Animal testing is so wrong!

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i didnt say there were absolute standards but something very near them when simple and slear arguments with no paradoxes such as this one are seen. and all i have to say is that after a few clever replies you have decided to completely dismiss the whole arguments on the grounds that you dont like it and since you have a different point of view than mine therefore no standards for right and wrong truly exist. in the end, ill say this, SURELY YOU CAN DO BETTER! and if u cant than i feal even sadder for u than i currently did.

I wonder who just dismissed a full reply...and I am pretty certain it wasn't me.

Anyways, the point is a) they don't come very near to absolute standards and b) even if they were close...what would that matterß they are not absolute, and therefore just as valid as any other morality out there.

If you could give me one reason why absolute standards for right and wrong exist, I will be certain to consider them, the thing is, you can not, since there are no absolute standards. Just subjective standards made by an individual or society, nothing else.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
{btw i should warn you that your last reply was oddly reminicient of a christian trying to deffend their belief without reasons to back it. just though u shud know}

lets make it clear. given the circumstance there is at any place a SPECTRUM of acceptable and inacceptable behaviour. anything in this spectrum in right and outside it is wrong. for instance you might say that a man ate another man when he was starved to death on a mountain climb and that wasnt immoral because his life was at steak. that DOES fall in under a spectrum of ACCEPTABLE even if barely. but consider this, a person eats another person at a department store with absolutely NO REASON to do so other than his curiosity which was not psychotically fuelled. now according to YOU since there are NO morals such an act can just as easily be right as it can be wrong, but it IS most certainly wrong. there ARE "FLEXIBLE" STANDARDS OF MORALITY but there most certainly ARE standards of morality. depending on the situation they can flex a little or a lot, but there are limits to everything. sometimes these limits are clear, other times they are hazy but there most certainly are limits and many things which are quite EASILY beyond them. you seem to just believe in the one statement that there are absolutely NO morals because sum1 well known said it or you found it impressive/rebellious/cool or watever . its not true. it might be true to the mind that cannot understand or comprehend any limits{a retarted or undeveloped brain or a brain of an infant which is why kids dont go to jail for murder} but for those who can see FACTS{and not personal oppinions or desires but physical FACTS which are easy to read} it is their duty to help those abstain from doing harm to themselves or others who cannot due to retardation or extremely young age, make the right decisions. {n btw the spectrum is very close to absolute standards, unless your talking about illogical relegious standards which there is no reason to talk about as they are completely baseless}

and again im telling you that the morality im talkin about is NOT based on society or individual, but on LOGIC. as it can never EVER be logical {and therefore moral} to kill and devour a man in a super market without any good reason and any1 who says it is is MOST DEFINATELY wrong without even the slightest benefit of probability of being right{which you would more than happily give going by your theory of no morals which would also mean that you wouldnt be surprised if he was labelled as a good, just and right man afterwards}

and as far as the ONE reason for the existance of absolute{or even slightly flexible} morals goes, well here it is:

DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE DONE UNTO YOURSELVES

read that line again and again and plainly give me an answer. is it right or is it wrong. do you agree with it or dont you. thats all "I" ask. and thats all that MY morality is based upon.

Just a little bit of paragraphing would really, really be greatly appreciated.

Okay, why is eating someone at a department store "wrong"? Don't see that it is wrong. It's just another action. A similar one even to the one you just said was right on the mountain. It's not wrong. No reason why it should be.

There are standards of morality. But they are subjective. And different for everyone. For example the guy who ate the other guy at the department store doesn't seem to see anything wrong with eating another person. That's a moral standard. One that you don't like, but certainly just as valid as yours.

The limits are never clear, if they even exist.

I believe in this "no moral" stuff, because there is absolutely zero evidence suggesting different. Using Occam's Razor (one assumption is more complicated than no assumption) it is most likely there aren't any. And then there is that problem where they should come from, and who decides them.

No one can really be sure of "facts", now can they. Another interesting observation. But you seem to think that you for some reason can see the "facts" and that for some reason the moral standards you chose are universally applicable. Well, what is the proof for this enormous statement?

They are not based on logic. Logic tells us that we can't be sure about morals. You use faulty logic to try to prove a point. You fail at that.

Also, who decides what is a Good reason? I mean the man killing the other one certainly had some reason. Who may decide that it wasn't a "good reason"?

No, I don't say he is good either. You don't understand. If there are no morals nothing is bad...nothing is good either. It's just an action. So rescuing the baby is absolutely equal to raping a two year old baby and then slaughtering it in front of its parents.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
and as far as the ONE reason for the existance of absolute{or even slightly flexible} morals goes, well here it is:

DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE DONE UNTO YOURSELVES

read that line again and again and plainly give me an answer. is it right or is it wrong. do you agree with it or dont you. thats all "I" ask. and thats all that MY morality is based upon.

I know it. I disagree with it.

^ its a HARMFUL action with no BENEFITS. and as for all the wrest i think youve proven already that you do not believe that ANYTHING is or possibly can be wrong and your ok with the worst of actions which is why i see no reason to debate anymore on the grounds of logic as you dismiss even that.

"No, I don't say he is good either. You don't understand. If there are no morals nothing is bad...nothing is good either. It's just an action. So rescuing the baby is absolutely equal to raping a two year old baby and then slaughtering it in front of its parents."

pretty self explanatory isnt it?

Originally posted by Blue Dragon
Agree or disagree with me, it isn't my opinion, it it the truth! I know (not think) it's sick and wrong because ordinary animals lose their lives. They live in cages and day by day shampoo is squeezed into their eyes and then they are forced to have their eyes open and left everyday like that. Knowing makes me actually cry...it's not just sad, it's devistating!

I don't really have to say a lot to prove my point, everyone knows what animal testing is all about. I've even saw discusting images of ead monkey's bleeding to death, it's horrible.

The people know that the products work & why are there so many brands of shampoo etc? That's what's killing animals. New shampoo = killed animal, in short term, but it's truth nevertheless.

I agree with shampoo that doesn't include animal testing. I also have a much better idea & so does my mum. All those bleeding tosers in jail who have raped, killed, stolen etc who have televisions, good food, money and are money is paid in order for prisonisers to stay in jail, why not test it on them.

You can call me mad or wierd but I'm sure a lot of people will actually agree with me. I know people who I know do at least, so others around the world will too. There are so many prisonisers in jail because they will risk the crime and aren't really bothered about being in jail.

Sent in for ten years, out in four. Get everything you'd ever what, perfect isn't it? Yes! Bread & water in a dungeon I say or non at all, OR, even better, get rid of them altogether! They'd think twice about doing a crime then. It all fits though. So that's prisoners tested on. Vote yes, or no if you feel that way, but whatever.

I don't really agree with animal testing, but I do in way. I can see how people would agree with it, they have a racoon that cant vocally disagree with a product its being forced to wear because it doesnt speak the same way as us. So we dont really know were hurting it until its on the floor screaming. But alot of people dont see both sides of it.

I would personally have a human being test out the products because they can give you permission to use it on them and any damage thereforth is on their head, its not the producers fault.

I'm just not into a real life 28 Days Later

Originally posted by leonheartmm

DO NOT DO UNTO OTHERS WHAT YOU WOULD NOT LIKE DONE UNTO YOURSELVES

So if people would let others put make up on them or feed the food that isnt exactly ready for distributing then it doesnt matter to them if animals are being "abused".

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^ its a HARMFUL action with no BENEFITS. and as for all the wrest i think youve proven already that you do not believe that ANYTHING is or possibly can be wrong and your ok with the worst of actions which is why i see no reason to debate anymore on the grounds of logic as you dismiss even that.

It has a lot of benefits. That's why people are doing it.
I see, you are chickening out after seeing that you don't have logic to prove it, it's unprovable. And most unlikely that they exist. You gave no reason why morals should be absolute. they aren't. If they are not then Animal testing is not wrong. Get it?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
"No, I don't say he is good either. You don't understand. If there are no morals nothing is bad...nothing is good either. It's just an action. So rescuing the baby is absolutely equal to raping a two year old baby and then slaughtering it in front of its parents."

pretty self explanatory isnt it?

Not at all, you think slaughtering a baby is wrong. Cool. the guy slaughtering the baby doesn't. So, why should it actually be wrong? Cause the majority thinks so? Not a good reason.

not true, animal fur is a LUXURY. food to the greater extent is NOT, its a necessity. even though that doesnt make it RIGHT, it still can be acceptable in a way because the food is NEEDED{though you could become a vegetarian but still that has man real disadvantages and its not natural based on evolutionary history} the fur is NOT needed for survival which makes it far FAR worse than eating an animal because of carnal necessity. its still not GREAT to eat animal meat but it might be thought of as close to acceptable given the situation, wearing fur on the other hand is WRONG.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It has a lot of benefits. That's why people are doing it.
I see, you are chickening out after seeing that you don't have logic to prove it, it's unprovable. And most unlikely that they exist. You gave no reason why morals should be absolute. they aren't. If they are not then Animal testing is not wrong. Get it?

Not at all, you think slaughtering a baby is wrong. Cool. the guy slaughtering the baby doesn't. So, why should it actually be wrong? Cause the majority thinks so? Not a good reason.

lmao. BULLSHIT! you dont know what your saying urself do u? "people are doing it" "it has lots of benefits" wtf?! what people? how many people are EATING other people in department stores without any good reason?! what BENEFITS{which u claim there are a lot of} are they getting from it?!

as for the second part its NOT about what the majority thinks its about LOGIC AND REASONING! slaughtering the baby KILLS THE BABY, which is most definately undesireable both to the society and to the baby. it goes against the basic rights of an individual. just because YOU think that killing a baby is no big deal doesnt make it right u dumass. but what am i arguing for, your mind probably wont even take all that in before dismissing it as being baseless.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lmao. BULLSHIT! you dont know what your saying urself do u? "people are doing it" "it has lots of benefits" wtf?! what people? how many people are EATING other people in department stores without any good reason?! what BENEFITS{which u claim there are a lot of} are they getting from it?!

as for the second part its NOT about what the majority thinks its about LOGIC AND REASONING! slaughtering the baby KILLS THE BABY, which is most definately undesireable both to the society and to the baby. it goes against the basic rights of an individual. just because YOU think that killing a baby is no big deal doesnt make it right u dumass. but what am i arguing for, your mind probably wont even take all that in before dismissing it as being baseless.

I was talking about Animal testing, which you said was wrong. Which has benefits though. So, you should really stick to your way of logic. If killing people in department stores would be right if it had benefits (it has benefits by the way) then Animal testing is right, because it has benefits and people are doing it and not feeling bad.

Then use Logic and Reasoning...there is no logic implying what is right and wrong. That's all there is. Why is killing a useless baby wrong? Your points are indeed baseless...

ahh but u see, the benefits FAR outweigh the disadvantages when you look at it unselfishly. it can be debated that its better to test it on animals than on humans but better still doesnt mean GOOD. its like this, kill an innocent child to heal the sorrows of the world in return. now you wont be blamed if you do indeed kill the child , its definately a BETTER course of action but does that make it RIGHT? i dont think so. in such matter there is only what a man can do and what a man cant but it certainly would be wise to remember that its not RIGHT even if you had no choice, you could learn to forget and move on but to say that it was right is one of the most disgusting things you can do.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
ahh but u see, the benefits FAR outweigh the disadvantages when you look at it unselfishly. it can be debated that its better to test it on animals than on humans but better still doesnt mean GOOD. its like this, kill an innocent child to heal the sorrows of the world in return. now you wont be blamed if you do indeed kill the child , its definately a BETTER course of action but does that make it RIGHT? i dont think so. in such matter there is only what a man can do and what a man cant but it certainly would be wise to remember that its not RIGHT even if you had no choice, you could learn to forget and move on but to say that it was right is one of the most disgusting things you can do.

Unselfishly? How are you supposed to do that? It's just a different type of selfishness. There's no benefits if there is no selfishness.

What does mean good then? What?

It's not right. And not wrong. It just is. We can't judge right And wrong objectively. Logic can't. Logic has no morality.

being unselfish is easy{maybe not for you but for me atleast}

take into account equally the points of view of the animal and the human, look at the advantages and disadvantages to BOTH considering them EQUAL parties and not givin the human any advantage over the animal. and see which side weighs more heavily. it doesnt take a genius to figure it out.

it becomes really easy once you put a human in place of the dog or animal being tested on. that makes you judge unselfishly.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
being unselfish is easy{maybe not for you but for me atleast}

take into account equally the points of view of the animal and the human, look at the advantages and disadvantages to BOTH considering them EQUAL parties and not givin the human any advantage over the animal. and see which side weighs more heavily. it doesnt take a genius to figure it out.

I'd claim it is impossible to be unselfish for you and everyone.

So you are taking a sort of utilitarian standpoint. But why do you take Animals into accounts. What about Plants? Do you take them into account? Insects? Bacteria? Rocks? Planets? Solar Systems? Retarded People?

And you just say that is what defines right and wrong. Well, guess what, that's just another subjective way of defining morality. Like Aristotle's, Kant's, Schopenhauer's, Mills, the Nazi ideologue or the Chrisitan way. No more absolute than any other.

infact i do take all the above mentioned things into account as far as logic will support the argument but then again if i started airing my views on insect rights youd probably have a good laugh so its useless.

and most of the above mentioned ideologies do infact HARM {the nazi ideology etc} individuals for no good reason. its true that not all is black and white but many things are blatantly wrong and can be logically proven wrong.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
infact i do take all the above mentioned things into account as far as logic will support the argument but then again if i started airing my views on insect rights youd probably have a good laugh so its useless.

and most of the above mentioned ideologies do infact HARM {the nazi ideology etc} individuals for no good reason. its true that not all is black and white but many things are blatantly wrong and can be logically proven wrong.

I'd like to hear them. I mean my views of morality towards insects are just the same as to anyone else. So, what do you propose for insects. I mean, they are quite a lot.

So what? Who said that harming someone is wrong? You said that, it's subjective. Not an absolute.

Nothing can be proven wrong logically. Nothing.

it can be proven logically. you wouldnt like someone to harm you would u? assuming that the answer is yes. why then would you presume someone else would like harm done to them any more than you do, the simplest answer statistically and logically is what seems to be most obvious LOGICALLY since YOU dont like harm done to you, so PROBABLY most other people dont like it done to them either.

as far as insects go, they deserve the same rights as an animal which is just about what humans have. we SHOULD take into account that the bugs dont need many things humans or animals do like loving care, feeding, not disturbing and free right to passgae everywhere which is why making them run away from populated areas isnt the same as removing humans residents. but as far as rights of freedom, rights of life and rights of not interfering with their necessities are concerned theres no reason to presume that they shouldnt get as much of these as humans{ofcourse it doesnt seem like that will ever happen realistically but u asked for my views and here they are}