View Full Version : 'Guinea Pigs' dying.
InsaneApache
03-15-2006, 15:04
Two men are critically ill in the intensive care unit of Northwick Park hospital, and another four are seriously ill after taking an anti-inflammatory drug as part of a drug trial.
and
"I went in expecting to see his smiley face and curly black hair.
"But he was completely lifeless. He's like a shell of who he is.
"He can't even move his eyelids.
"This machine is pumping out his lungs. His chest is puffed out, his face is puffed out like the elephant man.
Words fail me. :shame:
link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4808614.stm)
Edited for link
Gah!
I thought it was truly about Guinea Pigs... This was a rude shock.
It is shocking, completely and totally shocking. And although I have read that these drugs were tested on animals and approved before tested on humans, it highlights just why testing on animals and not humans is so important. Do we really want to see more and more of these types of cases because we are afraid of loosing some rabbits? It shows the reality of the animal extremists' case, they put animal life over human life, for some insane reason, and it is disgusting. Humans have every right to practice on animals if it saves even a single human life.
I hope the guys get better, it seems though that the doctors have no idea what the hell to do, which isn't promising.
InsaneApache
03-15-2006, 16:29
Crickey JAG!!! something else we agree on....~:shock:
Proletariat
03-15-2006, 16:29
It is shocking, completely and totally shocking. And although I have read that these drugs were tested on animals and approved before tested on humans, it highlights just why testing on animals and not humans is so important. Do we really want to see more and more of these types of cases because we are afraid of loosing some rabbits? It shows the reality of the animal extremists' case, they put animal life over human life, for some insane reason, and it is disgusting. Humans have every right to practice on animals if it saves even a single human life.
Good point about the animal extremist's case. But it's a little silly to think that any drug would be tested on humans without having gone through a barrage of animal testing already. After that they only start testing on humans with a miniscule amount compared to what the animals got. Sounds like a horrible fluke.
master of the puppets
03-15-2006, 17:07
it probably did go through thousands of animals before this reaction appeared in a human, the problem is that for all the millions of people in the populace there will be some that otherwise extrordinary drugs become bruttaly lethal. most medicines have had some serious side effects or adverse reactions, the only problem is determaning how frequent this will happen. obviosly this drug flopped but its entirely possible for a drug to pass all tests be approved by FDA(or its foreign counterparts) and once marketed to millions one or two will suffer a lethal reaction.
mystic brew
03-15-2006, 17:10
desperately sad... and tragic, but it remains to be seen if anyone has been negligent in this case.
The standards for human testing in the UK are quite strict.
but poor guys.
Ianofsmeg16
03-15-2006, 19:23
"They say he needs a miracle."
God mate, your up. In your name i'll be praying for those men, May you help and heal them all. :shame:
Dutch_guy
03-15-2006, 19:28
That settles it, I'm never testing Drugs.
Also I'd never encourage other people to do so, thought I had that settled even before I read this article.
:balloon2:
It is shocking, completely and totally shocking. And although I have read that these drugs were tested on animals and approved before tested on humans, it highlights just why testing on animals and not humans is so important. Do we really want to see more and more of these types of cases because we are afraid of loosing some rabbits? It shows the reality of the animal extremists' case, they put animal life over human life, for some insane reason, and it is disgusting. Humans have every right to practice on animals if it saves even a single human life.
I find the way of thinking illustrated in this post to be more shocking than what happened in the article.
Torturing & murdering innocent animals for the sake of "maybe" having some drugs that might help humans one day is not an acceptable "solution". That is disgusting, in my view.
If humans are so desperate to murder and torture other sentient beings for their own benefit, then it might as well be other humans they do it on because the animals are not the ones responsible for demanding those obscene "tests".
master of the puppets
03-15-2006, 19:50
I find the way of thinking illustrated in this post to be more shocking than what happened in the article.
Torturing & murdering innocent animals for the sake of "maybe" having some drugs that might help humans one day is not an acceptable "solution". That is disgusting, in my view.
If humans are so desperate to murder and torture other sentient beings for their own benefit, then it might as well be other humans they do it on because the animals are not the ones responsible for demanding those obscene "tests".
you believe that the doctors who do these tests, who invent the drugs, who stake there living on the success or failure of a single way to help a person, openly and wantonly torture the animals. that to them the lives of these admittedly small and innocent creatures are of no value? well then your wrong, lab mice do have a value...there 4 for five bucks down at pet depot, for all your torturing and slaughtering needs:2thumbsup: :skull: :2thumbsup: .
Mongoose
03-15-2006, 20:17
Navaros
You have three choices: you can test humans, you can test animals, or you can't have new medicine.
We kill millions of animals every year to eat them. Why not use them for medicine testing? Those products save thousands of lives, you know.
It is shocking, completely and totally shocking. And although I have read that these drugs were tested on animals and approved before tested on humans, it highlights just why testing on animals and not humans is so important. Do we really want to see more and more of these types of cases because we are afraid of loosing some rabbits? It shows the reality of the animal extremists' case, they put animal life over human life, for some insane reason, and it is disgusting. Humans have every right to practice on animals if it saves even a single human life.
I hope the guys get better, it seems though that the doctors have no idea what the hell to do, which isn't promising.
Wow, Jag, I actually agree with you.
Reenk Roink
03-15-2006, 21:46
They should test drugs only on select animals that are depraved anyway like cats or teletubies...
Kanamori
03-15-2006, 22:14
Maybe we've had Navaros wrong the whole time. He isn't just a nut with anything religious -- even standing up for radical Islam, of all things a fanatic Christian would support. Now, it just seems that he's being contrary in anything that the rest of us would agree on.
English assassin
03-15-2006, 22:29
It is shocking, completely and totally shocking. And although I have read that these drugs were tested on animals and approved before tested on humans, it highlights just why testing on animals and not humans is so important. Do we really want to see more and more of these types of cases because we are afraid of loosing some rabbits? It shows the reality of the animal extremists' case, they put animal life over human life, for some insane reason, and it is disgusting. Humans have every right to practice on animals if it saves even a single human life.
First class comment. I agree.
For those who don't know, to get to a human clinical trial in the UK, the drug will have been extensively tested in animals. Probably something has gone wrong with the prep used in this trial, possibly there is some human specific reaction that the animal trials did not show up.
The worst of it is this will be used by the ALF to show that animal trials are uninformative. A position that anyone with basic knowledge of logic can refute, but then, we aren't their target audience.
Originally posted by Navaros
I find the way of thinking illustrated in this post to be more shocking than what happened in the article.
Torturing & murdering innocent animals for the sake of "maybe" having some drugs that might help humans one day is not an acceptable "solution". That is disgusting, in my view.
If humans are so desperate to murder and torture other sentient beings for their own benefit, then it might as well be other humans they do it on because the animals are not the ones responsible for demanding those obscene "tests".
Last night while coming home from work I had beef jerky as a snack. soon as I got home i took off my leather boots put on my leather loafers and put some charred mesquite in the smoker. Went outside looked for any fire ant mounds. After finding a couple I kicked their lil tops of stomped on it a couple times and threw some pesticide down. I then put some un-organic grain fed, (Mmmmm grain fed best kinda pork second only to hippe fed pork, which I think tastes better becuase of the higher levels of estrogen.) pork roast on the grill. I've heard PETA sodomizes the organic pigs, and I dont want to be part of that. I then sat down and debated whether or not next year instead of just regularly hunting deer with a rifle. If I should try atl-atl hunting instead. After eating, I washed the counters down with windex laying waste to those damndable bacteria. Moral of that story, I must be a cruel cruel murderer to you Navaros.
We've killed animals for millions of years Nav. Ever since we evolved into omnivors we've eaten animals. Infact it was that protien from those "murdered" animals that helped are brains develop into what they are now. Testing on animals is the only acceptable way to do drug testing. All drugs need to be tested so we dont go round sluaghtering humans because of a screw up in a lab. They arnt just injecting whatever into any animal. They have a pretty good sense what will happen to them when they do it and they are mearly checking their hypothosis. Personally I prefer animal testing to the Nazi style testing on jews and gays. Seriously Navaros do you care more about a cow then you do a human life?
Byzantine Mercenary
03-15-2006, 23:05
Maybe we've had Navaros wrong the whole time. He isn't just a nut with anything religious -- even standing up for radical Islam, of all things a fanatic Christian would support. Now, it just seems that he's being contrary in anything that the rest of us would agree on.
yeah you get people like that, they like to take a radical view just to get reactions out of other people its a bit sad realy...
Just to clarify my view:
I can understand killing animals to eat them as it's necessary for survival.
However, torturing and murdering animals in a lab as part of sadistic "experiments" is quite another matter entirely. The animals who are being subject to that torture have done nothing to deserve it therefore it is immoral and repugnant to subject them to it.
I'm going to go ahead and say that it's their own damn fault. Oh no, you put a strange, foreign substance in your system and now you're screwed! Like this is news.
Byzantine Mercenary
03-15-2006, 23:41
it is not nessesary to kill animals for surviveal but it is what we are built to do, experimants are not just meaningless torture they have a purpose and many of the treatments developed throught them will help many more animals and humans then were originally involved. Oh and do you buy free range eggs?
Big King Sanctaphrax
03-15-2006, 23:42
This is a real shame, both for the chaps involved and for medical research in general. The fact that serious illness was a result of drug trials in only six of the hundreds of thousands of participants each year is unlikely to prevent those with an agenda decrying them.
You also have animal rights activists trying to make capital out of this, which is incredibly ludicrous as well-yes, the animals used in trials of this drug did not show any adverse reactions, but in hundreds of other cases they do, and the drug is scrapped.
master of the puppets
03-15-2006, 23:42
great story tex. realy navaros the people who were struck by horribles did nothing to deserve it(at least most of the time). and despit innocence of animals or people i can accept the lethaly ill humans case much more important then that of a few animals. i'd like to se how you would react if you could see a day at the colleseum at the height of rome, "10,000 animals dead in one day, little to no profit, but its entertaining".
I agree with JAG, Gore and Navaros.:2thumbsup:
I mean JAG is right that animals are needed for testing.
Gore is right in that they willingly took the drugs, one should know the dangers. To me it´s like wondering that soldiers shoot at other soldiers.
Navaros is right in that, erm, no he isn´t, because I think those tests are not intended to kill the animals. Nobody wants the animals to die, everybody would be happy if all the animals and all the humans testing drugs would always survive, but we test them on animals first to save human life is something goes wrong. Besides that, one could argue that pharmaceuticals are often crap anyway.
And I want to note that I dislike Kanamori´s attack on Navaros, I don´t think it´s nice to display him as some kind of outsider, even if it wasn´t said directly.
My two cents.
Animals are there to be used, so use 'em.
The guys with the terrible side-effects have been really unlucky but there has to be a risk everytime you volunteer for such a trial.
Ja'chyra
03-16-2006, 10:08
I don't agree with animal testing, there's enough human scum we could do the testing on.
As for the human testers, you make you choices and you live with the consequences, thier own choice to do it so, well, tough.
Banquo's Ghost
03-16-2006, 11:22
As for the human testers, you make you choices and you live with the consequences, thier own choice to do it so, well, tough.
I think the biggest problem is actually communicating the risks and therefore the consequences. By definition, the risks are not well known for tests.
Being so dismissive of the volunteers is a bit unfair. Whilst they would have been aware of some risk, none of them signed up for organ failure. The people who volunteer are often students (therefore relatively intelligent and able to assess risk) and do so partly out of a desire for some beer money - usually payment is around £100, though for this trial it is noted that the payment seems to have been around £2,000, enough to help make a dent in the student loan. Often, they also have an altruistic motivation to help the progress of science.
Without human volunteers, medicine would have stagnated. This trial has gone very wrong, but it is a rare occurence. I for one, am grateful to those who volunteer to test such drugs, because I never know when I may need the fruits of their choice.
The furthest end of this scale would be the soldier who suffers injury or death on behalf of his country, or the volunteer killed in the course of helping the poor or dispossessed. They know the possible results of their choice - if it comes to pass, 'tough' is not a word that comes to my mind. The grieving and loss is not lessened by the awareness that they knew the risks. Someone has to do these things, or we would all be trapped in the individualistic cess-pit of a selfish world.
I am grateful for them for making those choices on my behalf, and mourn the waste of good lives.
Just to clarify my view:
I can understand killing animals to eat them as it's necessary for survival.
However, torturing and murdering animals in a lab as part of sadistic "experiments" is quite another matter entirely. The animals who are being subject to that torture have done nothing to deserve it therefore it is immoral and repugnant to subject them to it.
I'll say that finding new drugs for curing diseases is part of an effort for "survival" so I don't see a problem with it.
animals shouldn't be used for stuff like cosmetic tests tough.
Amazing. JAG is taking a right-wing view, and Navaros is taking a completely hippy view. This thread is.. disturbing.
To me, it is hardly taking a right wing view on the issue, it is simply taking a view which cares for and put first, the human life. I personally believe in the sanctity of life, not from any religious view point but from a humanist view of helping each other. I don't think any life should be lost if people don't want to die. Though I have pets and love them to bits, it must always be humans we put first over all other species, animal testing is just a continuation of this.
InsaneApache
03-16-2006, 14:09
I agree. Animal testing is not a left-right issue. It is necessary to further medicine and science.
Anyone who violently opposes such methods (ALF) should be denied any drugs that have been tested on animals. Darwin awards anyone?
Anyone who violently opposes such methods (ALF) should be denied any drugs that have been tested on animals. Darwin awards anyone?
Well, you know I can't agree with that. :p
Banquo's Ghost
03-16-2006, 14:17
Anyone who violently opposes such methods (ALF) should be denied any drugs that have been tested on animals. Darwin awards anyone?
I understand the feeling, but I don't think society should deny help even in this case. Gets to be a slippery slope.
However, to be consistent with their own beliefs, they should deny themselves all such drugs. I still wouldn't agree with them, but at least I could respect their stance.
Kralizec
03-16-2006, 14:41
Horrorible story.
Anyone who violently opposes such methods (ALF) should be denied any drugs that have been tested on animals. Darwin awards anyone?
I'm inclined to agree, just like people who refuse to donate organs shouldn't be able to receive them either. Damn hypocrites.
mystic brew
03-16-2006, 15:06
Just to clarify my view:
I can understand killing animals to eat them as it's necessary for survival.
However, torturing and murdering animals in a lab as part of sadistic "experiments" is quite another matter entirely. The animals who are being subject to that torture have done nothing to deserve it therefore it is immoral and repugnant to subject them to it.
i've got a few issues with this.
1. it's not necessary for us to eat meat for survival, certainly not in the west. Also, large areas of india are vegetarian...
2. Have you been to a factory farm? or an abattoir? believe me, compared to that, most animals kept in labs live a great life. Because the tests require healthy, well fed muscle, rather than being kept in tiny, restricted cages. As far as i am concerned the two are morally equivalent...
so, are you a vegetarian as well?
What happened to these people was terrible but I simply cannot find it in me to get upset over the whole affair. These were adults who volunteered to receive experimental drugs that have never been tested on humans before! Precedence set by previous experiments be damned, given the situation when someone places waiver forms in front of you for signature you'd better be damn sure you are prepared for any and all consequences.
The only people I really feel sympathy for are the parents. I'm sure most if not all of them had no idea their sons were volunteering for these experiments. After receiving the horrible news I'm sure some of these parents wished their child was the victim of some freak accident or crime, anything to remove the burden of responsibility from the child and lessen the extraordinary guilt they may be feeling at this time.
so, are you a vegetarian as well?
And do you make sure you have no fur or leather?
Originally posted by mystic brew
i've got a few issues with this.
1. it's not necessary for us to eat meat for survival, certainly not in the west. Also, large areas of india are vegetarian...
2. Have you been to a factory farm? or an abattoir? believe me, compared to that, most animals kept in labs live a great life. Because the tests require healthy, well fed muscle, rather than being kept in tiny, restricted cages. As far as i am concerned the two are morally equivalent...
so, are you a vegetarian as well?
I disagree, it has always been necesary for us to have protien. Sure their are some unorthodox ways of getting that protien like eating soybeans. But we also have a deeper desire, a desire to eat something that tastes good. And a 6 hour smoked brisket fullfills that desire very efficiently. There is quite alot of malnutrition problems in India becuase they wont eat meat.
The animals kept in ranches are quite happy IMO. They have their basic needs provided for. They have social interaction with others of their species. They also have no need to worry about predators. That has got to be a pretty good existance for a cow, nothing to worry about till you go to the slaughterhouse.
Originally posted by Kraxis
And do you make sure you have no fur or leather?
Nope I have many leather items, and Bambi's head.
https://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e331/Thammure/single20deer20head.jpg
Now this looks like a slap in PETA´s face.:laugh4:
I find the way of thinking illustrated in this post to be more shocking than what happened in the article.
Torturing & murdering innocent animals for the sake of "maybe" having some drugs that might help humans one day is not an acceptable "solution". That is disgusting, in my view.
If humans are so desperate to murder and torture other sentient beings for their own benefit, then it might as well be other humans they do it on because the animals are not the ones responsible for demanding those obscene "tests".
True.
And Animals cant choose to participate!!!
We get compensated they be lucky to survive the next test.
If you want to risk you’re life for a couple of pounds that’s you’re pick not the animals one.
Originally Posted by JAG
Do we really want to see more and more of these types of cases because we are afraid of loosing some rabbits? It shows the reality of the animal extremists' case, they put animal life over human life, for some insane reason, and it is disgusting. Humans have every right to practice on animals if it saves even a single human life.
Why would a human life be more worth?
It's the same like saying "We Belgium’s are better then anyone ells"(it maybe true but that's not the point).
They deserve live as much or maybe even more then us.
We just screw everything up anyway.
InsaneApache
03-16-2006, 22:03
This has to be a troll.
How can any rational human being consider that an animals life is equal? In any way.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
03-16-2006, 22:21
This has to be a troll.
How can any rational human being consider that an animals life is equal? In any way.
what, like the ones that live under bridges? that's be awesome!
I bet they're equivalent to an animal.
It just dawned on me. Why the hell was he testing a leukemia drug if he didn't have leukemia? It's not like they can measure its effectiveness, just how dangerous it is to normal people. It's like offering $1000 to a man to see if he can fight off a train from a three-point stance. This is pathetic.
This has to be a troll.
How can any rational human being consider that an animals life is equal? In any way.
It’s life isn’t it?
Pls explain to me why ours is more worth.
It just dawned on me. Why the hell was he testing a leukemia drug if he didn't have leukemia? It's not like they can measure its effectiveness, just how dangerous it is to normal people. It's like offering $1000 to a man to see if he can fight off a train from a three-point stance. This is pathetic.
I don't do science so I don't know the precise details, but from what I understand it is a different type of drug, the way it combats the illness is completely different to how other drugs do. This is, I am told, the first time a test of this new process has been tried on humans, possibly the last now.
The drug boosts the immune system instead of simply fighting the illness, I am sure you could find stuff on it if you really wanted.
InsaneApache
03-16-2006, 22:56
I don't do science so I don't know the precise details, but from what I understand it is a different type of drug, the way it combats the illness is completely different to how other drugs do. This is, I am told, the first time a test of this new process has been tried on humans, possibly the last now.
The drug boosts the immune system instead of simply fighting the illness, I am sure you could find stuff on it if you really wanted.
:bow:
And you get teh opportunity to compose such an erudite post and still get pissed/stoned and chase tail? I'm impressed. :2thumbsup:
Blair should have made the fees higher. :laugh4:
It’s life isn’t it?
Pls explain to me why ours is more worth.
The bible says so...:surrender:
It’s life isn’t it?
Pls explain to me why ours is more worth.
Quite simply because we are more powerful...
That is the awful truth of it. Like it or not, but we tend to prefer the great predators to survive rather than a meek gazelle. We prefer the elephant to survive rather than a small amazonian cat. Power! In general you can apply the power of the animal and see a direct relation to how much humans want it to survive.
But if you have to argue the case about who are worth the most, then you end up with the point of selfawareness, and so far only a handful of races have mastered that (not that we treat the others in that group too kindly though).
Kralizec
03-17-2006, 00:39
The wellbeing of your own species is naturally more important to you then that of others.
Besides, lab animals live more comfortable lives then those living in the wilderness. They get food, warmth, shelter and live relatively long lives compared to their "free" cousins. It's not as if they're smart enough to care for anything else, let alone be offended about being used in experiments ~:rolleyes:
Big King Sanctaphrax
03-17-2006, 00:59
It just dawned on me. Why the hell was he testing a leukemia drug if he didn't have leukemia? It's not like they can measure its effectiveness, just how dangerous it is to normal people. It's like offering $1000 to a man to see if he can fight off a train from a three-point stance. This is pathetic.
As I understand it, it was a 'first in humans' test-they have to make sure that a new drug doesn't have any side effects in healthy people before they test to see if it's actually effective against the disease it's supposed to combat, as said side-effects could be much more harmful to people with said disease. To this end, they just advertise for people to take part in return for money.
As it turned out, this one did have side effects.
As it turned out, this one did have side effects.
That's my point. It's hardly a tragedy that someone who took a strange, experimental drug aimed at curing a disease he didn't have is going to get sick and snuff it.
That's my point. It's hardly a tragedy that someone who took a strange, experimental drug aimed at curing a disease he didn't have is going to get sick and snuff it.
Well, tell their families it is not a tragedy, I'm pretty certain that they disagree with that. Or do you not believe that the loss of a beloved familymember is always a tragedy (even if it is an expected event)?
Big King Sanctaphrax
03-17-2006, 02:52
That's my point. It's hardly a tragedy that someone who took a strange, experimental drug aimed at curing a disease he didn't have is going to get sick and snuff it.
Well, it depends what your definition of a tragedy is, I suppose. I find untimely death in general rather tragic.
Banquo's Ghost
03-17-2006, 08:13
It’s life isn’t it?
Pls explain to me why ours is more worth.
Your daughter and your hamster have both eaten some rat poison. You can't get them to the hospital or the veterinary clinic in time to save both.
Which one do you choose to save?
The response you give will put a value on one of their lives compared to the other and perhaps help you answer your own question.
Well, tell their families it is not a tragedy, I'm pretty certain that they disagree with that. Or do you not believe that the loss of a beloved familymember is always a tragedy (even if it is an expected event)?
Tragedy IS expected. There was no hubris here, just idiocy.
Quite simply because we are more powerful...
That is the awful truth of it. Like it or not, but we tend to prefer the great predators to survive rather than a meek gazelle. We prefer the elephant to survive rather than a small amazonian cat. Power! In general you can apply the power of the animal and see a direct relation to how much humans want it to survive.
But if you have to argue the case about who are worth the most, then you end up with the point of selfawareness, and so far only a handful of races have mastered that (not that we treat the others in that group too kindly though).
Very true Kraxis.
We are the more powerful, so we decide what happens with the other life forms.
But that doesn’t mean ours is more worth then the other one.
I am talking about LIFE simple as that.
Your daughter and your hamster have both eaten some rat poison. You can't get them to the hospital or the veterinary clinic in time to save both.
Which one do you choose to save?
The response you give will put a value on one of their lives compared to the other and perhaps help you answer your own question.
No question I would choose my daughter any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
But again that only means that my daughter’s life is more worth to my eyes.
Pleas understand this people.
We humans consider our life’s the more important ones.
But that doesn’t mean they are.
If a dogs life is threatened he would go to the same limits to survive as a person would.
The gift of life is equal for every specie. Whether you’re a dog, cat, rhinoceros or man.
K, one cell life forms are debatable.
Ps to clarify:
I’m not against animal testing (to some levels ofcours)
I’m not a vegetarian or something crazy like that.
I’m just saying that…well read the above lines, I’m not going to repeat myself again.
English assassin
03-17-2006, 17:53
We humans consider our life’s the more important ones.
But that doesn’t mean they are
If a dogs life is threatened he would go to the same limits to survive as a person would.
Well, according to you, it does mean human life is more important from my viewpoint. And that's the only viewpoint I've got.
So far as I know dogs don't have viewpoints. A dog would be quite incapable of asking itself whether it ought to eat the last bit of meat, or whether it should share it with me. A dog doesn't have opinions on these things, it just gets hungry and eats things.
Possibly, from some highly abstracted viewpoint, maybe some super intelligent aliens that dropped by to study planet earth, the dog and the human are equal. (Though I must say it would be an odd conclusion that a creature capable of understanding quantum mechanics and shakespeare is on a par with a creature that uses its own tongue to clean its genitals). But we don't have that viewpoint, and I see no reason why we should invent it.
Byzantine Mercenary
03-17-2006, 18:01
[QUOTE=Upxl]
No question I would choose my daughter any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
But again that only means that my daughter’s life is more worth to my eyes.
Pleas understand this people.
We humans consider our life’s the more important ones.
But that doesn’t mean they are.
If a dogs life is threatened he would go to the same limits to survive as a person would.
The gift of life is equal for every specie. Whether you’re a dog, cat, rhinoceros or man.
K, one cell life forms are debatable.
QUOTE]
oh so what have you got against one cell organisms they work just as hard to survive as you do (perhaps even harder).
I can't help but find your viewpoint ridiculous as the end result of such beliefs (if you were to truly follow them) would be to anihilate all but the easyest to maintain species (which must include anihilating humans)
EG. a say human needs 10000 wheat seads a year to live and you can support 100 mice on the same amount, its 100 to one lives and so you must kill the human and give the food to the mice? after all 100 lives are more valuble then one! :wall:
Avicenna
03-17-2006, 21:13
I disagree, it has always been necesary for us to have protien. Sure their are some unorthodox ways of getting that protien like eating soybeans. But we also have a deeper desire, a desire to eat something that tastes good. And a 6 hour smoked brisket fullfills that desire very efficiently. There is quite alot of malnutrition problems in India becuase they wont eat meat.
Not going anti-animal testing or anything here, but protein doesn't have to come from meat. Rice and pasta have protein, and rice is no more unnatural than meat is.
Being unnatural is also what makes us humans so advanced as we are now. Could you actually live without using 'unnatural' things now? You've been used to having them for the whole of your life, it would be strange losing it all. Yet you think eating unnatural food is unusual. If you were natural, you would live more like a monkey. Even the chimpanzees' use of tools is 'unnatural'.
India's malnutrition is because many of the people live in poverty. Even the poorest in a rich place like the USA can get government help and go to a soup kitchen etc. But where can an average Indian living in the countryside get aid? The answer is nowhere within walking distance.
Protein isn't necessary as well. The ancient Spartan warriors ate what resembled a load of porridge which resembled black faeces. You can't say that they were unhealthy though, in fact they were the fittest warriors around.
[QUOTE=Upxl]
oh so what have you got against one cell organisms they work just as hard to survive as you do (perhaps even harder).
nothing, only that those little ***** just cant keep their hands off our women.
I can't help but find your viewpoint ridiculous as the end result of such beliefs (if you were to truly follow them) would be to anihilate all but the easyest to maintain species (which must include anihilating humans)
HAHA,
Im not talking about anihalating anyone.
Im just saying that LIFe IS LIFE AND TELLING YOURS IS MORE WORTH IS ACTING GOD!
EG. a say human needs 10000 wheat seads a year to live and you can support 100 mice on the same amount, its 100 to one lives and so you must kill the human and give the food to the mice? after all 100 lives are more valuble then one! :wall:
:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
Byzantine Mercenary
03-18-2006, 00:48
i see what you mean and am of course against causeing unnessesary harm to animals but to live is to deny the other life forms around you life, every paracitical organism you body kills all the animals you kill indirectly through modern living (deforestation etc) by assigning all life forms lives the same value you would be forced to remove roads, farms and other elements of our society that deny animals life throught their very being, cars with their heavy killing of wildlife, they would need equal rights surely if their lives were just as valuble.
Nop, I’m not getting through here.
I’ll just try this one more time.
I don’t care about unnecessary harm.(to clarify: I’m not saying this should happen)
I don’t care about medicinal testing on animals.
I’m not talking about the rights and wrongs, about treating them,the way they are slaughtered or kept alive.
I’m just saying in the philosophical sense that life whether you’re human or not is of the same value.
It’s got really nothing to do with emotions and other unnecessarily.
:closed:
You are not getting through because you are not making any sense.
Actually you’re not the first one who said that.:shame:
Being unnatural is also what makes us humans so advanced as we are now. Could you actually live without using 'unnatural' things now? You've been used to having them for the whole of your life, it would be strange losing it all. Yet you think eating unnatural food is unusual. If you were natural, you would live more like a monkey. Even the chimpanzees' use of tools is 'unnatural'.
Most debatable argument ever. If it has been done or conceived, how can it not be natural?
Papewaio
03-20-2006, 07:58
I’m just saying in the philosophical sense that life whether you’re human or not is of the same value.
It’s got really nothing to do with emotions and other unnecessarily.
:closed:
So you put equal value on your life as an ant or an ant queen?
Considering the long line of 'my genes' above 'your genes' ancestory it would be quite a habit to kick... of course the dilema is that you regulate your genes out of the gene pool by chosing such a meme set.
InsaneApache
03-20-2006, 07:59
Manmade? :embarassed:
Papewaio
03-20-2006, 08:00
Man is part of nature, what we do hence is natural...
So you put equal value on your life as an ant or an ant queen?
Considering the long line of 'my genes' above 'your genes' ancestory it would be quite a habit to kick... of course the dilema is that you regulate your genes out of the gene pool by chosing such a meme set.
Philosophically: yes
But I like my life more then that of an ant.
But I like my life more then that of an ant.
And you probably like your life more than an ant likes its life. I doubt an ant feels much joy, love or even pleasure.
But the reason I am pro-animal rights, is that I believe many higher animals do experience some of the things we value in our lives. One only has to have a pet to know that. Eating, resting, sunbathing, playing, companionship, rearing offspring, mating etc. these pleasures are common across many species.
And I am even more sure that many of the things that make our lives worse - pain, fear and boredom - are also experienced by many animals.
Philosophically speaking, I would not say higher animals' and people's lives are of the same value, but I can't find a good argument for saying the latter is vastly more important than the former. In practice, we all - myself included - treat human lives as vastly more important, but that's changing and I wonder what attitudes will be like in a couple of thousand years.
Ja'chyra
03-20-2006, 14:36
Your daughter and your hamster have both eaten some rat poison. You can't get them to the hospital or the veterinary clinic in time to save both.
Which one do you choose to save?
The response you give will put a value on one of their lives compared to the other and perhaps help you answer your own question.
Or a slightly different slant, who would you save? Your pet of 10 years or some person on the other side of the planet that you don't know exists?
For me, you'd would have to hope that you're not that person.
Banquo's Ghost
03-20-2006, 20:04
Or a slightly different slant, who would you save? Your pet of 10 years or some person on the other side of the planet that you don't know exists?
Well, if I don't know they exist, it would be hard to decide whether to save them or not, wouldn't it? ~D
If you are asking if I would choose to save the life of a perfect stranger or my beloved cat, I would hope to have the courage to save the human being. Despite my adoration of my kitten, a human life is more important.
If you're asking if I would give up my pet to vivisection or experimentation for the greater good of the faceless human race, of course I wouldn't. Laboratory animals are bred for the purpose, not chosen from among the pampered. He wouldn't be genetically consistent, and therefore useless.
My uncle is a veterinary surgeon with a small farm. He has two family goats, which are pets. He breeds others for meat, which he butchers himself. The two are different to him and to me. Similarly, his professional life is spent healing farm animals so that they are healthy when they go to be made into steaks and sausages.
Each to their own purpose. Does this help? ~:)
Byzantine Mercenary
03-21-2006, 10:02
Nop, I’m not getting through here.
I’ll just try this one more time.
I don’t care about unnecessary harm.(to clarify: I’m not saying this should happen)
I don’t care about medicinal testing on animals.
I’m not talking about the rights and wrongs, about treating them,the way they are slaughtered or kept alive.
I’m just saying in the philosophical sense that life whether you’re human or not is of the same value.
It’s got really nothing to do with emotions and other unnecessarily.
not getting through? its not that, its just that i don't agree!
man and higher animals have more intelligence and more interaction with the world but if you think that lives of smaller animals are equally valued then to kill so many would make you a murderer in your personal philosphy wouldn't it?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.