the Pandas over the rats, again either way it's a tragedy but your talking about extinction for the pandas vs twice as many rats still leaving millions of rats. Their species would survive. No matter what the right answer is hopefully to stop the train either way.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Gozer

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier in the thread.

Testing on animals is torture, so its not worth the medical advancements to torture living beings. I get that angle, I don't agree with it but I get it. Life is sacred.
But then you turn around with this garbage, where humans should be subjected to torture and death in the pursuit of medical advancement.

How do you reconcile that with your Life is Sacred foundation? If I have mischaracterized your views, what are your basic principles?

From where I'm sitting, you 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.

Ok, we were all in agreement we need to do said experiments for the better of medicine correct? Now if you understand that I see all living beings as equal what are you not getting about if we MUST do these experiments for the betterment of survival and quality of life for humans then why should innocent animals of a different species suffer for our benefit when we are housing murderers and spending millions of dollars to keep them in relative good living conditions to just rot in prison. What good are they doing?? Why should they not pay that price, why should an animal that has not done anything but has the unfortunate fate of being caught?

[malcolmk14]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

In a nutshell, no matter what the outcome it is tragic. I would mourn the rat but save the person, The choice is simply preference on who I want to save but the rats death would still make me feel horrible, the better choice is not to send the train at all. I would save the Pandas over the rats, again either way it's a tragedy but your talking about extinction for the pandas vs twice as many rats still leaving millions of rats. Their species would survive. No matter what the right answer is hopefully to stop the train either way.

So... all lives are created equal... sort of... with exceptions?

[dissentowner]

Let me put it this way then. A superior race to ours discovers earth, they are more advanced then us. They start herding humans into camps with improper food and rough treatment, people sleeping in their own feces to do medical experiments on them. What the majority of peoples arguments here should lead to is that because said aliens are more advanced then us that we have no argument against these aliens because they are more advanced and therefore these experiments done on our race our justified. Correct?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by malcolmk14

So... all lives are created equal... sort of... with exceptions?

no exceptions, you put a no win scenario. I made choice by preference. Here, I will do the same for your point of view. A little boy is on one track, a little girl on the other. Choose! Not really fair huh? There is no good choice.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Let me put it this way then. A superior race to ours discovers earth, they are more advanced then us. They start herding humans into camps with improper food and rough treatment, people sleeping in their own feces to do medical experiments on them. What the majority of peoples arguments here should lead to is that because said aliens are more advanced then us that we have no argument against these aliens because they are more advanced and therefore these experiments done on our race our justified. Correct?

I think that's Battlefield Earth, L Ron.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

I think that's Battlefield Earth, L Ron.

Is it? Movie or a book?

[dissentowner]

regardless what everyone thinks this has been a pretty good discussion, I got hot a dew times and so did others but there are some great posts in here. Thanks for all the points of view, even yours Peter.

[Suzles]

Animal experiments are pointless - my one word answer as always in this is Thalidomide. And can you truly say that if Robert Pickton volunteered to be a drug tester and could help to find a cure for cancer you wouldn't let him? Are you all organ donors? What animal would or wouldn't you eat? How do YOU distinguish between the species?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Suzles

Animal experiments are pointless

Explain.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Suzles

What animal would or wouldn't you eat? How do YOU distinguish between the species?

When an animal can look me in the eye and say "please don't eat me" I'll stop.

If it was a cow, I'd have to think about it though.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

In a nutshell, no matter what the outcome it is tragic. I would mourn the rat but save the person, The choice is simply preference on who I want to save but the rats death would still make me feel horrible, the better choice is not to send the train at all. I would save the Pandas over the rats, again either way it's a tragedy but your talking about extinction for the pandas vs twice as many rats still leaving millions of rats. Their species would survive. No matter what the right answer is hopefully to stop the train either way.

So there you go, you DON'T think all life is equal.
If you did the answer would be to let the pandas die, or if there were more than 1 rat to letthe person die, but in both instances you let the rats die. Why? I thought they were equals in your mind. So logically if they are equal, the death of half as many people or pandas should be your choice should it not?

Now to bring it back to your original stance.
How do you reconcile this thought experiment with testing drugs?

You chose to let the rats die over the person, yet when it comes to testing drugs, you chose a person, granted a convicted criminal, but should that matter.

Now let's explore some of your contrdictions:

You've clearly stated that all living thigns are equal yet you made the following exceptions:

1) endangered pandas are at least twice as imporant as rats
2) people are to some degree (again you avoided a question by not telling me how many rats it would take before you let the person die) more important than rats when tied to rail road tracks
3) Rats are more important than convicted criminals (last time I checked criminals are still living beings)

You've also stated that we are arrogant and primitive for assuming that we are any better than other living creatures you you yourself have implicitly stated that you have a greater right to life than a convicted criminal, as do rats.

You've made a few comments about playing god, yet you see no conflict with this belief when determining which people are of lesser value than test rats?

Please help me understand the vegan "logic" behind these contradictions.

[LGA]

I need to bring back the old T-Shirts I was designing.

Save a Penguin...
Club a Seal

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

When an animal can look me in the eye and say "please don't eat me" I'll stop.

If it was a cow, I'd have to think about it though.

I think you have read too much Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy,lol.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

no exceptions, you put a no win scenario. I made choice by preference. Here, I will do the same for your point of view. A little boy is on one track, a little girl on the other. Choose! Not really fair huh? There is no good choice.

Except in that case it is purely qualitative.
1 girl vs 1 boy.

in my example if you truely value all life equally, then it is purely quantitative. 1 living being (a person in this case) vs say 100 living beings (rats).

Yet you chose to let those rats die when the options were fewer people or fewer pandas.