spin

spin:
------------
1000 humans to save 10000 humans? I'm sure you'd agree.
------------

Then again, you wouldn't need 1000 humans, as humans are more relevant for experiments dealing with human problems, there would probably be no need for so many.

So, volunteering seems to be your most honourable option.

spin

spin:
--------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------

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

But not the only words I said on the subject. First the notion of Nazi doctors was never analysed. Here is what I said in another post:

posted March 13, 2002 01:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------
I talked of Nazi doctors doing research on humans in concentration camps, data which was later used, but one cannot justify the method of obtaining the data, as one cannot justify doing so with animals.
--------------------------------------------------

I can't find where I talked about the generally dubious quality of research results from animal experiments, but I did repeat it in the most recent response I gave to you. You did not deal with that nor what I said about the fact that results get used, despite the source of the information.


So, what I have said involves:

1) if results have been useful from animal research, it is too late to refuse to use the information, but it is not too late to stop the animal abuse. (This is the Nazi doctor argument.)

2) the lack of relevance of animal research to human problems.

3) humans can volunteer (if they were serious) to provide more relevant guinea pigs.


posted March 14, 2002 04:09 PM
--------------------------------------------------
Trying to communicate with punker or spin is totally pointless, and I won't do it again.
--------------------------------------------------

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

emphryio

Actually this will probably really piss you off Spin.

I actually am a scientist that does experiments on rats concerning lung deposition.

Geez, I probably shouldn't say that. You might hunt me down and strap my head to a car exhaust pipe.


Actually I think that instead of executing criminals we should use them for experimentation.

BTW, you didn't answer my question. Not particularly surprising.

Excuse me for the possibly incorrect assumption but, it seems, Spin, that you are ruled by your emotions on this subject. I personally find that I can't think as clearly when I'm being emotional.

Just suggesting an idea to you. Feel free to ignore it.

spin

emphryio:
----------------
Actually this will probably really piss you off Spin.

I actually am a scientist that does experiments on rats concerning lung deposition.

Geez, I probably shouldn't say that. You might hunt me down and strap my head to a car exhaust pipe.
----------------

Humans do make more relevant guinea pigs, don't they?

emphryio:
----------------
Actually I think that instead of executing criminals we should use them for experimentation.
----------------

Not enough available. Why not stimulate a lot more? Or use all the emphryios in the world?

emphryio:
----------------
BTW, you didn't answer my question. Not particularly surprising.
----------------

I answered your first post. I have only just noticed a second post which had questions in it (the first didn't) and those I would have thought have been answered in posts on other subjects.

emphryio:
----------------
Excuse me for the possibly incorrect assumption but, it seems, Spin, that you are ruled by your emotions on this subject. I personally find that I can't think as clearly when I'm being emotional.

Just suggesting an idea to you. Feel free to ignore it.
----------------

Thanks.

As internet messages are no real environment to glean what one's emotional commitment to an idea is, you will understand that your guesses at emotional states seems to me not worth posting. Wouldn't you agree?

------

On those 70 years zipping by, it might be worthwhile reading Seneca's "Brevity of Life".

.

.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: spin ]</p>

Not Prince Hamlet

Spin,

Why don't you just accept the challenge to the debate, rather than stirring up the same argument that's ruined two threads already?

Jeff

Bree

He hasn't got anything to say, Jeff. I challenged him as well in the last thread, even posted a 'reminder' with the URL and yet he only mocks the offer.

&lt;sigh&gt;

Maybe we should all move on. The less attention given, perhaps, the better for all?

tronvillain

Probably a good idea Bree.

spin

Bye.

You can go back to the safe world of animal abuse at a distance and stick your head into a good plate of dead animal flesh.

When you don't have to see the animal you'll eat die, it's real easy to eat meat. When one has to do it oneself, most people are not capable. If they cannot take responsibility for their own actions, they should stop eating meat. It is just hypocrisy.

The rest should perhaps be randomly put down and fed to each other. If they are capable of killing other animals they're capable of killing human animals.

tronvillain

I said it was probably a good idea, but that argument is terrible. There are countless of other things I'm unwilling to do for myself yet rely on other people to do for me - it simply does not conform to the definition of hypocrisy.

Examples: Police Officers, Fire Fighters, Proctologists, and so on ad infinitum.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

x-member

Spin,

By chance, are you named after a broken record?