Thread: Not Tested On Animals

Back on track, we could use the terrorists in Gitmo to test new drugs. Problem solved. Save the animals, the innocent ones.

Originally Posted by Ditch

. Save the animals, the innocent ones.

You referring to Eric Burdon & the boys? Cause the other ones ain't so innocent when you get hungry.


All cultures have their giants, even mine.

Angels with dirty Faces (193 Trailer - YouTube

Originally Posted by Ditch

Back on track, we could use the terrorists in Gitmo to test new drugs. Problem solved. Save the animals, the innocent ones.

There are no terrorists in Gitmo. They'd have to have a trial to earn that title officially. All you have are a bunch of accussed foreigners being held without due process, tortured by the real animals.

It's no use, Capulet. In the American psyche, there remains only the "terrist" and the "troops."

It's basically the Lone Ranger with all the interesting parts taken out. Not the racism, though.

Originally Posted by Capulet

There are no terrorists in Gitmo. They'd have to have a trial to earn that title officially. All you have are a bunch of accussed foreigners being held without due process, tortured by the real animals.

Enemy combatants do not deserve a trial when captured on the battlefield with a gun in their hands. Torture is another subject, piling them up and humiliating them in photos is mild when compared to the carving off of one's head with a knife on video as they did an innocent journalist. If released they will go right back into battle, but isn't this about animal testing?

Originally Posted by Capulet

The view of Christianity has not changed in 2000 years. .

View? If anyone wants a nice view he can visit the Empire State Building Observation Deck, 103 stories above street level.
Gandhi was speaking about the behavior of Christians, about how an occupying force underneath the banner of Christianity could suppress the rights of the people of India.

I don't know where "Black History Month" fits in? I was talking about Christians who follow the own teachings, teachings that put money and power before brotherhood.


You certainly enjoy your role of "Great Whitey," the only white boy on the planet capable of understanding and loving anyone with skin color other than white.

Originally Posted by Capulet

tortured by the real animals.

Christians refer to others as animals? Is that the "new" Christianity. I'd hate to hear what would come out of your mouth if someone asked you for an adjective describing the Syrian government's behavior.

I wouldn't call the American soldiers animals. I'd say they are misguided, like so many of the world's other Christians. Is calling a person an animal really improper? I guess it depends on the person using the word. I recall using the word to refer to rapists and murderers.


Something a bit more interesting:

In 1959, China announced they had succeeded in transplanting the head of one dog to the body of another twice.[2]

In 1963, a group of scientists from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio,[3] led by Robert J. White, a neurosurgeon and a professor of neurological surgery who was inspired by the work of Vladimir Demikhov, performed a highly controversial operation to transplant the head of one monkey onto another's body. The procedure was a success to some extent, with the animal being able to smell, taste, hear, and see the world around it. The operation involved cauterizing arteries and veins carefully while the head was being severed to prevent hypovolemia. Because the nerves were left entirely intact, connecting the brain to a blood supply kept it chemically alive. The animal survived for some time after the operation, even at times attempting to bite some of the staff.[4]

Other head transplants were also conducted recently in Japan in rats. Unlike the head transplants performed by Dr. White, however, these head transplants involved grafting one rat's head onto the body of another rat that kept its head. Thus, the rat ended up with two heads.[5] The scientists said that the key to successful head transplants was to use low temperatures.[6]

A human head transplant would most likely require cooling of the brain to the point where all neural activity stops. This is to prevent neurons from dying while the brain is being transplanted. Ethical considerations have thus far prevented any reported attempt by surgeons to transplant a human being's head.



Whatta whirl. Those not pointing the opened end of rifles at one another are busy chopping off the heads of little creatures--all of these fun-filled activites done in the names of politics and of science with the blessings of religions.


[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Robinjazz

Christians refer to others as animals? Is that the "new" Christianity. I'd hate to hear what would come out of your mouth if someone asked you for an adjective describing the Syrian government's behavior.

I wouldn't call the American soldiers animals. I'd say they are misguided, like so many of the world's other Christians. Is calling a person an animal really improper? I guess it depends on the person using the word. I recall using the word to refer to rapists and murderers.

That's a good question. Do Christians refer to others as animals? Since you call yourself a Christian, and admit to calling rapists and murderers animals, then I would assume your answer to the question is yes. But then I'd be wrong, because you say you wouldn't refer to the American soldiers as animals, even though there was evidence they were sodomizing prisoners, which is a form of rape.

You should at least proof your writing for internal consistency. I've always respected that, even if I thought your positions were bat-poop-crazy, they all fit together into one consistent bat-poop-crazy world view.

Originally Posted by Ditch

Enemy combatants do not deserve a trial when captured on the battlefield with a gun in their hands.

do you really think everybody at gitmo was 'captured on the battlefield with a gun in their hands'???

Originally Posted by Ditch

Back on track, we could use the terrorists in Gitmo to test new drugs. Problem solved. Save the animals, the innocent ones.

jesus. please tell me you're joking...

Originally Posted by luckyscars

do you really think everybody at gitmo was 'captured on the battlefield with a gun in their hands'???

No, some were captured making or deploying IED's, others were captured due to intelligence of their involvement in the leadership of their forces. They are the enemy, our forces don't just arrest innocent mothers or farmers. However....

American spokesmen have been asserting, as early as 2004, that newly released captives "returned to the battlefield". The story, as told by American spokesmen as senior as Vice President Dick Cheney, is that these captives tricked their interrogators about their real identity, and made them think they were harmless villagers, and thus were able to "return to the battlefield." Initially these government spokesmen claimed relatively small numbers of former Guantanamo captives had returned to the battlefield. On April 2, 2007, JTF-GTMO commander Harry Harris asserted that thirty former captives "resumed terrorist activities"

Originally Posted by Capulet

Either animal testing is allowed, or it isn't. How can you create the double standard, and where do you draw the line? For cosmetics, I can see your point. There's no need to test products that seep into the skin of billions of people daily, especially since I don't wear it. I also derive no personal value from any testing that would lead to a breakthrough in ovarian health maintenance, can I vote to have it on the "not worthy of testing" category? Or at least have them test it on ugly animals exclusively?

well, i should probably point out i don't think animal protection is the kind of issue that should be a matter of federal law, but state law. partly because the constitution doesn't allow for protection of animals, only people, and partly because i think it would work a lot better. for instance, if a biologically-diverse state like hawaii was concerned about protecting their animals from any kind of harm, not just drug testing, they could make their own laws about it. so i don't see it as a federal issue and certainly not an international one either. but i digress.

it isn't really a double-standard to say that under some circumstances animal use is morally correct where it wouldn't be under others. if it is a double-standard, then its one that is frequently violated since most jurisdictions in the western world have laws that prohibit abuse of animals while allowing others. i.e dog-fights are illegal most places, but factory-farming of chickens for food (which in many respects is far crueler) is usually permissible. therefore it is entirely realistic to address the issue based on the purpose of the cruelty. bear in mind i'm making a moral judgement here, not a legal one (because i dont believe in federal involvement on this issue), and in my opinion it is completely correct to use animals for testing of medicine (at least until we have good stem cell research going) but not for shampoo, etc.

Originally Posted by Ditch

No, some were captured making or deploying IED's, others were captured due to intelligence of their involvement in the leadership of their forces. They are the enemy, our forces don't just arrest innocent mothers or farmers. However....

American spokesmen have been asserting, as early as 2004, that newly released captives "returned to the battlefield". The story, as told by American spokesmen as senior as Vice President Dick Cheney, is that these captives tricked their interrogators about their real identity, and made them think they were harmless villagers, and thus were able to "return to the battlefield." Initially these government spokesmen claimed relatively small numbers of former Guantanamo captives had returned to the battlefield. On April 2, 2007, JTF-GTMO commander Harry Harris asserted that thirty former captives "resumed terrorist activities"

so the U.S government has never made a mistake when it comes to capturing a terrorist? ever?.

i suppose there's no way of knowing though, since they don't get a trial. and you know under current U.S terrorism laws anybody can 'legally' be detained at gitmo, including american citizens. i.e including you, me and just about anybody they decide is an enemy combatant. and as though that isn't bad enough, you want to go testing potentially deadly chemicals on them to spare animals?

revolting

also, ditch, don't even try to suggest for one second the government has never lied about the situation in a war. gitmo is little more that a soviet gulag, and we all felt pretty easy about criticizing soviet justice, didn't we?

Originally Posted by luckyscars

and in my opinion it is completely correct to use animals for testing of medicine (at least until we have good stem cell research going) but not for shampoo, etc.

So what's your definition of medicine, and how do shampoo, soap, make up, and other chemicals we rub into our skin differ?