Europe bans Canadian seal products

[valo403]

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.

So what happens when we think we've discovered a wonder drug, let's say a cure for cancer, but we need to do trials on a couple thousand people to make sure it won't have drastic side affects. And let's say this happens fairly often, seeing as the success rate for pharmaceuticals is pretty low. Do we expand that to people convicted of lesser crimes? I mean they're morally culpable to right? Do we assign a lower status to certain social groups as well?

Do you even grasp the magnitude of what you are proposing? What an absolute ridiculous display of naivete.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by 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.

Good post. I would save my son in a second with the medicine even though I am opposed to how said medicine was found. A person can be against guns for example but if one is in reach and someone is trying to kill them I am betting they try to use it. I just think there are better alternatives then animals and because 99% of people do believe human life no matter what is greater then an animals they think it's twisted and that's fine, I don't though.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by valo403

Do you even grasp the magnitude of what you are proposing? What an absolute ridiculous display of naivete.

This. A thousand times this.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

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

That's the point of the question though, you can't save both.

So okay, we know you'd rather let Joe die than 100 rats.
So where is the threshold for letting the rats die?
2?

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

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Good post. I would save my son in a second with the medicine even though I am opposed to how said medicine was found. A person can be against guns for example but if one is in reach and someone is trying to kill them I am betting they try to use it. I just think there are better alternatives then animals and because 99% of people do believe human life no matter what is greater then an animals they think it's twisted and that's fine, I don't though.

so if you were starving and the only food you could get was spam you would eat it?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

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.

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.

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.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

They are monsters, not people.

Yeah, but since when to things have to be people to be just as important as people? If a rat and a person are equal, a monster and a person should also be equal.

Just saying.

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by Bagor

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?

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.

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

I have been offered medicine for a thyroid deficiency which is made from pig thyroid. I have turned that down. I would not take Premarin if it was ever offered - one of Canada's most shameful secrets. I use the internet for research. So, no. I use salicylic acid for aches and pains. A very old remedy. My dog even takes herbal medicines - myrtle for her eyes - in non-gelatin capsules. So much animal testing is pointless - from cutting up frogs in biology class to LD50.

I will follow my father's example from my previous post if I ever find myself seriously ill. Perhaps that is where I differ from some other people. I truly do not consider myself superior or better than any other living being. I would sacrifice myself for others.

[Gozer]

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

this all seems to be going in circles.....

meh, better than talking about the Flames.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by valo403

So what happens when we think we've discovered a wonder drug, let's say a cure for cancer, but we need to do trials on a couple thousand people to make sure it won't have drastic side affects. And let's say this happens fairly often, seeing as the success rate for pharmaceuticals is pretty low. Do we expand that to people convicted of lesser crimes? I mean they're morally culpable to right? Do we assign a lower status to certain social groups as well?

Do you even grasp the magnitude of what you are proposing? What an absolute ridiculous display of naivete.

Do you have any idea how many prisoners are doing life on this planet. You are not gonna run out anytime soon. Ro answer 4x4, no they are not equal. That person has taken a life for no good reason other then to satisfy their need for revenge or to satisfy their anger or what have you. IMO that person forfeited their life.

[dissentowner]

there are 128,000 people doing life in the States alone.

[Gozer]

edit: attacking a poster

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Lay off the personal ok? If you have something relevant to say then say it! Don't get this thread locked as we have some good debate here!

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by valo403

So what happens when we think we've discovered a wonder drug, let's say a cure for cancer, but we need to do trials on a couple thousand people to make sure it won't have drastic side affects. And let's say this happens fairly often, seeing as the success rate for pharmaceuticals is pretty low. Do we expand that to people convicted of lesser crimes? I mean they're morally culpable to right? Do we assign a lower status to certain social groups as well?

Do you even grasp the magnitude of what you are proposing? What an absolute ridiculous display of naivete.

We currently have programs where someone can participate in drug trials in return for money. Why not expand this so that convicts can participate in exchange for reduced sentence time? And if any drug shows actual promise at, say, curing cancer, there will be no shortage of individuals signing up to participate. Trials are simply not a problem. It's the actual drug development, where a) unsuccessful tests are often fatal; b) studies often need to look at inheritance and genetics, which takes months in rats rather than decades in humans; c) researchers need to be able to control every element of a subject's development from birth. It's not a matter of whether the research would be more ethical on human subjects, it's that the research would be impossible.

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

Originally Posted by dissentowner

there are 128,000 people doing life in the States alone.

but how many animals are there in shelters........?

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by valo403

So what happens when we think we've discovered a wonder drug, let's say a cure for cancer, but we need to do trials on a couple thousand people to make sure it won't have drastic side affects. And let's say this happens fairly often, seeing as the success rate for pharmaceuticals is pretty low. Do we expand that to people convicted of lesser crimes? I mean they're morally culpable to right? Do we assign a lower status to certain social groups as well?

Do you even grasp the magnitude of what you are proposing? What an absolute ridiculous display of naivete.

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.

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

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Lay off the personal ok? If you have something relevant to say then say it!

I thought he did

[4X4]

dissentowner 56
Gozer 22
Bring_Back_Shantz 22
ok, ok,....I get it 17
MrMastodonFarm 15
peter12 13
Suzles 13
Resolute 14 9
Bent Wookie 8
CaptainCrunch 8

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Lay off the personal ok? If you have something relevant to say then say it!

You seem to ignore all my posts. And declaring some people no longer deserve their lives makes your stance too muddled to bother with.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

there are 128,000 people doing life in the States alone.

Do you have any idea how many individuals you would require with x characteristics for each clinical trial?

That supply would be exhausted quickly, but of course we could just start sentencing petty thieves to life sentences in order to keep the stocks of test subjects up. If you have any form of intelligence you can see the potential consequences that could subsequently ensue.

EDIT: I think using the word "trial" is inaccurate. I'm no biologist or chemist, but that's just the final stage correct? Presumably this human only testing would require a whole lot more subjects than a trial stage as it would be taking place right from the early development of the drug.