Spanish parliament extends rights to apes - Page 2

thewise1 · 06-26-2008, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

That's the type of elitism I am talking about. If we're so great, why do we act so idiotic? It's times like these I really wish polar bears would say "fuck you" and start building shit and enslaving us.

Yeah but polar bears can't do that because they lack the intelligence we have. Hence his position (and mine, in general)

motivez · 06-26-2008, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Interesting.

I don't know that killing our own in tests of chemicals and such would be very advanced either though...

People could always volunteer.

JaJae · 06-26-2008, 03:18 PM

If one human life is helped through the experimentation on say even three chimps... sorry chimp, you're lower on the food chain. I have loved ones who could benefit from research on chimps. I would rather have the science and cures provided by the research.

Ardentfrost · 06-26-2008, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

People could always volunteer.

That happens too. Drugs have to be tested on humans before it passes FDA. An effect MUST be seen, or it can't be sold.

motivez · 06-26-2008, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

That happens too. Drugs have to be tested on humans before it passes FDA. An effect MUST be seen, or it can't be sold.

Yeah, but that's well after they torture many animals during clinical testings to get the drug to where it wont hurt humans

Ardentfrost · 06-26-2008, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

That's the type of elitism I am talking about. If we're so great, why do we act so idiotic? It's times like these I really wish polar bears would say "fuck you" and start building shit and enslaving us.

Just because some people are idiots doesn't mean our species isn't better than the rest.

My wife's cat is stupid. But she's still smarter than the bugs she catches (then throws up).

motivez · 06-26-2008, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

If one human life is helped through the experimentation on say even three chimps... sorry chimp, you're lower on the food chain. I have loved ones who could benefit from research on chimps. I would rather have the science and cures provided by the research.

So you're okay with inflicting years, maybe decades of suffering, pain, and misery on an animal? Or is it just because you're not the one that has to see them suffer?

Ardentfrost · 06-26-2008, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Yeah, but that's well after they torture many animals during clinical testings to get the drug to where it wont hurt humans

You used the word "torture" to insight some sort of emotional response.

Tests on animals are also quite controlled and there are humane laws.

motivez · 06-26-2008, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

You used the word "torture" to insight some sort of emotional response.

Tests on animals are also quite controlled and there are humane laws.

So repeatedly inflicting pain isn't torture?

And maybe in this country, I don't know, but certainly not all around the world.

JaJae · 06-26-2008, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

So you're okay with inflicting years, maybe decades of suffering, pain, and misery on an animal? Or is it just because you're not the one that has to see them suffer?

Depends. I wouldn't want every chimp to be subjected to years of pain and suffering, but I don't think most research does that anyway. I think the pain and suffering of a human is more important than a chimp. If we can prevent years, maybe decades of pain and suffering in humans by transferring it to chimps I'm ok with that. I'd rather a chimp suffer than a loved one suffer.

Ardentfrost · 06-26-2008, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

So repeatedly inflicting pain isn't torture?

And maybe in this country, I don't know, but certainly not all around the world.

Other countries have done human testing before that really was torture. That doesn't make it right.

We can only affect what we have the power to. Just because people torture monkeys in Zanzibar doesn't mean it's ok. We CAN test on animals and it usually be ok. But if a drug being tested causes a rabbit's liver to explode, it's a casualty I'm willing to accept since maybe the next one doesn't have that side effect and then cures cancer (or whatever else).

Ardentfrost · 06-26-2008, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Depends. I wouldn't want every chimp to be subjected to years of pain and suffering, but I don't think most research does that anyway. I think the pain and suffering of a human is more important than a chimp. If we can prevent years, maybe decades of pain and suffering in humans by transferring it to chimps I'm ok with that. I'd rather a chimp suffer than a loved one suffer.

I don't see how a sound Design of Experiment would allow for an animal to be tested on for one thing, something go wrong because of it, and then be tested for another thing. Scientifically, the animal must be healthy at the beginning for the results to matter.

ballz2wallz · 06-26-2008, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

My official stance is that if we're doing research or testing to benefit humans, we should be doing it on humans.

I hate the whole "humans are the chosen ones" attitude.

It seems to be, that if you're willing to consider humans acceptable for testing (something some have also found acceptable, like Hitler) then you are likely to suggest that humans are nothing but a part of the animal kingdom. If that were the case, why is it you distinguish humans as more than a superior predator? If we are, in the animal kingdom, part of the natural world and natural pradator/prey scenario, it would seem to me that using animals for our benefit is only par for the course.

I guess the question is, are we superior to animals, or are we just one of them?

JaJae · 06-26-2008, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

I guess the question is, are we superior to animals, or are we just one of them?

Both.

ballz2wallz · 06-26-2008, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Both.

What this translates into is "we're not an animal, but we are".

JaJae · 06-26-2008, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by Nurse Betty

What this translates into is "we're not an animal, but we are".

We're a superior animal.

ballz2wallz · 06-26-2008, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

We're a superior animal.

Which means, as a superior predator, other animals ARE here for our benefit.

motivez · 06-26-2008, 05:35 PM

But we're not raw predator though, we have the ability to thinks about ethics and morality, which is what's being applied here.

Smull · 06-26-2008, 06:20 PM

I am elitist when it comes to animals. I feel that humans as a species are better than any other, elite, if you will. We shouldn't try to hurt or kill animals, but if we can benefit from it, then I don't see a huge problem with it.

"Oooh, so Mother Nature needs a favor?! Well maybe she should have thought of that when she was besetting us with droughts and floods and poison monkeys! Nature started the fight for survival, and now she wants to quit because she’s losing. Well I say, hard cheese."

- Mr. Burns

thewise1 · 06-26-2008, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by Smull

I am elitist when it comes to animals. I feel that humans as a species are better than any other, elite, if you will. We shouldn't try to hurt or kill animals, but if we can benefit from it, then I don't see a huge problem with it.

- Mr. Burns

nice quote