Holocaust on animals

[Kelzie]

First of all, I never said eating animals was good. In fact, that is my opposite opinion hinging on my inability to distinguish if the diet is healthy, since I get conflicting reports. Many doctors say it's unhealthy and nearly impossible to afford. If and only if this were true, then I would be against it. If and only if it's not true, then I am not against it. Understand? I don't WANT to have to eat them, but I don't want to get sick either.

It's not true, but you seem to not want to be convinced, so I can't help you. Read A Diet for a New America. Almost every major medical organization has endorsed a vegan/vegetarian diet.

Secondly, that is not true. You misunderstand Singer. I know his position on eating things, but my comment was directed at animal testing to save lives. Peter Singer is only against testing that is cosmetic or for "pure research," not for experiments that have a net gain via reduction of human suffering and death. In fact, if you read one of his latest articles, he is fully behind the extermination of Chickens that contain the Avian Flu, because the possibility to mass kill humans is very great. Do you know how many people will die if the flu is not exterminated?

First of all, exterminating chickens has nothing to do with animal testing, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that he supports it. Singer condemns most vivisection. He does not believe enough good has come from it to support it.

Pointless endeavours are just that; pointless. I am doing nothing, and nothing is changing if I do do something. There is no net gain or net loss. It's netral from a Utilitarian Calculus.

There are millions of vegans and some form of vegetarians in America. You can't tell me that those numbers don't affect the meat industry. It's not pointless. You just want to think that so that you don't feel guilty about not doing what your philosophy says you should.

And yes, I shop at stores, which mainly use oversees workers. THat's the bulk of goods, because rarely do you find "made in ameica" stuff, and I don't have the money to shop at the mall, where a T-shirt costs 50 dollars. Afraid I don't make that much money,despite my career. I only do what is utilitarian insofar as pragmatism in daily life is concerned. Singer mentions this is pretty much ok in his argument "that bread belongs to the hungry." Singer doesn't fully live up to his standards either. IF he did, he would donate more than 20% of his salary, and he would have let his mother die in order to give that money to someone more needy. It's a standard, but you can't be perfect.

Agreed, we do the best we can. But veganism is much cheaper than eating meat. So now what?

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

First of all, exterminating chickens has nothing to do with animal testing, and it doesn't surprise me in the least that he supports it. Singer condemns most vivisection. He does not believe enough good has come from it to support it.

Yes. He is against vivisection, but not all testing. He is not against killing an organism by injecting it with something that saves mililon of lives when applied to humans, and he is not against stem cell research either, and stem cells are frequently tested on rats. In fact, they had to injur a rat, sever it's spine, and then rebuild that spin with stem cells. It's a pretty famous experiment, and it and others like it will one day eliminte the suffering of millions. That's worth the life of a rat who didn't even die beause of the experiment.

Without experiments, you get no where in medical research. You need lots of cheap test subjects that won't fubar the experiment. Other, mindless animals like rats are the only logical options due to cost/effectiveness. If cannot see how singer disagrees, since the bulk of our modern medicine only exists via animal testing. Millions would be dying had it not been for it. That's unacceptable as a consequence.

It's not true, but you seem to not want to be convinced, so I can't help you. Read A Diet for a New America. Almost every major medical organization has endorsed a vegan/vegetarian diet.

I will have to do more research and consult with my physician. Last time I talked to him about he, he told me not to, because he seems many of his patients who are unhealthy as a result of it.

Agreed, we do the best we can. But veganism is much cheaper than eating meat. So now what?

How is it cheaper. They make it sound like you have to go out and buy absurd supplements and special dietary foods. At the local supermarkets, "organic" and "speciality items" for vegans are expensive as all hell. The soy milk here is like 4 dollars a quart. THat's retarded.

 

[robin]

True but I consider my dog to be above killers and rapists because he is kind, caring, and possesses more human virtues than some humans.

I prefer dogs to chimps. But heck... maybe that means I prefer dogs to humans since chimps are closer to humans than dogs. I prefer dogs to a lot of humans. Some humans are devious & self serving. Dogs are so innocent & they have pure hearts. All they ask is for food & affection.

 

[Kelzie]

Yes. He is against vivisection, but not all testing. He is not against killing an organism by injecting it with something that saves mililon of lives when applied to humans, and he is not against stem cell research either, and stem cells are frequently tested on rats. In fact, they had to injur a rat, sever it's spine, and then rebuild that spin with stem cells. It's a pretty famous experiment, and it and others like it will one day eliminte the suffering of millions. That's worth the life of a rat who didn't even die beause of the experiment.

Without experiments, you get no where in medical research. You need lots of cheap test subjects that won't fubar the experiment. Other, mindless animals like rats are the only logical options due to cost/effectiveness. If cannot see how singer disagrees, since the bulk of our modern medicine only exists via animal testing. Millions would be dying had it not been for it. That's unacceptable as a consequence.

So that's all you're replying to, huh?

I've already said I agree. You're preaching to the choir. An animal life is not worth a human life.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

No, I replied to the other stuff, but I just added it to the above post.

 

[Kelzie]

I will have to do more research and consult with my physician. Last time I talked to him about he, he told me not to, because he seems many of his patients who are unhealthy as a result of it.

What will it take to convince you that it's healthy? Here's a list of medical groups that endorse a vegan/vegetarian diet:

the Mayo Clinic, the American Heart Association, US Government (specifically, the doctors that devised the food pyramid), Cornell, the American Dietetic Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Liverpool John Moores University in England, American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, USDA, Dieticians of Canada, British Nutrition Foundation

How is it cheaper. They make it sound like you have to go out and buy absurd supplements and special dietary foods. At the local supermarkets, "organic" and "speciality items" for vegans are expensive as all hell. The soy milk here is like 4 dollars a quart. THat's retarded.

Meat's expensive. Beans and tofu aren't. I've already said I take one vitamin, B12, which is pretty cheap as far as vitamins go. I don't know what to tell you about the soy milk. Mine's 2 bucks a gallon.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Yes. He does not claim all animals are actually equal. That's a catchy phrase he attributes to his work. He's talking about equality of consideration.

I'm all for that. I can't eat grass. Cows can. So the cow nicely eats the grass, and then I eat the cow, so I too can enjoy the benefits of grass.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Your premises have nothing to do with your conclusions, and none of this has anything to do with the topic. As usual :lol:

And you say you aren't an Objectivist. Pish posh. Haha. Yes you are.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Scarecrow Wrote:

Have you managed to read beyond the cover of the booK? [The Virtue of Selfishness]


Sadly, yes, I have read two of her nonsense books, both Atlas Shrugged (wank material), and (The Fountain head).

Okay. That answer raises a crucial point.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "yes"? I ask if you read one book, and you say yes, you've read two of hers, but neither is the book I named.

Your inability to employ standard definitions of common words makes rational discussion difficult.

A valid argument against not attempting to rescue the child would be one's inability to swim. Balancing one's own life against another is a choice, not an obligation. That's a real situation that explains the limits of reality.

No. Mine was equally valid. If I were an objectivist, and I didn't like childre, and I held my expensive shoes as more valuable than whatever fame I might/might not get, then I would choose my shoes and my time over the kid.

That's the complete stupidity of Objectivisim--aka. Selfishness.

That may be, if you were a faux objectivist. What's the highest value of an objectivist? Human life. First his own, then others. But he's free to make choices. There are those who'll think about their shoes, sure. (What? They don't come off?...who goes swiming with shoes anyway? But we'll hold to your example.) There are those people who realize that money isn't the only measure of cost, that failure to act will cost them emotional upset for the rest of their life. Those people will act to rescue the child.

There are those phonies concerned more for their shoes, and who never think twice over hurt they've caused others, through action and inaction. There's a word for the kind of person you describe. They're sociopaths.

If you need to summon examples from the psychologically aberrant to make your point, your point's already lost.

What's your alternative? Clearly if you think that the individual cannot withhold his services from the needs of others, then you think the need of others can command service. Impressed servitude. When that is taken to it's logical extreme, individuals are dragged from the streets to fight wars started by others, to die if necessary. That's a true pathological problem. And it's real.

If you disagree, explain what benefit to anyone accrues by the would be rescuers also getting killed.

Anyone could claim any reason not to rescue, and all would be equally valid under Objectivist logic. That's absurd.

No. Clearly one must examine each situation as unique cost vs benefit analysis. There's no benefit to the rescuer if he dies and the resuee's situation is not improved. The trade of life for life would demand that the saved life be worth more to the one whose life is lost than his own. Certainly those situations can happen, but it's not a decision that can be made by anyone else.

And there are people paid to do rescuing. Not only have they made a free choice to get in the rescue business, they're trained to minimize risks and hazards to themselves.

Or, going to the Opera every day of the week, if you feel like it, is easily defendable under Objectivism instead of giving a dime to starving children as charity. Objectivism is the "Help if you feel like it, **** em if you don't" philosophy. It's shitty when applied to reality.

I never go to the opera, and I never give a dime to anyone. Taxes are stolen from me at gunpoint and wasted on those places to take care of any obligation I might otherwise feel.

I'm making sure that a couple of specific children don't starve. That's my responsibility.

Don't those other starving children got mothers? Fathers? Or are they living in countries where altruism is the law, and hence no one has anything except the Dictator-for-Life?

 

[George_Washington]

For the whole part of veganism versus meat eating...I could never be a vegan. I hate most vegetables. I eat them cause they're healthy and I need what they contain but that's about it. If I had to be a vegan exclusively, I'd also have to be on about 5 different kinds of diets.

Now I could do an all sushi diet as I love fish. But most vegetables taste like garbage to me.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Okay. That answer raises a crucial point.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "yes"? I ask if you read one book, and you say yes, you've read two of hers, but neither is the book I named.

Your inability to employ standard definitions of common words makes rational discussion difficult.

Yes. I read that shitty book too, although I don't own it. I went to a public library, so at least she didn't scam me of money with her nonsense. Most of the crap in her fiction novels are the core principles expressed in her "non-fiction." The Virtue of Selfishness is just as stupid as the other texts she writes. Obvlious to any consequences other than those that affect the self.

Charity is evil! Standard definitions? LoL. I use definitions from dictionaries. It's not that hard.

I never go to the opera, and I never give a dime to anyone. Taxes are stolen from me at gunpoint and wasted on those places to take care of any obligation I might otherwise feel.

Here comes the whiney dumbass routine! MOMMY! TAXES ARE BWAAAAAD! BWAAAD! I don't wanna pway my twaxes! WAAAAAAAAAAAAH WAAAAAAAAH! It's stealing! Pathetic monkies always whine about paying taxes and then make grandiose arguments for the use of charity instead. Please, go pull that bullshit somewhere else. If you were really going to donate enough money to fill the void from loss of taxation, you wouldn't be bitching about paying your taxes in the first place. So suck it up and cry me a river. Every generic libertardian dregs up this horseshit cop-out argument countless times, no matter how imbecilic it is ethically.

The dumbshits who whine about taxes are always the same dumbasses who don't give a **** about others, claim to want charity, and then give jack. How bout you just sit down, shut the frak up, and pay your taxes you whiney bastard. That's better.

It's patently moronic to call taxation theft, and even if it were, it's irrelevant due to the vast need in the face of even greater apathy and greed. The net gain is positive, and it makes a better society. Taxation is necessary for a civilized nation. Most taxation goes to benefit everyone in terms of public services, and the taxation that does not goes to benefit those who need it most. If you don't like taxes, go move to the wilderness and live alone outside of society. Revoke your participation in the social contract and be totally self-sufficient on your own squatter land.

The wealthy have more, so they can afford to paymore. Please, that worthless california governer owns several hummers. He could have fed an entire village for years with that money. Obviously, his frivolous wastage of resources on vehicals he will likely never use was more important that someone dying of starvation. Needs come before wants.

Look up theft in a legal text. Taxation is no more theft than execution is murder. By definition they cannot be. Theft is the illegal taking of property. If it's constitutional, it cannot be illegal, which means it cannot be theft. Now, say what you mean, and stop using bullshit language---you don't want taxes taken from you because you are cheap tight-ass Libertardian who only cares about 1 person--himself. Stop bull********; speak up lad, and stop hiding behind your Objectivist rhetoric. Haha. All a clever way of trying to justify selfishness. Objectivism is so novel.

You say it is wasted simply because you do not directly benefit. That shows you are selfish. That's the true meaning of being an Objectivist. You only care about yourself. NO matter how fancy you try to make it, in the end, YOU are the one who matters in totality.

I'm making sure that a couple of specific children don't starve. That's my responsibility.

Most parents do a lot more than prevent their children from starving. They waste money spoiling them with crap they don't need while other people are living off of less than a dollar a day. Pathetic selfish tripe.

Don't those other starving children got mothers? Fathers? Or are they living in countries where altruism is the law, and hence no one has anything except the Dictator-for-Life?

Many? No. Many others? Yes. Do they make enough in the slum shitholes they reside? No. This has nothing to do with "altruism" and everything to do with the supreme greed of dictators and unscrupulous corporations who will exploit the labour of peasants for pennies an hour. They can easily pay workers next to nothing, and get a way with it, all because it's in their own "self interest." Further, it must be wonderful living in countries that were plundered by europeans for hundreds of years and then left to rot.

That may be, if you were a faux objectivist. What's the highest value of an objectivist? Human life.

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. Objectivists don't give two-shits about human life. Life isn't the issue; the desire and wants of the self are all that matter. That is not to be equated with Human life. They only care about the desires of one person--the Objectivst. You got no basis for stating that an Objectivst values "life" any more than any other philosophy, except other philosophies actually value the preferences of more than one person. Objectivists don't give a ****. THere is no "faux" objectivist any more than you can say there is a "true" objectivist, either. Both accusations are nonsensical versions of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

First his own, then others. But he's free to make choices.

First himself, then his own (if he feels like it), and then others (if he feels like it). He has a "choice" = he is free to do whatever he wants, regardless of the consequences to others.

There are those who'll think about their shoes, sure. (What? They don't come off?...who goes swiming with shoes anyway? But we'll hold to your example.) There are those people who realize that money isn't the only measure of cost, that failure to act will cost them emotional upset for the rest of their life. Those people will act to rescue the child.

Oh yes, SOME people will act to save the child because they want to. Others will say **** em, and walk on, and they are both on equal moral footing, according to Randroids. That child better ****ing hope to christ he doesn't get the second type of Objectitard. He better learn to grow gills.

There are those phonies concerned more for their shoes, and who never think twice over hurt they've caused others, through action and inaction. There's a word for the kind of person you describe. They're sociopaths.

Objectivism = justification for sociopathy. Anything goes, as long as it benefits the self and doesn't actively violate anyone's rights.

If you need to summon examples from the psychologically aberrant to make your point, your point's already lost.

No, it's not lost, because Objectivism condones and allows such behavior as perfectly ethical.

What's your alternative? Clearly if you think that the individual cannot withhold his services from the needs of others, then you think the need of others can command service. Impressed servitude. When that is taken to it's logical extreme, individuals are dragged from the streets to fight wars started by others, to die if necessary. That's a true pathological problem. And it's real.

Equating it to slavery is laughable, and also unsupported slipperly slope. Asking someone to do the best they can for everyone they can to limit the most suffering possible, and asking people to respect the dignity of other persons is hardly slavery. You are assuming too much, and you are thinking in terms of black/white. There is no happy medium. You still have an obligation to do your duty to minimize suffering even if no one is forcing you to do it. You ought to choose to do it, because doing the BEST you can is the most rational choice.

If someone is in dire need, you ought to help them untill they can help themselves, or help them help themselves. If you can, you ought to help. If you cannot, you have no obligation. Ought implies can, and if you ought to, that means you should.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Charity is evil!

Who said that? Charity is a voluntary act. A gift. While charity can be harmful, how can you claim it's evil?

If you were really going to donate enough money to fill the void from loss of taxation, you wouldn't be bitching about paying your taxes in the first place.

It's patently moronic to call taxation theft, and even if it were, it's irrelevant due to the vast need in the face of even greater apathy and greed.

tax A contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.

this definition is flawed, because...

contribution
n 1: any one of a number of individual efforts in a common endeavor; "I am proud of my contribution to the team's success"; "they all did their share of the work" [syn: part, share] 2: a voluntary gift (as of money or service or ideas) made to some worthwhile cause [syn: donation]

Note well the word "voluntary". It infuses the whole notion of "contribution". Taxes are NEVER voluntary.

theft
n. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.

steal
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

In order for you to argue that taxation is not stealing, you not only have to argue that rights exist, but that the group has a higher right to a person's wages than the individual does.

You can't pass the first hurdle, right don't exist. How then do you get to the second one, explaining how the group can rob the individual, let alone get over it? This'll be entertaining.

Also, the essence of charity is that the donor defines the gift, not the recipient. Can you imagine if the Red Cross had the right to demand blood? That would create a whole new market for DDT.

The net gain is positive, and it makes a better society.

Oh? Does it? Here's one problem you face:

James Madison:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison

Government sponsored charity is unconstitutional.

Here's another:

Where is the worst poverty found, you know, the greatest need? Africa. What's the problem with Africa? The socialist governments that steal all the loose change, so no one can afford to start businesses, or keep them.

What's wrong with Germany? Socialist governments taking things, like the freedom of employers to fire slugs, and giving things, like five weeks of paid vacation a year for everyone. Ditto France.

Why did the Soviet Union collapse? A tax rate of 100%. That's the same problem Norh Korea faces, too.

Clearly too much stealing is a bad thing.

Then, of course, there's reality intruding on your little dream world of lovey-dovey and caring. It's called the Laffer Curve. Since we're currently at the high tax end of the Laffer Curve, explain what would happen to economic growth if the tax rates were reduced to the lower rate that would yield the same revenues to the government?

Taxation is necessary for a civilized nation.

Is it? Don't you have to define "civilized" first? And "necessary", of course. Are you able to say what the proper functions of government are in a free society?

Most taxation goes to benefit everyone in terms of public services, and the taxation that does not goes to benefit those who need it most.

Oh, it does? Most federal outlays wasted. In 1999 an audit determined that the Department of Education had absolutely no idea where $500 million went. And for all the money that's being spent on education 20% of California high school seniors couldn't pass an exit exam geared to an eighth grade level.

There's a couple of entertaining ways of looking at that. If they're testing to the eighth grade level, couldn't the education budget be cut by 33%? Why spend the money to teach grades 9, 10, 11, and 12 when it's not tested? Or they could devise a test to find that 20% early and kick them out of school, they're clearly too stupid to be wasting money on. Lots of fun things to do to save money there, right?

How did anyone outside of teachers and their unions benefit from those wasted dollars?

Not too long ago, the government spent money on levees in New Orleans. Now, the money spent went to build social clubs and casinos and other crap, and little went to levees, which didn't really matter because the levee that failed was as good as the Army Corp of Engineers thought it needed to be, but all that money was being spent anyway.

How did anyone outside of politicians and their cronies benefit from those wasted dollars?

I won't say the military doesn't waste dollars. The Navy was spending hundreds of thousands per unit to install "unisex" heads on ships. Think how many flak jackets that could have provided in Iraq.

Then there's the entitlements that benefit no one except the guy getting the check. That ponzi scheme Roosevelt concocted does nothing except transfer money from the poorest workers in the country to the richest people, the retirees who've spent a live time amassing personal wealth. Ditto Medicaid. All that money is WASTED.

If you don't like taxes, go move to the wilderness and live alone outside of society. Revoke your participation in the social contract and be totally self-sufficient on your own squatter land.

What is it with you people, anyway? You got Cuba, isn't that the paradise you people have been working for? Yet you people have the balls to tell the producers to leave if they don't like being robbed. The LAST thing you people want is for people like me to leave.

Then you guys always bring up that socialist contract nonsense. Excuse me, but I didn't sign any contract, so I'm not obligated to live by whatever rules this imaginary document seeks to impose on me. Can you post your copy of
this thing so we all can check it out? Hint: Rousseau was one of the fathers of socialism. The first thing socialists did when they took power during the French Revolution was to cut off 40,000 heads.

The wealthy have more, so they can afford to paymore.

Did any of them hire you as their accountant? No? Then how did you become able to judge what another person can afford to pay? Your arrogance is astounding.

Please, that worthless california governer owns several hummers. He could have fed an entire village for years with that money. Obviously, his frivolous wastage of resources on vehicals he will likely never use was more important that someone dying of starvation.

So? You don't think thorwing money at them will change things, do you? It never does. That's why it shouldn't be done. It's a waste.[/quote]

Needs come before wants.

No. One person's needs must come before that person's wants, if he's crazy enough to confuse the two. That person's needs NEVER become another person's obligations. And that's because your socialist contract is a fiction.

Now, say what you mean, and stop using bullshit language---you don't want taxes taken from you because you are cheap tight-ass Libertardian who only cares about 1 person--himself. Stop bull********; speak up lad, and stop hiding behind your Objectivist rhetoric. Haha. All a clever way of trying to justify selfishness. Objectivism is so novel.

It's amazing how the takers need the short words, if you know what I mean. I'm perfectly familiar with what theft is. When are you going to explain why my property is yours?

You say it is wasted simply because you do not directly benefit. That shows you are selfish. That's the true meaning of being an Objectivist.

No. I say it's wasted becuase society gets as much benefit from it as if it was put in a pile and burned. Perhaps you noticed that the black family doesn't exist in American inner cities anymore? That's YOUR ideas at work. Those people NEED you, now. I don't need you, and that's the advantage of being "selfish". Because I'm concerned with myself, I don't need to steal from others.

You only care about yourself.

No. I have a family. They come first, at the very front of the line, ahead off all the useless welfare maggots in the inner cities, ahead of all the white trash rural freeloaders, and way way out in front of every single starving child Sally Struther's paraded on my TV. And amazingly once their NEEDS are taken care of, there's absolutely NOTHING left for the parasites, because the parasites don't do anything for ME.

I don't make things fancy. There's elegance in saying things plainly.

NO matter how fancy you try to make it, in the end, YOU are the one who matters in totality.

I know. Glad you agree.

And that's why I see nothing wrong with responsible animal experimentation.

 

[George_Washington]

Here comes the whiney dumbass routine! MOMMY! TAXES ARE BWAAAAAD! BWAAAD! I don't wanna pway my twaxes! WAAAAAAAAAAAAH WAAAAAAAAH! It's stealing! Pathetic monkies always whine about paying taxes and then make grandiose arguments for the use of charity instead. Please, go pull that bullshit somewhere else. If you were really going to donate enough money to fill the void from loss of taxation, you wouldn't be bitching about paying your taxes in the first place. So suck it up and cry me a river. Every generic libertardian dregs up this horseshit cop-out argument countless times, no matter how imbecilic it is ethically.

The dumbshits who whine about taxes are always the same dumbasses who don't give a **** about others, claim to want charity, and then give jack. How bout you just sit down, shut the frak up, and pay your taxes you whiney bastard. That's better.

You kiss your mother with that mouth? You're a pathetic excuse for an atheist.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Not really. I am a "good" atheist. You cannot be a "bad" atheist, since atheism has no standard for anything. It's neutral.

Libertarians are like anarchists in that they whine, bitch, and moan about authority. That's so emo. blah blah blah..more derivations of "I don't wanna pay my taxes mommy!" Property is theft! Rawr! Idiots.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

Objectivists are immune to things like logic and ethics, therefore, there is no point in debate here. Nothing anyone says can falsify their beliefs, and I grow tired of this imbecile's red herrings, false analogies, consistant strawmen, and goalpost shifting. Everyone is a commuinist and a socialist if he holds a different ethical system.

Keep Strawmanning posts that one day you might progress to actually going after arguments. Untill then kiddie---toodles.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Objectivists are immune to things like logic

Without logic, you can't have ethics. So when are you going to present a reasoned logic response to what I said? Not that you need to, I always enjoy watching childish emotional outburts.

Some ways you could start:

What do you mean by 'socialist contract', and when did I sign it?

You could comment on my assertion that "rights" are fiction. (Which, BTW, means most definitely that animals ain't got any, either)

You can explain how I benefit when money is stolen from me to keep a 600-lb welfare mammy in New Orleans knee deep in welfare checks. Be specific, and remember, that in order for it to be a "benefit" to me, I must gain more dollars than what was taken from me by government agents waving guns.

Please address in your emotional response the fact that my extorted support of parasites in New Orleans means that I am not able to hire workers in Los Angeles to increase production. Thus by feeding a parasite in New Orleans, your government is creating more parasites in Los Angeles. How is that a gain for society?

You have fun now. If you're able, can you hook yourself up to a sphygmomanometer and give us some readings?:lol:

 

[jamesrage]

Originally posted by nerual5

Should animals be tested and killed off by lab testing?

Would you be happy if they did experiments on prisoners instead of animals?

Should their life be valued any less than a human beings life?

What are you?One of those retards from PETA,ELF or ALF?

Around 2 million animals a year are being used for lab research just in the United States and are being put under stressful situations, and given horrible diseases, just so scientists can view the outcome.

Most of the tests that are done are meaningless. An animals response to a disease or drug can be way different from that of a human being, making the results useless. There have been many instances where a drug would work on an animal but when it is released to the public, death or serious injury occured. Is the testing really saving lives here?

Two million animals are better than 2 million humans.Beside look at it this way,if a cure for a human was found though animal testing then you know there is a cure for that animal.

Animal testing is morally wrong, any form of life should not have to go through the painful and inhumane lab testing.

It is liberals like you that make other liberals ashamed to be liberals.Put yourself in a straight jaket and go call lthe people in the white coats to pick you up and perhaps you can get those sheep ****ers in PETA/ELF/ALF to join you.

 

[Kelzie]

Would you be happy if they did experiments on prisoners instead of animals?

What are you?One of those retards from PETA,ELF or ALF?

Two million animals are better than 2 million humans.Beside look at it this way,if a cure for a human was found though animal testing then you know there is a cure for that animal.

It is liberals like you that make other liberals ashamed to be liberals.Put yourself in a straight jaket and go call lthe people in the white coats to pick you up and perhaps you can get those sheep ****ers in PETA/ELF/ALF to join you.

Why would you respond to a thread that's been dead for a month? Why? I doubt the guy is even still here.

 

[jamesrage]

Why would you respond to a thread that's been dead for a month? Why? I doubt the guy is even still here.

Here is a few reasons why

1.There are peta idiots like him who might be still active in this site.

2.I did not notice this thread a month ago.

3.The response is more directed at everyone who shares his views.

4.I was bored.

 

[Kelzie]

Here is a few reasons why

1.There are peta idiots like him who might be still active in this site.

2.I did not notice this thread a month ago.

3.The response is more directed at everyone who shares his views.

4.I was bored.

Nope. I don't buy it. I think I'll ban you. :mrgreen: