-- Posted by Loud Dog at 3:22 am on April 25, 2008 "It's unscientific, immoral and finacially unsound. It's also dangerous because the results do not apply easily to humans." Dispute. -- Posted by JC at 4:30 am on April 25, 2008 so why don't we do vivisections on humans? i'd volunteer -- Posted by Loud Dog at 7:51 am on April 25, 2008 I'm pretty sure we've had the "let's experiment on morons" argument plenty of times already. Boring. -- Posted by bluestreak at 8:26 am on April 25, 2008 In which way do you mean vivisection? Its original meaning of operating on a living organism or its more commonly referrenced meaning of any type of testing on living organisms? -- Posted by Loud Dog at 9:41 am on April 25, 2008 I'm using it to refer to animal testing, basically. GOT TO MAKE THIS LONGER -- Posted by Moridin at 9:31 pm on April 25, 2008 Quote: from Loud Dog at 1:22 pm on April 25, 2008 "It's unscientific, immoral and finacially unsound. It's also dangerous because the results do not apply easily to humans." Dispute. So you do not believe in the existence of medicine? -- Posted by Loud Dog at 4:25 pm on April 26, 2008 I don't believe in medicine, in the same way I don't believe in chairs or trees. These things exist, whatever I believe. Clarify your point. -- Posted by norock at 4:45 pm on April 26, 2008 Quote: from Loud Dog at 7:25 pm on April 26, 2008 I don't believe in medicine, in the same way I don't believe in chairs or trees. These things exist, whatever I believe. Clarify your point. Pseudo-philosophical, semantic ass-hat... You know exactly what was meant [i disagree with EVERY point moridin makes, but even here I know that what he asked was a justifiable and clear question] Almost all medicine has been tested on animals, without it, humans would have to be the subjects. We are at the top of the food/evolution chain. We are the dominant species on this planet. As the dominant species, we have the ability to use the lower species to our advantage, if we can, to help our species to better survive. I do not think that we should kill off all the animals because we can, we should respect nature a lot more than we do now; however, it would be silly to think that animal testing is wrong when the result is the saving, or preserving of human lives. -- Posted by Loud Dog at 5:25 am on April 27, 2008 Quote: from norock at 4:45 pm on April 26, 2008 We are at the top of the food/evolution chain. We are the dominant species on this planet. As the dominant species, we have the ability to use the lower species to our advantage, if we can, to help our species to better survive. Wait wait fucking what? The dominant species has the right to abuse "lower" species for our own gain? What the absolute fuck, are you even serious? -- Posted by bourney at 6:06 am on April 27, 2008 Wait wait fucking what? The dominant species has the right to abuse "lower" species for our own gain? What the absolute fuck, are you even serious? I know this is not a valid point and should have nothing to do with vivisection, but what do you think parasites do? -- Posted by norock at 9:48 am on April 27, 2008 Quote: from Loud Dog at 8:25 am on April 27, 2008 Quote: from norock at 4:45 pm on April 26, 2008 We are at the top of the food/evolution chain. We are the dominant species on this planet.    As the dominant species, we have the ability to use the lower species to our advantage, if we can, to help our species to better survive. Wait wait fucking what? The dominant species has the right to abuse "lower" species for our own gain? What the absolute fuck, are you even serious? Of course I'm serious, sure it sounds "mean" but we are animals through and through. Just because we are intelligent does not mean that we have evolved past being what we are: one more species of animal on this planet. We are at the top, and we like being there. In order to stay there, however, we need to do certain things [ie. keep dominance over the other species, even use other And in order to advance our species further there are other things we must do, one of such things is medicine. Medicine helps us live longer and happier lives, something which most humans enjoy the thought of. However the developing of medicine is a difficult process and the "beta" versions -if you will- are not always safe/successful, and so to keep mortalities or sicknesses to a minimum, we test on animals. I'm not saying we should do it because "its the cool thing to do" I'm saying we can do it because we are the dominant species. That is not to say that we should kill off all of the animals, but responsible use of animals for testing that might better human life is --in my opinion-- A. Ok. I don't see what you don't get about this. WE ARE ANIMALS animals, in nature, use other animals to survive better. its nature, just a more technologically advanced way of going about it. -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 10:14 am on April 27, 2008 I think there are a large number of problem with animal testing that are simply denied or ignored most of the time, morally and scientifically speaking. As long it has followed the "reduce, replace, refine" doctrine as fully as possible, there is sufficient evidence that it will advance scientific understanding and it is actually scientific then it should go ahead. -- Posted by Blackadder at 2:12 pm on April 27, 2008 I would argue against you loud dog, but wont for two reasons; a) I cant tell if your joking and, b) you havn't provided an arguement... well, more precisely, you have given us a set of premises/conclusion but no evidence or reasoning in support of them. [DEVILS ADVOCATE] I, for example, cannot see anything immoral about animal testing. [Dev Adv.../] -- Posted by Loud Dog at 4:35 am on April 28, 2008 Black, if you can't tell if I'm joking, assume that I am. I got the quote line from a Disrupt song. I just wanted to know how people go about justifying animal experimentation. Norock, your defense of abuse of nature seems to wander straight through moral relativism and set up camp in sociopathy. Hell, if less orders are fair game to be abused, why don't we just cut out the middle man and test drugs on poor people? They're inferior to us, right, and in nature animals have no time for the weak, and it would save money on welfare, and the results would be even more applicable! Right? -- Posted by norock at 6:31 am on April 28, 2008 I did not say other animals were inferior to us, and I did not say that we should abuse the power we have. I do not think that we should throw a few chemicals together and say "lets see what THIS does to some animals" Obviously, there should be careful research done and enough chemical and biological understanding of the drug being tested so that as little harm --if any-- can come to a very small group. Humans are a specieistic animal, we look out for our own, I would NEVER condone human testing unless the drug had been tested on animals so that it was believed to be safe, and only then with the consent of the human party. There are some things that must be done for the advancement and up-keep of our species. If you have a better Idea of how to make sure drugs will not be harmful to the body, I'd be glad to hear it. -- Posted by Blackadder at 7:24 am on April 28, 2008 Quote: from Loud Dog at 12:35 pm on April 28, 2008 why don't we just cut out the middle man and test drugs on poor people? They're inferior to us, right, and in nature animals have no time for the weak, and it would save money on welfare, and the results would be even more applicable! Right? We do.  - What type of person signs up for clinical drug trials? Volunteers are paid up to £150 a day to take part in clinical trials. Healthy volunteers are used to test the safety of the drug in "phase one" of the trial before further tests with people who have the condition to determine whether the drugs work. £150 a day certainly insn't going to intice a hot-shot laywer into risking his health.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4807042.stm -- Posted by Loud Dog at 7:51 am on April 28, 2008 Hey, I never mentioned PAYING them for it... So do humans not have any responsibility to safeguard the "lower orders"? Or do we get special privilidges to say "it's okay, this is how things go down in nature" while at the same time abusing the natural order of things for our own gain? -- Posted by norock at 10:33 am on April 28, 2008 Put it however you want. Nature is, and has always been the survival of the fittest. I believe that we have a certain responsibility to use only what is necessary and follow the conditions I mentioned above; but the fact remains that we are still animals, and the survival of OUR species is paramount to us. -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 5:07 pm on April 28, 2008 Quote: from Loud Dog at 6:22 am on April 25, 2008 "It's unscientific, immoral and finacially unsound. It's also dangerous because the results do not apply easily to humans." Dispute. There is literally no way it can be inherently unscientific. Either you do it scientifically or not. It is also probably much more financially sound than just making a bunch of drugs and jumping into human testing and hoping for the best, or by trying to expensively simulate in vivo conditions in vitro. One would imagine it is also less dangerous than just throwing drugs at humans and hoping for the best. The only leg you have to stand on is being against it based on morality, and that varies from person to person, so you'll be wrestling with shadows on that one. -- Posted by Loud Dog at 5:22 pm on April 28, 2008 Well, I was thinking about taking a moral absolutist angle, but norock pissed all over that one before I even got started on it. -- Posted by TheOtherHorseman at 5:29 pm on April 28, 2008 Where does the absolutism come from, though? Is it from a higher power? If so, then that can be handwaved away as a religion that the opponent doesn't believe in. Is it drawn forth from some apparent fundamental truth of reality? Easy peasy taking that down, just adopt a fundamentally opposing philosophy and then shout each other hoarse. It would be a tiring conversation. -- Posted by Blackadder at 6:22 pm on April 28, 2008 ahh, ethics, lets debate it! "animal testing is just plain wrong becau...." "a-a-ah, your forgeting somthing" "what" "error theory" "fuck, I was kinda hoping you had forgotten about that." "nope, sorry" "ah well, you up for ice-cream and scrabble?, I think I might stand a chance of winning that" -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 5:32 am on April 29, 2008 Horseman, I don't reject animal testing on principal but there's an unfortunate gap between how it's carried out now and how it should be carried out if science has anything to do with it. Researchers keep lab pets, reject or ignore new computer technology that can replace or reduce the need for animal tissue and researchers and their funders often try and downplay concerns over the fact that rats simply aren't people.