Europe bans Canadian seal products

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'll assume this is directed at me so let me clarify.

Dissentowner has stated several times that he truely belives that all living beings are equal, and that we're all arogant or beliving that we are better than them.

I've pointed out several examples of contradictions that he has made that point to the fact the he doesn't belive this (including advocating medical testing on prison inmates instead of rats), and that the difference between him and me is where we draw the line. And that he has been VERY inconsistent on where he draws that line.

Yet I pointed out how you state that it's ok to do what we wish to lesser animals and yet you don't think if a superior race were to come along it would be ok to do the same to us and you came up with a contradiction for an answer. Like I said, you can't have it both ways.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

You have gone beyond ridiculous at this point, your posts are so twisted and sad it's not funny! Seeing how you have posted absolutely nothing worth reading, have asked ridiculous questions and ducked mine and continue with the insults you are going on the ignore list. If you had even posted a remotely decent conclusion it would be different. Carry on.

Which of your questions have I not answered?

Show me where the logic in that argument breaks down if it isn't true.

I'd be willing to be that you don't think it's okay to eat people, so that means that either premis A or B is false.

So which is it? Is it that you don't actually belive it's okay to eat a steak if it's raised/killed humanely, or maybe, just maybe could it be that your asseration that you truly belive all living beings are equal, isn't entirely true, and that the only difference between you and I is where we draw the line.

So go ahead and ignore me. Oh, and while you're heading home with that ball of yours, remember to pick up some mice to feed to your snakes.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Fish


Because a 6x4 or whatever size glass tank with a heat lamp is no substitute for their natural environment. How many do you keep per tank and what is the natural density and range (3 dimensional) of these animals in their natural habitat? Do you replicate these densities and ranges?

That's why prisons exist as punishment measures. They take away an individuals freedom to exist as they should so choose.

Just because the prisoners are "well fed and not abused" doesn't take away from the fact that they are being punished and their freedom is taken away.

Normally I could care less, I just find it veryyyy strange that someone who would advocate for animal rights would be involved in captive breeding where the species involved are cooped up and totally restricted from behaving naturally.

Yes it is and I'll educate you on why. With the exception of moving to find a mate or food these type of animals are hardly active at all. If these animals in the wild had their food and breeding mates always showing up at one spot where they were they would never move. It's not like a cat or dog or horse or cow.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

There is a difference between testing commercial products on animals, and conducting MEDICAL research on animals.

I'll agree to this. As I said, I am a utilitarian, meaning that when weighing two options, I'll always choose the option that causes the greatest happiness and causes the least suffering to all. So when we are eating a Big Mac, there is little gained by anyone. But when used for medical research, this could stop future suffering, for both man and animal. So it's a much murkier issue for me. Hearing the stories about the monkeys at Health Canada building it just breaks my heart, but so does seeing scores of kids on cancer ward floors.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Which of your questions have I not answered?

Show me where the logic in that argument breaks down if it isn't true.

I'd be willing to be that you don't think it's okay to eat people, so that means that either premis A or B is false.

So which is it? Is it that you don't actually belive it's okay to eat a steak if it's raised/killed humanely, or maybe, just maybe could it be that your asseration that you truly belive all living beings are equal, isn't entirely true, and that the only difference between you and I is where we draw the line.

So go ahead and ignore me. Oh, and while you're heading home with that ball of yours, remember to pick up some mice to feed to your snakes.

To be honest I am not sure how I feel on canabilism, I would rather nobody ate any animal at all. It's your choice to eat meat and I accept that. It's my choice not to. If it is some african tribes thing to eat people I am ok with that too, that is their life and their way. I don't have to pick up any mice, they eat pre killed mice that come frozen,lol. Getting them on pre killed is better and I know, I know, why is the snake more important then the mouse is coming..it's not, but the snake has to eat.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Yes it is and I'll educate you on why. With the exception of moving to find a mate or food these type of animals are hardly active at all. If these animals in the wild had their food and breeding mates always showing up at one spot where they were they would never move.

What an assumption. They don't move a lot in captivity because they are fed food and mating partners therefore this replicates their behaviour in the wild.

Of course they would. There would be numerous other ecological factors in play.

Prey abundance and dispersal, predation, competition (intra and interspecific), density dependance, off spring dispersal, ideal free distribution .......

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I'll assume this is directed at me so let me clarify.

Oh, I quite understand the situation. I just find it interesting that yourself and PETA would agree that these are contradictions and would line up on the same side against dissentowner on almost all issues that you have been debating.

I realized that the agreement is limited to
if you believe A and believe B then you must also believe C
and yourself and PETA may well be worlds apart on A and B, but their logic would agree with your arguments today almost 100%.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Wow dissentowner!
You really are a monster!

[pepper24]

I don't have time to read the entire thread but are these seals hunted for food or their fur?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by pepper24

I don't have time to read the entire thread but are these seals hunted for food or their fur?

Both. But most of the money comes from the selling of the pelts. Seal meat doesn't sell very well, so most of it is thrown away. But they sell what they can.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Fine, one track has one little boy, the other track has two mid aged people, choose.

I yell at the little boy to get out of the way of the train and go over to the where the middle aged people are, then mow down all three of them by hitting the switch at the last second.

Then I turn to the guy running the experiment and say, "There's morality for you - when given a false choice between two evils, do both."

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

To be honest I am not sure how I feel on canabilism, I would rather nobody ate any animal at all. It's your choice to eat meat and I accept that. It's my choice not to. If it is some african tribes thing to eat people I am ok with that too, that is their life and their way. I don't have to pick up any mice, they eat pre killed mice that come frozen,lol. Getting them on pre killed is better and I know, I know, why is the snake more important then the mouse is coming..it's not, but the snake has to eat.

What if my choice is to use all my available resources for the welfare of my species? What if all my available resources include animal testing for pharmacological studies for the welfare of my species? You still ok with that? Nah, of course you aren't. You've already said that.

I've read this whole thread and I don't have time to get into all your logistical holes but I will be readdressing the whole thalidomide and drug testing later. Yourself and others are trying to make drug testing sound like a simple process but it isn't.

I'll type up some stuff later, stay tuned.

[MelBridgeman]

Don't eat me bro

[Jayems]

Damn dirty euros.

[ResAlien]

Seriously though, I support seal hunting. Is it illegal? nope. Where is the outrage for all the other animals that are legally hunted? You're telling me it's any less humane than bow hunting? Not ripping on bow hunting, making a point poorly. Hey, these are jobs, iirc it's about a 16.5 million dollar a year industry which isn't exactly chump change, and the EU can stuff it.

As for the whole animal testing argument, yeah, let's test on lifers. Fabulous idea. We could probably use them for organ harvesting too right? They're not people anymore from what I read. Matter of fact, why even have life sentences, we should probably just put a bullet in the back of their heads once they are convicted.

If green text is necessary there then I retire.

[Kybosh]

To follow up on my last message I'll address a few points:

1) Yes, Thalidomide led to horrific outcomes. The problem was that modern day clinical trials were not around yet, not the animal testing. The Thalidomide tragedy (and others) have led to the modern practice for clinical trials which is so extensive that it might blow your mind. Check the link and pay special attention to the number of people involved for each phase, the time and money invested and the relative success rate for target compounds.

2) Why don't we use prisoners for clinical trials? Well, I'm not going to get into the obvious ethical problems but there are many sheer logistical problems with this idea. What if you're investigating a small molecule with the hopes of treating pancreatic cancer? It wouldn't really do any good to use this compound with perfectly healthy people (aside from answering other questions such as pharmacokinetics or toxicity) so we need people suffering from pancreatic cancer. How many of the 130,000 imprisoned people in america have pancreatic cancer? Not many. That is just one disease, and there are so many diseases that require different therapies. You would not have enough people to do all the testing that is required to ensure safety for the rest of the population.

Fortunately, we don't live in a country with a tyrannical leader that would enforce such forced therapies.

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

Fortunately, we don't live in a country with a tyrannical leader that would enforce such forced therapies.

But what if they were given the opportunity to volunteer for such tests? Why would we not even consider it?

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

To follow up on my last message I'll address a few points:

1) Yes, Thalidomide led to horrific outcomes. The problem was that modern day clinical trials were not around yet, not the animal testing. The Thalidomide tragedy (and others) have led to the modern practice for clinical trials which is so extensive that it might blow your mind. Check the link and pay special attention to the number of people involved for each phase, the time and money invested and the relative success rate for target compounds.

I am interested in the whole principle of how a drug becomes 'public'. Way back when, whilst still in England, I took part in clinical trials. I have heard recently that people in North America are paid to take part in trials. I certainly wasn't in England and it was never one of my considerations in taking part in the trial. If I could help, then I certainly wanted to. Perhaps that is the attitude that is missing. That may have something to do with my upbringing. For those who can't be bothered to read all the posts on this thread (and I don't blame you) when my father was dying from cancer 50 years ago he allowed the doctors to test drugs on him and after he died he donated his body to science. I greatly admired his values.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Suzles

But what if they were given the opportunity to volunteer for such tests? Why would we not even consider it?

I have no problem with people volunteering for trials, I have a problem if you force prisoners to do it.

Besides like has been mentioned lab rats/mice are a much better bet because you need to have control groups, specific requirements biologically, etc..

Not to mention, can you imagine bubba the murderer in a lab with biology geeks??

Talk about danger to the general public, they'd volunteer to get out of prison for a while, and beat the living bejeebus out of the lab guys and get free.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Suzles

But what if they were given the opportunity to volunteer for such tests? Why would we not even consider it?

Volunteer as prisoners? I'd say that when you are forcibly confined any notion of being a 'volunteer' goes out the window.