Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pomp · 03-27-2002, 03:37 PM

Actually, spin, given your stated moral position, I would think that you would find it acceptable to use non-human animals in medical research, provided that the expected number of lives saved exceeded the number of lives lost to the research.

You can, of course, make the case that such research is not medically beneficial, but I wouldn't think that you would object purely on ethical grounds.

Corwin · 03-27-2002, 03:37 PM

Ok spin... I'll bite.

Where is your justification for comparing, let's say a rabbit, to Pompus? (A human being?)

spin · 03-27-2002, 03:40 PM

Morality involves the benefit and protection of the most possible Jeffrey Dahmers; where conflicts arise, morality involves resolving them with the least damage to those Jeffrey Dahmers.

Hello breakfatht.

Corwin · 03-27-2002, 03:41 PM

*touches the stawman with his cigarette and watches it burn away*

Now try answering the question.

spin · 03-27-2002, 03:42 PM

Corwin:
---------------
Where is your justification for comparing, let's say a rabbit, to Pompus?
---------------

Level of consciousness.

Corwin · 03-27-2002, 03:42 PM

Given the radical difference in the level of consciousness between the two.... could you possibly elaborate just a bit?

Pomp · 03-27-2002, 03:43 PM

spin,

I have no problem with someone nuking a pompus bastard to see what happens, provided that I don't have to watch. I find the idea disgusting, but I can't see any good reason to coerce others not to engage in it.

::shrug::

Such transparent attempts to trigger an emotional response get us nowhere. You think that there is no ethically significant difference between humans and other animals. I think that there is. I've attempted to discuss the reasons for our differing opinions, but you've consistently dismissed my position without addressing it. I suppose the civil option is to agree to disagree at this point.

Mad Kally · 03-27-2002, 03:44 PM

Quote:

posted by spin:
Mad Kally,
I have already dealt with your stuff. You could go back and check that out. If you are lazy, just work on the basic idea that different organisms react differently to extremely complex chemicals. You should be aware that numerous scientists have spoken out on the irrelevance and ability to mislead of animal experiments.

Quote:

posted by spin on the first Vegetarian thread in response to the same questions:

I guess you're also in favour of the experiments performed by those Nazi scientists, the results of which were used in later medicine.

We are finding new ways of experimenting, not on non-consenting ... um, victims.

These were the only words you said to me regarding my questions on medical research. I did go back and look..

Corwin · 03-27-2002, 03:44 PM

Quote:

I suppose the civil option is to agree to disagree at this point.

BAH.

Tell me.... where's the fun in that?

Marduk · 03-27-2002, 03:45 PM

"Where is your justification for comparing, let's say a rabbit, to Pompus? (A human being?)"

Well maybe not a full grown human, but a baby perhaps? why not? there are plenty more where they came from and their perceptions of pain & fear are on par with a rabbit? why not then?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2002, 03:37 PM	#81
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Actually, spin, given your stated moral position, I would think that you would find it acceptable to use non-human animals in medical research, provided that the expected number of lives saved exceeded the number of lives lost to the research. You can, of course, make the case that such research is not medically beneficial, but I wouldn't think that you would object purely on ethical grounds.

03-27-2002, 03:37 PM	#82
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	Ok spin... I'll bite. Where is your justification for comparing, let's say a rabbit, to Pompus? (A human being?)

03-27-2002, 03:40 PM	#83
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Morality involves the benefit and protection of the most possible Jeffrey Dahmers; where conflicts arise, morality involves resolving them with the least damage to those Jeffrey Dahmers. Hello breakfatht.

03-27-2002, 03:41 PM	#84
Corwin Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 4,369	touches the stawman with his cigarette and watches it burn away Now try answering the question.

03-27-2002, 03:42 PM	#85
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Corwin: --------------- Where is your justification for comparing, let's say a rabbit, to Pompus? --------------- Level of consciousness.

03-27-2002, 03:43 PM	#87
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	spin, I have no problem with someone nuking a pompus bastard to see what happens, provided that I don't have to watch. I find the idea disgusting, but I can't see any good reason to coerce others not to engage in it. ::shrug:: Such transparent attempts to trigger an emotional response get us nowhere. You think that there is no ethically significant difference between humans and other animals. I think that there is. I've attempted to discuss the reasons for our differing opinions, but you've consistently dismissed my position without addressing it. I suppose the civil option is to agree to disagree at this point.

03-27-2002, 03:45 PM	#90
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	"Where is your justification for comparing, let's say a rabbit, to Pompus? (A human being?)" Well maybe not a full grown human, but a baby perhaps? why not? there are plenty more where they came from and their perceptions of pain & fear are on par with a rabbit? why not then?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.