Hypothesis re. animal testing etc.

RE: Jesus Christ

Hypothesis - a proposition tentatively assumed in order to draw out its logical or empirical consequences and test its consistency with facts that are known or may be determined.

So people were merely extrapolating the hypothesis.
Although I did say it was morally wrong but then went on to extrapolate (that's my word for the day!)

 

RE: Jesus Christ

And in doing so changed the question into one a little more comfortable to answer.

 

RE: Jesus Christ

How did I change the question?

 

yes

your hypothesis, that were aliens to come to earth and experiment on us THEY would be morally right to blah blah, yes because they would see it as vital to ensure survival of their race. The board members with marginal cognitive ability would feel persecuted others as i'm sure all the lovely doggies and guinea pigs who have an understanding of morality do. Worked in pharmaceutical research and with animals, we're a frail race, till there's a better way...

 

RE: Jesus Christ

Forget it mate, life's too short, you're not going to get it.

 

Bloody hell, another answer.

We're doing well this morning.

Reight.

I'm a bit concerned that you award the right to make the moral judgement to those in the position of power in order to justify the answer. Maybe my question should have been clearer and asked do YOU consider they would be morally right. Or imagine yourself a completely detached and unbiased intelligence, maybe that's the only way to keep the philosophy of the whole thing pure.

And we're not talking about survival of a race, we're talking about medical research. I don't think the "lovely doggies" need an understanding of morality to suffer pain. It's unfortunate that people with that kind of attitude are allowed to work with animals.

As I said I think if the majority were to answer objectively and truthfully the answer would have to be that no it wouldn't be morally right but I want to put my own species first and continue. It's a valid response to the question, we're not perfect.

Your conclusion appears to be that might is right. Where do you stand on war for oil?




.

 

Interesting theory Durkar, but I think you'll find that a number of the animals that we today keep as pets, domesticated themselves over time as a survival instinct. Dogs for example learned that if they "worked" for man, he would in turn reward them with food and shelter.

Not sure about cats, they're all ********.

 

Cats pretty much worked out the same thing

But unlike dogs they realised they got the same rewards without having to do any work.

 

RE: Cats pretty much worked out the same thing

See, I'm right.

Windy should ask cats about morals. They're the equivalent of benefit scroungers when it comes down to it!

 

ooh, ooh

Just thought. Don't cats leave "presents" every now and again. You know the odd dead bird or mouse?

I take it all back about Cats, they're not scroungers.

 

RE: Cats pretty much worked out the same thing

The difference between the way they interact with humans is down to the way they survive in the wild. Dogs are natural co-operators, cats, with the exception of lions, hunt alone.

Also cat owners are not be trusted.

 

They do leave presents, but

Most of the cats I know have Sky TV, so I think they are scroungers after all. I get on well with cats. My best friend is called Tiger Thomas.

 

aaah

i'm not awarding the right to make a moral judgement to those damn pesky aliens, they would take it and justify it, that was your hypothesis... i would feel persecuted and believe that it was unjust, as the little doggies do, form a resistance unit, wear a nice uniform, black perhaps, write a book, appear on This Morning... Unless they had an alternative way they would look down on a lesser species much as we do and consider their code of morality inferior to there own, do whatever they felt they could get away with. I do see vital medical research as the survival of our race, we would have been playing second fiddle to cockroaches years ago without it.
War for oil, which ever way i look at it, can't justify that one

 

My dog has Sky TV

Would I be breaching the contract if I sent some rabbits to Mr Murdoch each month? It's the only currency she knows at the moment.

She also does animal testing on spiders, snails and slugs to see how quick they can get away from her. I believe this is for her own pleasure and not a survival instinct. Should I have her put down?

 

RE: Cats pretty much worked out the same thing

Cats have freewill and a mind of their own rather than blindly obeying like dogs. Cat owners therefore appreciate freedom and freedom of choice, dog owners are control freaks and fascists!

 

Depends on your particular set of morals - morality is not set in stone (apart from ten commandments), morals are down to personal belief, its only when a community has a similar morality and comes up against an individual with a different morals that problems occur.

To be honest its a stupid question, we cannot answer it, only the alien can. But if you really asking whether it is right that humans experiment on animals, then I believe that, yes, in certain circumstances it is.

 

Live rabbits or dead?

I don't know Mr Murdoch, but maybe he is partial to a bit of rabbit stew. On the other hand, maybe he has a refuge for lost rabbits and spends his days nurturing them back to health. Either way, I think it's worth a shot. I've heard Sky TV can be very expensive and you've got to find a use for all those rabbits.

 

Not sure yet

Is it cruel to put a rabbit in an A4 envelope and send it first class from the UK to Australia?

If it is, I'll kill it with my bear hands (which I cut off a bear). I wouldn't want a touch a rabbit with my bare hands, could have mixy or something.

 

RE: aaah

I can't beieve that you think that a cessation of animal experiments would threaten the survival of our "race" or that you think dipping into the past for "would haves" is relevant to this debate. We're talking about now.

Strange also that you believe the removal of any future medical experiments which involve animal suffering would have such a greater impact on us than the removal of our oil supply that they're on different sides of your moral tolerance threshold.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being a bit flippant with your "little doggies" quips. I can't imagine anyone of sound mind could be that insensitive to the suffering of animals.