Europe bans Canadian seal products

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I think this is in response to my "anything other than human is fair game."

I'm not saying that I go around killing anything I please because its beneath me, I'm saying that the only hard-and-fast rule would be no killing people. If a cute puppy and I are stranded on a desert island, and I know I'll be rescued if I get one more meal, bad news for Spot.

Yep and no matter whether you believe in evolution or creationism or a combo of both they would all have us at the top of the food chain. And no all sides would be completely intolerant of those who advocated the killing of humans.

[LGA]

Originally Posted by ok, ok,....I get it

not according to wikipedia (which could be wrong)

Thalidomide was said to have been developed by German pharmaceutical company Grünenthal in Stolberg (Rhineland) near Aachen, although this claim has recently been challenged. A report published by Dr Martin W Johnson, director of the Thalidomide Trust in the UK, detailed evidence that suggested the drug had been developed under the direction of a Nazi scientist in 1944, as an antidote to nerve gases such as sarin, ten years before Grünenthal secured a patent in 1954.[8] Thalidomide was found to act as an effective tranquiliser and painkiller and was proclaimed as a "wonder drug" for insomnia, coughs, colds and headaches. It was also found to be an effective antiemetic which had an inhibitory effect on morning sickness, and so thousands of pregnant women took the drug to relieve their symptoms.[4] At the time of the drug's development it was not thought likely that any drug could pass from the mother across the placental barrier and harm the developing foetus.[7]

Here are some none Wiki sources (just so whoever can't say that Wiki is easily edited)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle5683577.ece
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-23289,00.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/News_0007...l_weapons.html

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

EXACTLY!! Now when I gave that same answer why was that not ok? Still waiting for someone to tackle my superior race question.

No, not exactly.

You see, there is no right answer in the 1 person vs 2 person example because it depends on how you assign value to the lives.

You've already stated that you assign EQUAL value to all lives.
So logically it should come down to a numbers game for you should it not?

As for the superior race question. That's another case of where you draw the line on what life has greater value.

Most peole will agree that human life has a greater value mostly based on the fact that we are sentient, and have developed culture so it is wrong to mistreat other people. Technological superiority doesn't factor in at all, as it is no more acceptable to do cruel things to natives in the Amazon as it is to someone here in Calgary.
This is to some degree transfered to animals that are similar to us, as most people think it is wrong to kill chimps.

Cows are dumb, so we think that's okay.

The point is that we all draw the line somewhere and that line is based on the preceived value of a species.

You CLAIM that you do not see any distiction in the value of different species, yet if you would rather let a train run over 100 rats than 1 person, then it's safe to assume that you do in fact value different species differently.

Not to mention the fact that you obviously differntialt the value of members of your own species, based on criminal record.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by LGA

I still don't agree with your stance. I view homo sapiens as superior to other species because we have free will and enough brain power to actually make full use (and then some) of our environment.

That's what seperates us from the other little beasties, we, as a species are able to live above our environmental standard. As such, we might not be entitled to all the stuff we get, but we can damn well take it.

I don't agree with killing animals just for certain parts (pelts, tusks, fins) and I don't agree with completely unmanaged collection of resources (shark finning is getting very out of hand, the overuse and destruction of rainforest) but if it's manageable and if animal is used in its entirety (or at least close) I see no reason we can't slaughter, devour and harvest animals.

Good post and I like your stance and I am not opposed to what you say, I am opposed to the commercial mistreatment of animals and the forced use of them for medical experiments to better our species when I feel there is a better alternative that actually benefits our society financially. I know, OMG I am talking about doing those things to murderers but their still human beings and they have rights. No they don't! They gave up being a part of being a valued human being when they did what they did. Any person who does something like rape and murder someone should be fair game because they are NOT a human in my eyes anymore, they are a monster and a burden to society.

[Jayems]

I've always wondered if some people get all worked up when driving on the highway on a summers day and kill 5,000 bugs.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

ok, 1 person vs 100 rats, either way nobody wins. Do I know the person? Even though I believe every life form is equal I am still a selfish human and I admit it. If I know them then I will pick the person. What does said person contribute to society? If I felt more lives could be saved or his work benefited the planet then I would save him. If those do not apply I would let him eat train and save the rats. The rats are not going to litter, commit crimes against society and the earth. 1 rats life > then one criminal human doing nothing but burdening society. That's the way I see it and most don't agree and that's fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

No one said anything about a criminal, let's say it's just aveage joe construction worker.
You don't know him.
Rats, or Joe?

[LGA]

Originally Posted by Jayems

I've always wondered if some people get all worked up when driving on the highway on a summers day and kill 5,000 bugs.

I sure do, but that's because I realize I'll have to wash them off and some of those things don't want to come off.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Jayems

I've always wondered if some people get all worked up when driving on the highway on a summers day and kill 5,000 bugs.

I assume there's a couple posters that would get out and shoo them away before proceeding.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by Jayems

I've always wondered if some people get all worked up when driving on the highway on a summers day and kill 5,000 bugs.

hey it's not my fault they commit suicide on my windshield

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

No, not exactly.

You see, there is no right answer in the 1 person vs 2 person example because it depends on how you assign value to the lives.

You've already stated that you assign EQUAL value to all lives.
So logically it should come down to a numbers game for you should it not?

As for the superior race question. That's another case of where you draw the line on what life has greater value.

Not to mention the fact that you obviously differntialt the value of members of your own species, based on criminal record.

No, because in the superior race question the aliens are superior to us kind of like you claim we are to cows, thus you should really have no objection to them doing medical experiments on you and your family. You can try and fight back but you will fail because they are superior to us, just like we are to cows right? So by the view that we are superior to cows the aliens would be just in doing their experiments on us by your argument correct? As for the criminal record your darn right I do. People serving life sentences with no chance at parole might as well do something to contribute to society now that they have taken something from it and are just sucking up tax payers money. They are monsters, not people.

[transplant99]

Here is an ethical question then...

If you have a child whom, god forbid, falls prey to a disease/ailment that causes death without treatment. Treatment that was developed through the use on animals.

Do you or do you not allow the treatment to be allowed on your child?

Where I sit, and i think i can safely speak for about 99.999% of the population when i say it is a no brainer and you get that teatment going immediately. Animal activists SHOULD do exactly the same thing as well...and not ONLY because of their love for their child but because the human race WAS superior enough to come up with said treatment even if it was tested on animals. Yes or no?

And yes diss....the human race is superior to that of any animal population on earth. Thats how nature works. The smarter, bigger, and faster win at EVERY level of nature when it comes to animals. Thats why you see cheetahs chasing down gazelles, thats why you see wolves hunting in packs to devour an elk, and its why you see schools of sharks swimming together in the pursuit of the thousands of fish they eat everyday. Christ..there are species of animals that eat each other. Some eat their own children.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

I know not everyone agrees with eachother on this issue, for me as an animal rights advocate(not PETA, they are idiots) this is a great day for our seals.

I'm curious, where do you disagree with PETA? Because you sound pretty much in lock-step with them.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

No one said anything about a criminal, let's say it's just aveage joe construction worker.
You don't know him.
Rats, or Joe?

Neither, I would try to save them both. If I cannot, bye bye joe, whadda ya know.

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by LGA

Here are some none Wiki sources (just so whoever can't say that Wiki is easily edited)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle5683577.ece
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-23289,00.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/News_0007...l_weapons.html

Thank you for that. I had not seen those news reports from February this year. They do use the words 'probably' and 'may' so not conclusive. The whole point is that the drug was tested on animals and approved for use on humans as a result. Thousands of children were born with the most terrible deformities. It is one of the most tragic stories of the last century.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I'm curious, where do you disagree with PETA? Because you sound pretty much in lock-step with them.

PETA are hypocrites, PETA are opposed to anyone killing animals in any way, I am not. I have stated this many times, eat your meat, I am ok with it, it is the manner in which the animal is treated and slaughtered that I am opposed to. PETA make crap up, they whine and take no action. Now the ALF, there is a group I do fully support! Yes, my hero's wear masks.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Suzles

It was developed by the Germans (not the Nazis) and was available in the late 1950's to early 1960's. In ALL the animal testing done there were never any abnormalities in offspring. Children were however born with terrible deformities. It was this drug that set in motion the current anti animal testing lobby to this day. http://www.thalidomide.ca/en/informa...alidomide.html

It was EXACTLY what I was talking about. If it wasn't what you were talking about then I don't know what to say. Let some of the worst of the criminal element be given the chance to redeem some of themselves by volunteering for drug testing.

I wonder if you have really thought that through. Sounds like bravado to me. Heard it all before.

So 1 example if its a real example, that outdoes the 100's of breakthroughs, if not 1000's, that have led to life saving medicines, procedures, and deepened our understanding scientifically?

Also just to gauge you, if you knew you had a life threatening disease and knew the medicine to save you had been extensively used on animals first would you object?

We are still far away from having real viable options to animal testing for most science research, the vivo/invitro is still far from being a replacement, computer models are far from being ready to be anywhere close to replacing the data from animal research.

Don't forget not all animal testing is hurting them, a lot of it is also research we use to improve not just our lives but benefits the planet. There's a great show on Discovery called weird connections that shows us how researching a duck's quack leads to improved sonar that can help firefighters save lives.

No scientist wants to harm animals, animal testing is only done under strict rules, regulations, and monitored by many groups.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Suzles

Animal experiments are pointless - my one word answer as always in this is Thalidomide.

Your one word answer is pointless considering it wasn't tested on pregnant animals. The simple answer is the testing wasn't comprehensive or thorugh enough.

Again, I ask the question. Do you or have you ever knowingly taken prescription medication that's been tested on animals?

The staggering fact, fully documented by the subsequent investigations, is that Thalidomide was never tested on pregnant animals before being given to pregnant women. By modern standards this seems almost insane, but back in the 1950s we knew so much less about the side effects of drugs. When the first report of Thalidomide being linked to deformities in babies was published, researchers tested the drug on the standard laboratory animal of the day, the New Zealand white rabbit. The offspring were born with exactly the same type of deformities. The moral of this story is that if they had done more animal testing before giving the drug to people, there would never have been any Thalidomide babies.

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000054DD.htm

So... in essence everytime you give your one word answer you're advocating for more comprehensive, thorough animal testing. You're arguing against yourself.

[loob job]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

No, because in the superior race question the aliens are superior to us kind of like you claim we are to cows, thus you should really have no objection to them doing medical experiments on you and your family. You can try and fight back but you will fail because they are superior to us, just like we are to cows right? So by the view that we are superior to cows the aliens would be just in doing their experiments on us by your argument correct? As for the criminal record your darn right I do. People serving life sentences with no chance at parole might as well do something to contribute to society now that they have taken something from it and are just sucking up tax payers money. They are monsters, not people.

The aliens????? this thread is outta control. Why people get so fired up about animals is beyond me.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

No, because in the superior race question the aliens are superior to us kind of like you claim we are to cows, thus you should really have no objection to them doing medical experiments on you and your family.

There's a fundamental flaw in that theory. I'm ok with cows or rabbits or rats objecting to testing, I just don't value their objection over the tests.

Originally Posted by dissentowner

You can try and fight back but you will fail because they are superior to us, just like we are to cows right? So by the view that we are superior to cows the aliens would be just in doing their experiments on us by your argument correct?

Pretty much.

They would do their experiments and we would hate it, but (if this superior race was benefiting from the tests) they wouldn't care.

If the experiments are of no benefit to the superior race, I would hope and expect them to stop (a standard I would also apply to animal testing)

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

No, because in the superior race question the aliens are superior to us kind of like you claim we are to cows, thus you should really have no objection to them doing medical experiments on you and your family. You can try and fight back but you will fail because they are superior to us, just like we are to cows right? So by the view that we are superior to cows the aliens would be just in doing their experiments on us by your argument correct? As for the criminal record your darn right I do. People serving life sentences with no chance at parole might as well do something to contribute to society now that they have taken something from it and are just sucking up tax payers money. They are monsters, not people.

No, by my argument, I've clearly drawn the line on what is okay to kill and what isn't.

To me things I can eat and can't talk back are okay to kill.
People aren't. So to say it's wrong for aliens to come kill me isn't contradictory to what I've said as it fits nicely into the realm of:

Killing cows = okay
Killing People = not okay

I've stated my position, and I'm sticking to it. Why I draw that line. Is irrelevant.

Why you CLAIM all live is equal isn't the bone of contention, and so is also not relevant.
What I'm contending is that even though you Claim all life is EQUAL, you have clearly given several contrdictions that show you do not think that.

Joe construction worker vs Rats

My belifes it's an easy choice as the value of Joe construction worker is always higher than rats.

You claim 1 rat = 1 Joe
Therefore shouldn't it be true that
100 rats > 1 Joe?

Yet you chose Joe to live. (well you didn't let joe live, but you let your friend live, so it's still valid, and may still be valid for joe if you answer the second part. How many rats in the cage untill you let Joe live?)

My statements have been completely compaitble with my stated belifes that people are superior to animals and are above the threshold of being okay to kill be it by people or aliens.

you've clrealy contradicted your statement that all beings are equal.