Europe bans Canadian seal products

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

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 equal, the death of half as many people or pandas should be your choice should it not.

Not 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) 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.

Again, your twisting my answers and leaving my reasons out and you still have not chosen between the boy and girl. I saved the Pandas on the basis that you said ALL the pandas. Given the population of rats that would remain I would choose to save the Pandas. Tie twice as many humans instead of the rats and I would give the exact same answer. The panda would be extinct, there would still be umpteen billion people on the planet. The other was a choice on preference of species, nothing to do with whose life has more value. Again, boy or girl, your choice. It's a trick question.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Suzles

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

Google says its a drug developed by Nazis that was supposed to be a super-drug - but ended up being dangerous and harmful. Not sure where the dots get connected there.

Originally Posted by Suzles

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?

Volunteer?
That is radically altering what we are talking about. Maybe a picture of cat would work better for rebuttals.

Originally Posted by Suzles

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

If its human (a narrow and sufficiently defined sub-grouping) then I would not kill nor eat it. Other than that, fair game.

[LGA]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

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.

Not to mention a truel believer in all life being made equal wouldn't actually have the chance to say much of anything because they would have allowed bacterium to devour them.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

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.

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

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Again, your twisting my answers and leaving my reasons out and you still have not chosen between the boy and girl. I saved the Pandas on the basis that you said ALL the pandas. Given the population of rats that would remain I would choose to save the Pandas. Tie twice as many humans instead of the rats and I would give the exact same answer. The panda would be extinct, there would still be umpteen billion people on the planet. The other was a choice on preference of species, nothing to do with whose life has more value. Again, boy or girl, your choice. It's a trick question.

You really don't grasp the concept here.

[Thor]

Since you are against animal testing, which is essential in research.

We could have all medicine that was brought to us because of animal research have a sticker that says 'tested on animals' then when you get sick you can go to a homeopath and feel good while your dying; knowing that you didn't benefit from the poor mouse, rat, or fruit fly that was suffering for the benefit of humanity.

[4X4]

I wish I read this thread back around the 60 post mark where people were saying that animals don't kill other animals except to eat them. Then someone said that cats toy with mice. Then someone said that that is because we f'd with cats and since we feed them, they're not hungry for mice and we're suppressing their natural urge to hunt...

It kinda stopped there. But if I had been in the thread at that time, I would have pointed out that animals often kill other animals without any intention of eating them. They do it for superiority and territory. Basically like any leader that initiated a war to annex land.

So you see, animals aren't all cute and cuddly. They do the same things we do. They kill and maim. They hunt and eat. And as long as the rest of the animal kingdom is ruled by the food chain, I will adhere to the rules. Steak for dinner tonight.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Gozer

You really don't grasp the concept here.

Oh yes I do, he is arguing that I cannot believe all things are equal because I chose less numbers. Yes I did, but certain factors weigh in there like watching an entire species go extinct to save more rats. There will be more rats. Funny how nobody addressed my superior race post, no answers for that one huh? You asked me to answer your questions, explain the answer to that one.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Again, your twisting my answers and leaving my reasons out and you still have not chosen between the boy and girl. I saved the Pandas on the basis that you said ALL the pandas. Given the population of rats that would remain I would choose to save the Pandas. Tie twice as many humans instead of the rats and I would give the exact same answer. The panda would be extinct, there would still be umpteen billion people on the planet. The other was a choice on preference of species, nothing to do with whose life has more value. Again, boy or girl, your choice. It's a trick question.

No it's not a trick question.
Besides, isn't preference just another word for place greater value upon?

1 boy vs 1 girl, the outcome is 1 death. So in the context I'm asking it is irrelevant, as the outcome is issentially the same, though it may offer some insight into which I assing more value to, but not necessarily.

I asked you

1 person vs 100 rats
The outcomes are
1 death vs 100 deaths

if you Truely think all living things are equal then you should easily be able to choose to let that 1 person die to save 100 rats shouldn't you?
However, if you pick the person, then you cerainly are doing it becaue you think that that one life is of greater value than the 100 that were the other option.

[LGA]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

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

Bah, I had to do a question like this in Ethics.

It depends on your stance. Do you believe that the boy will lead a long and productive life? That he could make a positive change in our world? Are the two middle-aged people already good contributing members of society? Are they just scum of the earth that hasn't done much of anything constructive?

So on one hand there's potential, on the other is that there are two knowns basically, people still change in their middle-age but usually it's nothing life shattering, they are already on a track in life and there's a higher chance that too much will change. On the other hand the little boy may just become some criminal that goes around robbing people.

There's actually no right answer, in both cases you are going to feel terrible.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by LGA

There's actually no right answer, in both cases you are going to feel terrible.

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

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Oh yes I do, he is arguing that I cannot believe all things are equal because I chose less numbers. Yes I did, but certain factors weigh in there like watching an entire species go extinct to save more rats. There will be more rats. Funny how nobody addressed my superior race post, no answers for that one huh? You asked me to answer your questions, explain the answer to that one.

I typed out an answer, I must have deleted it because its a mind-numbingly stupid platitude.

IF a foreign entity came to our planet and was complex to the point that we could barely grasp its intents then I acknowledge that we would probably fight/resist it, lose, and they would do with us as they pleased. There is no real argument or point in there I can see, its more of a statement of hypothetical fact.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

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

Well that depends on which you value more.

Do 2 lives always have greater value than 1 life?
Is a young life more valuable than an older one?

See how my example about people and rats is different than the boy vs girl, mine is about assigning value to the lives, and now you've given me an equivalent example.

So in your example, I'll take the utilitarian view of taking the action which produces the greater good, in this case saving 2 lives and I'll let the train hit the kid, because without any more info I'll assume that human lives are of equal value.

So now it's up to you.

It's 1 person vs 100 rats.
Does your "All beigns are equal" logic still hold up?

I'm going to pick the rats to die every time, because unlike person vs person choices, I can pretty easily assess which live is more valuable when it comes to people vs rats.

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Google says its a drug developed by Nazis that was supposed to be a super-drug - but ended up being dangerous and harmful. Not sure where the dots get connected there
Volunteer?
That is radically altering what we are talking about. Maybe a picture of cat would work better for rebuttals.

If its human (a narrow and sufficiently defined sub-grouping) then I would not kill nor eat it. Other than that, fair game.

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.

[jayswin]

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.

Because you're the one claiming everything is equal, while other people are admitting that they don't see everything equal.

[LGA]

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.

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.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Suzles

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

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.

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

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.

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]

[CaptainCrunch]

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?

And if we can't find a way to defeat this insideous evil who see's us as nothing more then a rich and yummy pieces of protein, then thats survival of the fittest in perfect play.

We prey, they eat prey. I might bemoan my fate and try to fight back, but I'm sure not going to depend on the kindness of some fringe alien group that equates devouring an inferior happy meal species with murder.

The strong will always survive, the weak shall pass through the intestine and fertilize the ground below it.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Well that depends on which you value more.

Do 2 lives always have greater value than 1 life?
Is a young life more valuable than an older one?

See how my example about people and rats is different than the boy vs girl, mine is about assigning value to the lives, and now you've given me an equivalent example.

So in your example, I'll take the utilitarian view of taking the action which produces the greater good, in this case saving 2 lives and I'll let the train hit the kid, because without any more info I'll assume that human lives are of equal value.

So now it's up to you.

It's 1 person vs 100 rats.
Does your "All beigns are equal" logic still hold up?

I'm going to pick the rats to die every time, because unlike person vs person choices, I can pretty easily assess which live is more valuable when it comes to people vs rats.

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.