[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Would you still oppose animal testing if you knew it could bring about a cure for a disease that affected you, or a family member?

If I had a personal interest in the case I should have no say, it's like victims of crime deciding the punishment of criminals.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Rights aren't real, you know. Society invented them. As such, it is up to society whether or not we extend them to non-human animals.

I have already stated I do not believe in objective right and wrong.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

My own personal take on this rights thing: Rights don't exist. If anyone had the intrinsic right to life, they would never die. What we DO have is an agreement among members of our society to not kill each other. If you don't believe in an objective moral construct, then we have no intrinsic responsibilities - all we have are the ones we agreed to when we accepted our place in this society, and the ones we impose an ourselves, eg not drinking, not shagging before marriage, vegetarianism. So all we end up with, apart from a small set of rules that we each apply to ourselves individually, is a set of rules that we all have to follow, and that set of rules is decided by society.

So?

Originally Posted by Jennifer

You say that you believe in a 'treat others how you would like to be treated' morality. That's really cute, but I think life isn't so black and white. I see people suffering with diseases that could be cured if we searched for a cure using animals.

I see people suffering with diseases that could be cured better and faster if we tested of the mentally defective.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

On one hand, there are suffering humans. On the other, some suffering animals. Unless we can objectively decide who would be suffering more, the only difference between testing and not testing is that one is an action and the other an inaction, which makes no differnce, morally speaking. Then what?

What?

Originally Posted by Jennifer

The 'right' thing to do is a matter of opinion, and you are not involved (you're not doing the testing, being tested on, or in need of the cure), so what business is it of yours anyway?

I've not been a victim of torture either but I still have a opinion on it.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Undoubtably, you'll say you're a 'voice for the animals'.

Oh how well you know me.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

But you aren't really all that well qualified to speak on the matter, unless you, say, do research studying pain.

Funnily enough I don't and I don't imagine you do either unless it's a spare time activity.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Chances are you've never seen the inside of a lab.

that is such an irrelevant point I don't see where you're going with this.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

You just don't like the thought of cute likkle bunnies being cut open. And, tbh, the distress that thought causes you is nothing to the suffering of the humans who need treatments.

Did you even read my first post? I honestly doubt you did. All this is a funadamentalist reaction to the title. I have already said I eat meat. I have said that I don't care enough to not eat meat nor to stop animal testing. this argument is about the

Originally Posted by Jennifer

There are people in our society willing to work on these treatments, so I say good luck to them.

Wow, people willing to inflict pain on other creatures, what heros!

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Obviously I am skimming somewhat over the issue of the animals' pain. I don't like them suffering either. But I like the thought of suffering humans even less.

that is the core of my argument. Removing emotion (which is clearly something you are incapable of doing in scenario so you're argument becomes more or less invalid) I don't theoreticaly see people as an 'better' (another 'loaded word, sorry') then animas so which one suffers I don't realy care. You could apply some utilitarianism to this and say whatever causes the least suffering overall, but then we would have human testing.

Originally Posted by Jennifer

And at the end of the day, people and animals all over the world suffer all the time. All you're doing by stopping/allowing testing is redistributing that pain to ease suffering for part of the group. Mine's a vote for the humans. Yours is a vote for the animals. We'll have to beg to differ.

I really don't understand why you've even brought up testing (except to have a good old rant) when it's a side issue at best and has absolutly nothing to do with my original point nor the vast majority of points I've made after it. In fact there is only one post in which I've mentioned it (briefly) and that was in response to someone elses comments.

Quite frankly I find your entire response to be emotional drivel, completely condescending and patronising and I I shall no longer be conversing with you on this (or any other) matter because this is not a one-off this is acommon theme in your posting.