Animal Testing

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

Sonic_Moronic said:
If you could save Hitler or a cow, who would you save?

Your hypothetical questions are pretty ridiculous.

Hitler.

Sep 15, 2011 4:04 PM

#153

I watch movies/I write about movies (in Spanish)/I watch anime

Offline

Sep 2009

663

Zmffkskem said:
I can discuss philosophy if you want, but it will (necessarily) go nowhere.

Right, well I don't think I can explain my position any more thoroughly than I already have, otherwise I'll just end up repeating myself and that'll be a waste of both our time.

Zmffkskem said:
Except 'the sick person' refers to
Thousands,
Millions, or as Lex Luthor wildly exclaims
BILLIONS!

Eh, same goes for test subjects. If you can't justify unwilling tests on humans, I don't see how you can justify unwilling tests on any other animals. And if you can justify tests on humans, then might as well use them, because that's where the real data is.

Zmffkskem said:
Attempting to seek willingness, simply stated, will destroy the point of testing. There is no data to be had.

That makes no sense at all.

jal90 said:
I don't think humans are superior. But I'm more interested on saving a human, because of empathy, reproduction, or whatever many reasons you can get.

Commentary on "Humans First" mentality in general:

While I don't feel it myself, I do understand the evolutionary tendency to favor your own species. Same as other animals will avoid eating their own species and will generally save their own from immediate danger before others,* humans can't be blamed for having that instinct. However, that's where my sympathy for this instinct ends: a direct relationship to personal survival in the form of (non-tortured) food and self-defense.

When it comes to global, impersonal scales dealing with astronomical numbers of lives on both sides, I don't think it's a very sane policy. This is the same instinct that fueled racism and tribalism. It's the same instinct that makes people pamper their companion cats or dogs and be apathetic towards others of the same species languishing in laboratories. Because this instinct really isn't about favoring your own species at all, it's about favoring the "in" group at the expense of the "out" group, with the "in" group being defined based on perceived genetic or personal closeness. It is a highly biased survival strategy that doesn't resemble fairness and turns even more irrational when applied beyond its scope.

It starts by saying that "the life of an in-group is generally worth more than the life of an out-group." That is relatively manageable on small, personal scales directly related to survival. You run into trouble when that social guideline becomes an absolute statement: "the life of an in-group is always worth more than the life of an out-group." Then gets expanded further into "the life of an in-group is always worth more than any number of out-group lives," and even gets applied in matters not directly related to survival. This is where I think it becomes a terrifying, unmanageable, irresponsible and unjustifiable clusterfuck. I'd rather avoid that by acknowledging that lives are unquantifiably equal, and weighing everyone's interests at stake fairly.

In-group/out-group mentality applied on a global scale neglects the reality of everybody's interdependence on each other, and creates a catastrophically skewed system that amounts to blind bias run rampant. This is not some hypothetical slippery slope. This is happening right now. I think humans have outgrown the need for such an instinct, not because of any mental faculties, but because a growing human population approaching the carrying capacity of the planet is in no immanent danger of extinction except from themselves. Even if this instinct might've been helpful in the past, it is now counter-productive. Not taking responsibility for the current scale of abuse is to humanity's own detriment.

It's funny that you mention "empathy" as a reason for favoring humans, though. It is empathy that trumped racism and tribalism. It is empathy that allows all animals to easily override species-favoritism. They will choose to help those genetically unrelated to them based on trans-species relationships which are possible through the fundamental similarities between animals. We form bonds with other species because we understand each other and empathize with each other. In fact, some individuals relate better to other species than they do to their own. We're not different in any way that prevents meaningful friendships, deep caring, and mutual self-sacrifice.

When you have a close relationship with someone from another species, do you not value their life as much as (or even more than) your own, same as an equivalent relationship with someone of your species? Why not have empathy-based morals reflect this basic reality? No longer as a matter of personal bias, but as a recognition of this potential in/between all sentient beings.

*This is particularly true when it comes to their current social group, and especially family members. There are also big exceptions, such as if an individual has a personal relationship with another species. Overall it resembles the in-group/out-group pattern, and is evidence of emotional attachment more than anything.

Neiru2013Sep 16, 2011 5:13 PM

Tumblr * Other Web Shrines I made * My Anime/Manga page

Sep 16, 2011 2:30 AM

#154

Dark_Puddles

Offline

May 2009

234

jal90 said:
Eh, I don't think humans are superior. But I'm more interested on saving a human, because of empathy, reproduction, or whatever many reasons you can get.

And that's up to you.

jal90 said:
You claim animals and humans are equal, right?

I guess. Mainly I just think that there is no real basis for making out humans are so much better than all animals just because they are more intelligent, when many animals show so much awareness and a array of emotions. And I find the sacrifice of animals for things that people can easily live without is ridicuolous.

jal90 said:

The fact you say and act with the "humans and dogs are equal" idea is making itself a difference because most if not every else animals' minds don't work like that. You are assuming we are "superior" enough to judge, compare and equal another animal to us.

Sorry if I sound rude but how would you know enough about how animals minds work to make a statement like that? Animal minds and behaviours aren't hugely understood. And even if they can't I don't think that makes us superior, we just have the ability to do so.

If you were basing your reply on my comment about a random human and animal and which I would choose to die if I had to, I probably would choose the human due to being able to understand them more and empathise with them more but not because I believe they are superior.

If it was because of choosing my hypothetical dog over a random human I don't really know how you couldn't get that.

Sep 16, 2011 2:37 AM

#155

Plun

Offline

Aug 2008

2788

AnotherDay said:
They should test on Death Row Prisoners

On humans is even worst.

✿▬▬▬▬ ♛ 김유정 ♛ ▬▬▬▬✿

Sep 16, 2011 11:40 AM

#156

jal90

Offline

Oct 2010

11839

Dark_Puddles said:

jal90 said:
You claim animals and humans are equal, right?

Agreed.

Dark_Puddles said:

Ehm, I don't think so. The fact we don't know about how other animals view the world, how their mind works and which is their subjective experience doesn't mean that we can't measure the physical results of the behaviours and interactions and relate acts to benefits or damages. So if a cat eats a bird, it's a positive result for the cat who takes proteins and energy and for the bird it's negative because its life is gone and therefore its ability to reproduce its genes.

Take into account that I talk about "animal minds" in a very heterogeneous way, because ultimately I don't know what moves the cat to hunt the bird although I could come with many hypothesis, being the simplest just the hunger feeling. It's just an anthropocentric expression to make the comparison with the human case easier, not necessarily a scientific fact.

So while I might have created a mess with the expression making the comment look like I was talking about the motivations, I just wanted to talk about the measurable effects of each behaviour. And from what we can measure, there isn't that sense of "equalling" among different animals, or at least it isn't shown in their behaviour and interactions among them.

And, at last, notice how I put "superior" in single quotes. I meant "different", don't think our ability to view the animals as equal beings and act in consequence makes us better, but it surely makes a difference. Sorry for the confusion, again. The post wasn't very well redacted.

Dark_Puddles said:

If you were basing your reply on my comment about a random human and animal and which I would choose to die if I had to, I probably would choose the human due to being able to understand them more and empathise with them more but not because I believe they are superior.

If it was because of choosing my hypothetical dog over a random human I don't really know how you couldn't get that.

Then again, agreed. It seems I mistook your reasons. Sorry for that ;).

jal90Sep 16, 2011 11:56 AM

Sep 17, 2011 5:57 AM

#157

Dark_Puddles

Offline

May 2009

234

jal90 said:
Ehm, I don't think so. The fact we don't know about how other animals view the world, how their mind works and which is their subjective experience doesn't mean that we can't measure the physical results of the behaviours and interactions and relate acts to benefits or damages. So if a cat eats a bird, it's a positive result for the cat who takes proteins and energy and for the bird it's negative because its life is gone and therefore its ability to reproduce its genes.

Take into account that I talk about "animal minds" in a very heterogeneous way, because ultimately I don't know what moves the cat to hunt the bird although I could come with many hypothesis, being the simplest just the hunger feeling. It's just an anthropocentric expression to make the comparison with the human case easier, not necessarily a scientific fact.

So while I might have created a mess with the expression making the comment look like I was talking about the motivations, I just wanted to talk about the measurable effects of each behaviour. And from what we can measure, there isn't that sense of "equalling" among different animals, or at least it isn't shown in their behaviour and interactions among them.

And, at last, notice how I put "superior" in single quotes. I meant "different", don't think our ability to view the animals as equal beings and act in consequence makes us better, but it surely makes a difference. Sorry for the confusion, again. The post wasn't very well redacted.

See that's where things get interesting, I personally eat meat (though the way the industry is run is horrible) partly because I'm aware that me being a vegan/vegetarian will do little to change anything or save any lives but the other part is that humans are omnivores so meat is a vital part of what we eat. This doesn't mean I think other animals are inferior, as I believe in the basic way nature works in which animals have to fight for their survival which eating is a huge part of. I find it unfortunate that things have to die for this but it can't be helped and if they were the ones that eat me then good for them.
So looking at just my actions without any insight into what I actually think would lead you to believe that I believe that animals and I aren't "equal", but I don't believe that to be true. That's the problem with looking at just the actions of something, especially when the only way you can comprehend it is through the way you would perceive it. One of the first things taught studying basic animal behaviour is that relating actions that other species show to humans in an attempt to try and understand its meaning is a poor method.
The fact the cat eats the bird shows it has the ability to do so and we know that animals must eat to survive and that survival is an innate instinct. It comes down to basically a selfishness that all animals (that includes humans) show. It might not be about you thinking you are superior, but rather than one has to look after their own survival above others so the world is left dying out.

Yeah not very good at explaining and I'll probably just be called a hypocrite.

My views on animals and their treatment and humans in general;

Sep 17, 2011 8:45 AM

#158

Zmffkskem

Offline

Jan 2011

1021

Neiru2012 said:
Eh, same goes for test subjects. If you can't justify unwilling tests on humans, I don't see how you can justify unwilling tests on any other animals. And if you can justify tests on humans, then might as well use them, because that's where the real data is.

I'm not quite justifying it. But there are always more animals than there are humans.

Neiru2012 said:
That makes no sense at all.

Insufficient data = No data. At least, the effect is the same. Teleological thinking does not hurt.

Neiru2012 said:
When it comes to global, impersonal scales dealing with astronomical numbers of lives on both sides, I don't think it's a very sane policy. This is the same instinct that fueled racism and tribalism.

Hur hur... Bringing in even more social phenomena. How far can you go? Occam's razor, please. Plus, the overall umbrella 'evil' associated with racism and tribalism is not explained, not that I'd really read it. Racism & eugenics can be, questionably, undesirable, but tribalism is rather questionable.

Neiru2012 said:
It's the same instinct that makes people pamper their companion cats or dogs and be apathetic towards others of the same species languishing in laboratories.

A comment on selfishness, how apt.

Neiru2012 said:
Because this instinct really isn't about favoring your own species at all, it's about favoring the "in" group at the expense of the "out" group, with the "in" group being defined based on perceived genetic or personal closeness. It is a highly biased survival strategy that doesn't resemble fairness and turns even more irrational when applied beyond its scope.

So survival strategies were supposed to be fair now?

Neiru2012 said:
It starts by saying that "the life of an in-group is generally worth more than the life of an out-group." That is relatively manageable on small, personal scales directly related to survival.

Why the large-small divide? It only creates inconsistencies. Or rather, it suggests inconsistencies that pop up for certain reasons, which lend credibility to arguments as to why it cannot be applied at all.

Neiru2012 said:
You run into trouble when that social guideline becomes an absolute statement: "the life of an in-group is always worth more than the life of an out-group." Then gets expanded further into "the life of an in-group is always worth more than any number of out-group lives," and even gets applied in matters not directly related to survival. This is where I think it becomes a terrifying, unmanageable, irresponsible and unjustifiable clusterfuck. I'd rather avoid that by acknowledging that lives are unquantifiably equal, and weighing everyone's interests at stake fairly.

Lives are equal. More lives are more equal! (Okay, bad attempt) But really, 'everyone?' Talk big, bigger, and biggest.

Neiru2012 said:
In-group/out-group mentality applied on a global scale neglects the reality of everybody's interdependence on each other, and creates a catastrophically skewed system that amounts to blind bias run rampant.

As in?

Neiru2012 said:
This is not some hypothetical slippery slope. This is happening right now.

Wherever so?

Neiru2012 said:
I think humans have outgrown the need for such an instinct, not because of any mental faculties, but because a growing human population approaching the carrying capacity of the planet is in no immanent danger of extinction except from themselves.

And not testing on animals is a solution, or, not taking selves as superior is a solution. I see.

Neiru2012 said:
Even if this instinct might've been helpful in the past, it is now counter-productive. Not taking responsibility for the current scale of abuse is to humanity's own detriment.

Taking responsibility means nothing. Paying for crimes is something.

Neiru2012 said:
It's funny that you mention "empathy" as a reason for favoring humans, though. It is empathy that trumped racism and tribalism.

I don't see how.

Neiru2012 said:
It is empathy that allows all animals to easily override species-favoritism.

I, again, don't see how.

Neiru2012 said:
They will choose to help those genetically unrelated to them based on trans-species relationships which are possible through the fundamental similarities between animals.

Not (necessarily) empathy.

Neiru2012 said:
We form bonds with other species because we understand each other and empathize with each other.

Form bonds? What is this, chemistry?

Neiru2012 said:
In fact, some individuals relate better to other species than they do to their own.

In fact, I believe you do not exist, thus you do not.

Neiru2012 said:
We're not different in any way that prevents meaningful friendships, deep caring, and mutual self-sacrifice.

This is what I call cloud-language: it exists only in the clouds.

Neiru2012 said:
When you have a close relationship with someone from another species, do you not value their life as much as (or even more than) your own, same as an equivalent relationship with someone of your species? Why not have empathy-based morals reflect this basic reality? No longer as a matter of personal bias, but as a recognition of this potential in/between all sentient beings.

It is this paragraph your nature as an animal lover seems to show.

Overall, your long paragraphs shows no relation to reality at all. Rather, much of it is feeling-based, with emphasis on empathy and of psychological similarity. My question is, so?

Human 'superiority' is not something feasibly reversible. There are reports of birds learning how to use sticks, but not of birds understanding the fundamental expansion of space. There are, supposedly, monkeys that use sticks, but not monkeys that use tasers, or simply even a martial art stance.

It's not quite about the 'justification' that is important in reality. It is what you see is what you get in reality. One has to(or rather, the simplest way to think) assume that things are 'there' rather than go into existential debates that cosmologists do not even help in at all.

ZmffkskemSep 17, 2011 8:54 AM

「みんながいるからだ。」　－　棗鈴

Sep 17, 2011 9:57 AM

#159

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

Dark_Puddles said:
My views on animals and their treatment and humans in general;

Shouldn't most of that be in different threads?

Sep 17, 2011 10:05 AM

#160

Akamitsu

Offline

Apr 2010

1913

I'd rather it be animals than humans going through an untested product.

Yes, I know that my shampoo and body wash were tested on animals.

Though, most of the time they just test on mice.

Sep 17, 2011 12:06 PM

#161

Offline

Sep 2009

663

Zmffkskem said:
Insufficient data = No data. At least, the effect is the same. Teleological thinking does not hurt.

If volunteering doesn't get enough participants, compensating people for their participation would. And if all you're worried about is economics and ethics be damned, then just outsource the testing to some 3rd world country where they'll snatch kids off the street, test on them, and sell the results back to you real cheap - much cheaper than testing on other species. (I would be against this) Testing on humans is also much more efficient, because testing on one human is worth hundreds of tests on another species. Teleological thinking does hurt. Data from other species is not directly applicable to humans, no matter how much reverse-engineering you do, and the results can backfire anywhere from mildly to very badly (ex: Thalidomide).

Zmffkskem said:
Why the large-small divide? It only creates inconsistencies. Or rather, it suggests inconsistencies that pop up for certain reasons, which lend credibility to arguments as to why it cannot be applied at all.

I already explained how the small personal scale relates to direct survival and equal self-preservation interests several times, once directly to you. Not gonna repeat that again.

Zmffkskem said:
Overall, your long paragraphs shows no relation to reality at all. Rather, much of it is feeling-based, with emphasis on empathy and of psychological similarity. My question is, so?

I am making an argument about ethics founded on the empathy-based morality inherent in sentient beings, and saying that we should apply what we know to be true on a personal level onto how we treat everybody. There is nothing unrealistic about this. I would consider humanity's current standard of ethics unrealistic because only focusing on humans in the interests equation doesn't account for huge effects on the biosphere. Not accounting for such a large part of an interest equation creates imbalance and unfairness, and has resulted in a pattern of abuses to the environment and other species which is increasingly detrimental for everybody, including humans. This can be changed. It has changed countless times in the past to reflect our growing understanding of what kind of world we all want to live in, and I think this is the next step towards a saner world. I am asking to balance the interests equation to the best of our present knowledge. Indeed, it would be unfeasible not to if we intend to stay on this planet.

Neiru2013Sep 18, 2011 12:22 AM

Tumblr * Other Web Shrines I made * My Anime/Manga page

Sep 17, 2011 5:41 PM

#162

Offline

Mar 2011

9988

invalidlink said:
Animal testing? that's a slightly incorrect title

"The test results have come back!!"

"So, what do the results say?"

"It's a cat"

"Good Job!"

Sep 17, 2011 6:49 PM

#163

Dark_Puddles

Offline

May 2009

234

Drunk_Samurai said:

Dark_Puddles said:
My views on animals and their treatment and humans in general;

Shouldn't most of that be in different threads?

That was the reason why I put it in a spoiler at the end of my post. It was inspired by you believing that all animal activists are crazy and seeming to think that saying that they believe animals are equal to or better than humans already makes them automatically wrong, even if I'm not an animal activist I thought I'd give you my actual believes to criticize rather than just the humans aren't superior one.

Sep 17, 2011 7:43 PM

#164

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

Dark_Puddles said:

Drunk_Samurai said:

Dark_Puddles said:
My views on animals and their treatment and humans in general;

Shouldn't most of that be in different threads?

If they think they are superior to humans then yes they are wrong because they are insane. But hell let me cover all of those for you then.

Sep 18, 2011 12:01 AM

#165

Offline

Jul 2018

561864

Drunk_Samurai said:
I don't see anything wrong with medical testing on animals. Also for fishing if they're doing it for sport they put the fish back before it dies.

It is quite clear to everyone that you don't see the problems these things cause, but not everyone has your keen insight or domineering intellect. This is why discussion and debates exist.

Drunk_Samurai said:

If they think they are superior to humans then yes they are wrong because they are insane .

Drunk_Samurai said:
Don't care about the death penalty. There are far more important things to care about.

Let me get this straight...

You claim that anyone who believes animals are superior to humans must be insane.
You don't care about the death penalty, because it is 'not important'.
However, you do care about animal testing- at least to the extent you have an opinion about it.

So tell me Drunk_Samurai, are you really insane or just really, really bad at arguing your case?

Sep 18, 2011 2:23 AM

#166

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

AnnoKano said:

Drunk_Samurai said:
I don't see anything wrong with medical testing on animals. Also for fishing if they're doing it for sport they put the fish back before it dies.

It is quite clear to everyone that you don't see the problems these things cause, but not everyone has your keen insight or domineering intellect. This is why discussion and debates exist.

Drunk_Samurai said:

If they think they are superior to humans then yes they are wrong because they are insane .

Drunk_Samurai said:
Don't care about the death penalty. There are far more important things to care about.

Let me get this straight...

You claim that anyone who believes animals are superior to humans must be insane.
You don't care about the death penalty, because it is 'not important'.
However, you do care about animal testing- at least to the extent you have an opinion about it.

So tell me Drunk_Samurai, are you really insane or just really, really bad at arguing your case?

So tell me what harm sport fishing does if they put the fish back.

There are far more important things to care about than the death penalty such as making abortion more available to women who want it. Also I say both.

Sep 18, 2011 3:45 AM

#167

Zmffkskem

Offline

Jan 2011

1021

Neiru2012 said:

If volunteering doesn't get enough participants, compensating people for their participation would. And if all you're worried about is economics and ethics be damned, then just outsource the testing to some 3rd world country where they'll snatch kids off the street, test on them, and sell the results back to you real cheap - much cheaper than testing on other species.

Questionable quality, I would say. Furthermore, how 'cheap' is it?

Neiru2012 said:
Testing on humans is also much more efficient, because testing on one human is worth hundreds of tests on another species.

I don't see how there's a conversion ratio of this scale.

Neiru2012 said:
Teleological thinking does hurt.

Do you even know what is teleology?

Neiru2012 said:
Data from other species is not directly applicable to humans, no matter how much reverse-engineering you do, and the results can backfire anywhere from mildly to very badly (ex: Thalidomide).

Results backfiring, huh, how unexpected.

It's still cheaper than testing on humans. Or so I think. Animal testing should be a lot 'easier', anyway.

Neiru2012 said:
I already explained how the small personal scale relates to direct survival and equal self-preservation interests several times, once directly to you. Not gonna repeat that again.

Apparently large scales are unequal? I read your posts multiple times, but that gives me no understanding of your position regarding large-small divide. Apparently a large civilisation is not a large civilisation: it's --- ? It's as if the constituents of a product has no relation(or has 'opposing concepts') to the product itself: Chemistry makes no sense. That is what I see you proposing.

Neiru2012 said:
I am making an argument about ethics founded on the empathy-based morality inherent in sentient beings, and saying that we should apply what we know to be true on a personal level onto how we treat everybody.

Whether it is inherent is questionable.

Neiru2012 said:
There is nothing unrealistic about this.

In what sense? That it relates to reality, or that it is pragmatic? I would find the latter claim ridiculous.

Neiru2012 said:
I would consider humanity's current standard of ethics unrealistic because only focusing on humans in the interests equation doesn't account for huge effects on the biosphere.

Tautologically, wouldn't 'human interests' account for biosphere effects if the biosphere affects them? Not that, currently, humans in general care about the biosphere today. Anyway, are you trying to lengthen the span of human civilisation, or? Things go extinct, and it's not anything you can stop. Acceleration is possible, and perhaps retardation. And. Then. So?

Neiru2012 said:
Not accounting for such a large part of an interest equation creates imbalance and unfairness, and has resulted in a pattern of abuses to the environment and other species which is increasingly detrimental for everybody, including humans.

An overly wide sweeping statement that is as relevant as 'The Sun is hot.' Furthermore, the 'detrimental' effects are not visible today. They are extreme long term effects. I would agree to 'abuse of environment,' because that is so general anyway, but not 'abuse of other species' as having a detrimental effect. The environment is much more relied upon by humans, and a hospitable environment's existence is desired, but the continued existence of 'other species,' not so other than food.

Neiru2012 said:
This can be changed. It has changed countless times in the past to reflect our growing understanding of what kind of world we all want to live in, and I think this is the next step towards a saner world.

What is 'this' and 'it?' The attitude of humans? Human history is too short to comment on changes of attitudes.

Neiru2012 said:
I am asking to balance the interests equation to the best of our present knowledge. Indeed, it would be unfeasible not to if we intend to stay on this planet.

And relating to the opening post, so not testing on animals is a solution?

Overall, I see you have shifted focus, and are slightly closer to reality. But your stance on animal testing is weakly supported and too many events which, perchance, may happen. Environment concern, yes, is important, but that is only related to animals, but it is not the animals. I say yes to environment because, it being so general, relates to Global Warming, of which increasing effects are becoming apparent(somewhat long-term) and what I find most pressing/impertinent: oil running out. Environment is an umbrella term, and 'oil' is yet another umbrella-ish thing. Oil relates to everyday life. Certainly, not caring a bit about current consumption and damage to environment is unwise.

However, animal testing and caring about it? Not so. It has a lot less noticeable and significant adverse effects if it is not stopped.

Basically, I think you have gone off-tangent and talk more about animals and about our consumption of them. Lowering fish population, reducing food supply are not good things, and you seem to be relying on them. At least, that's the impression I get.

「みんながいるからだ。」　－　棗鈴

Sep 18, 2011 4:15 AM

#168

Offline

Sep 2009

663

Zmffkskem said:
Overall, I see you have shifted focus, and are slightly closer to reality. But your stance on animal testing is weakly supported and too many events which, perchance, may happen.

You seem to have a lot of trouble keeping up with different strands of arguments and how they relate to each other. I have not shifted focus in my stance on animal testing. I was replying to you replying to a tangent I wrote on "Humans First" mentality, which I clearly marked as a tangent. It is related to animal testing in the grand scheme of things, but it is not what my position on animal testing is based on. If you're just going to comment on things taken out of context and pretend that substitutes for understanding, it would be pointless for me to put effort into replying to you.

But, two wrap up on two points of confusion for you:

Zmffkskem said:
Apparently large scales are unequal? I read your posts multiple times, but that gives me no understanding of your position regarding large-small divide.

I explained in this post, in both the last and second-to-last replies, what kind of direct survival is necessary and unavoidable for protecting the self-preservation interest. The "large scales" you are asking about comes from the "Humans First" tangent, where I explained in the third paragraph the progression in reasoning that creates problems. The "social guideline" reasoning is what is manageable on small scales, the latter two expansions of it are not manageable on any scale.

Why is the first manageable on a "small" scale? The small scale is that of the individual (I often referred to it with the word "personal"), and here the social guideline acts as a survival strategy to favor oneself in a clash of equal interests. It is an immediate, direct relationship which does not create wasteful or unnecessary actions. Taken to larger and larger scales, where the last two expansions of the "Humans First" reasoning operate, clashes of interest become impersonal and their relationship to self-preservation are indirect (ex: last part of reply). Wasteful, unnecessary action increases as the connection between individuals in the interest equation is loosened, if not lost altogether - especially when "the life of an in-group is always worth more than any number of out-group lives" gets applied beyond the necessities of survival. This translates into exponentially more lives lost or needlessly interfered with.

Zmffkskem said:
Wouldn't 'human interests' account for biosphere effects if the biosphere affects them? Not that, currently, humans in general care about the biosphere today. Anyway, are you trying to lengthen the span of human civilisation, or?

No, I am not trying to lengthen the span of human civilization. I just want the world to be a nicer place for everyone who happens to live in it at the time; for everyone to have as equal chance as possible to pursue what they want out of life, no matter what body they happened to be born into. The problem of human interests accounting for biosphere effects is that they usually don't know how it'll affect them until they happen. And, judging by humanity's track record, they won't even care about these until it's too late. Balancing interests is a preventive measure, not something to be fixed after the damage is done. It accounts for gaps in our knowledge of how reality works. And of course, it accounts for the interests of other sentient beings, which is important for the same reasons that we humans as sentient beings like our interests to be protected.

Neiru2013Sep 18, 2011 9:13 PM

Tumblr * Other Web Shrines I made * My Anime/Manga page

Sep 18, 2011 7:43 AM

#169

datfag

Offline

Jul 2011

944

Drunk_Samurai said:
There are far more important things to care about than the death penalty such as making abortion more available to women who want it.

why would you compare personal problems such as abortion's to cold-blooded murderers and rapists? both of those are important in seperate directions... it's simply not logical to compare those things as it's not logical to compare a desktop computer to a monitor... (horrible comparing but you get the point)
as it is, Drunk_Samurai, you'r argument is invalid in too many way's to count.. you should practice what you preach.

The Internet is a very bad place, you should never go there.

Sep 18, 2011 8:03 AM

#170

Offline

Jul 2018

561864

Drunk_Samurai said:
There are far more important things to care about than the death penalty such as making abortion more available to women who want it. Also I say both.

Do you not see why it is contradictory to claim that 'animals are more important than humans' and then say 'the death penalty (for humans) is not important' when both issues have the same eventual result?

Sep 18, 2011 9:36 AM

#171

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

AnnoKano said:

Drunk_Samurai said:
There are far more important things to care about than the death penalty such as making abortion more available to women who want it. Also I say both.

So now you're claiming that all animal testing leads to the animals deaths?

SaitoeSep 29, 2011 2:05 AM

Sep 18, 2011 9:51 AM

#172

MorningGlory

Offline

Jun 2008

4443

animal testing...hmm. My first impression of that is how people finding new way to eat their meat or finding new restaurant to eat.
We have been making delicious cuisine for more than thousand of years.Finding new way on how to cook them ,spice them up, testing how to make the food to best suit our human tongue. hahah Rare Animal is especially expensive and delicious.

Sep 18, 2011 11:02 AM

#173

bottle

Offline

Dec 2009

1591

Results and numbers are based on stats. And both analysis and tests need money, so you don't really need to worry that they will do a lot.

Whether its needed or not depend on existing law, you cannot make unsafe body products even its not drugs.

How to handle the test objects properly is the main concern.

Besides, existing drugs has multi phase of testing, first on animals, then on healthy persons, then on those with the disease, before going to market. Some continue the survey after being sold. Its possible that the drug will be banned after 10 years in the market because of safety issue.

The starting post has actually excluded medicine test from discussion.

Sep 18, 2011 7:33 PM

#174

kotatsu-kun

Offline

May 2011

119

i love animals xd they shouldnt be doing that to those poor creatures

Sep 19, 2011 1:52 AM

#175

AliceWill

Offline

Nov 2009

683

I hope it's ok to repost; I want to know the answer.

Treekodar said:
I wonder what people would do if their child was dying, and the only way to save it was to drug an animal.
Personally, I'd rather have a million dead animals than a dead son/daughter.

What if the million animals were beloved pets?

Sep 19, 2011 6:22 AM

#176

Offline

Jul 2018

561864

Drunk_Samurai said:
So now you're claiming that all animal testing leads to the animals deaths?

I have no figures to indicate either way, but it would be reasonable to assume so. After being used for testing they have fufilled their role, and keeping them alive beyond that point serves only to prolong the expense of feeding and watering them.

SaitoeSep 29, 2011 2:05 AM

Sep 19, 2011 6:51 AM

#177

sixyears

Offline

Jan 2008

4217

I think animal testing is wrong.

However, we've had so many scientific breakthroughs because of it. That and the fact that testing any new product for human consumption would obviously be better off testing on something that can't sue if you hair falls out.

Sep 19, 2011 10:42 AM

#178

Zmffkskem

Offline

Jan 2011

1021

Neiru2012 said:

You seem to have a lot of trouble keeping up with different strands of arguments and how they relate to each other. I have not shifted focus in my stance on animal testing. I was replying to you replying to a tangent I wrote on "Humans First" mentality, which I clearly marked as a tangent. It is related to animal testing in the grand scheme of things, but it is not what my position on animal testing is based on. If you're just going to comment on things taken out of context and pretend that substitutes for understanding, it would be pointless for me to put effort into replying to you.

"Shifted focus" = Talking about different things. I don't see how I took things out of context. I basically replied to every point to itself.

Neiru2012 said:
But, two wrap up on two points of confusion for you:

I explained in this post, in both the last and second-to-last replies, what kind of direct survival is necessary and unavoidable for protecting the self-preservation interest. The "large scales" you are asking about comes from the "Humans First" tangent, where I explained in the third paragraph the progression in reasoning that creates problems. The "social guideline" reasoning is what is manageable on small scales, the latter two expansions of it are not manageable on any scale.

Why is the first manageable on a "small" scale? The small scale is that of the individual (I often referred to it with the word "personal"), and here the social guideline acts as a survival strategy to favor oneself in a clash of equal interests. It is an immediate, direct relationship which does not create wasteful or unnecessary actions. Taken to larger and larger scales, where the last two expansions of the "Humans First" reasoning operate, clashes of interest become impersonal and their relationship to self-preservation are indirect (ex: last part of reply). Wasteful, unnecessary action increases as the connection between individuals in the interest equation is loosened, if not lost altogether - especially when "the life of an in-group is always worth more than any number of out-group lives" gets applied beyond the necessities of survival. This translates into exponentially more lives lost or needlessly interfered with.

And further applying the 'Humans First' mindset, the lives lost or interfered are inconsequential unless they affect humans. Rather than 'Humans First' or not, I would say it is a lack of foresight(or giving a damn at all) about long term consequences of current actions.

And as for whether lives lost being a fundamentally wrong thing - That is up to belief.

Neiru2012 said:
No, I am not trying to lengthen the span of human civilization. I just want the world to be a nicer place for everyone who happens to live in it at the time; for everyone to have as equal chance as possible to pursue what they want out of life, no matter what body they happened to be born into.

So idealistic... But no, it will not happen.

Neiru2012 said:
The problem of human interests accounting for biosphere effects is that they usually don't know how it'll affect them until they happen. And, judging by humanity's track record, they won't even care about these until it's too late. Balancing interests is a preventive measure, not something to be fixed after the damage is done. It accounts for gaps in our knowledge of how reality works. And of course, it accounts for the interests of other sentient beings, which is important for the same reasons that we humans as sentient beings like our interests to be protected.

Are you judging 'don't know' by, if going by your policies(if any you suggest) and/or direction, that humans would know? It's something to say the Sun is hot, it's another to design a probe capable of going close to the Sun without disintegrating.

As above, not knowing, not caring, not doing anything, etc etc about long term effects, to me, is not a matter of fundamentally wrong ideals, beliefs or ethics but a fundamentally mistaken(I guess?), or perhaps complete lack of, understanding of Sustainability. That alone should account(it is designed/supposed to) for all long term effects.

At this point, I'm quite sure your viewpoint has solidified. There's no need for further debate about this.

「みんながいるからだ。」　－　棗鈴

Sep 20, 2011 6:24 PM

#179

DaOtaku

Offline

Aug 2011

So.....i should stop using shampoo and deoderent...cuz they are using it on animals... lol sry trying to make a counter argument

Sep 20, 2011 7:14 PM

#180

Offline

Sep 2009

663

DaOtaku said:
So.....i should stop using shampoo and deoderent...cuz they are using it on animals... lol sry trying to make a counter argument

No, just use the ones not tested on animals. There's lots of them.

Tumblr * Other Web Shrines I made * My Anime/Manga page

Sep 27, 2011 2:25 AM

#181

CrimsonGlaive

Offline

Oct 2010

So, about those products you're buying...

Sep 27, 2011 3:32 AM

#182

mococomono

Offline

Feb 2011

303

Really, this argument is just going in endless cycles. We might as well argue about religion.

In my perspective though, being a realist that I am, we can't really do sh*t about this. We have been doing crap to animals ever since we... Uhh, started eating them. Think about it, what would you do? They are actually keeping the economy going. If everyone started using untested toxic sh*t on our skin, house etc, half the population would be in hospital and probably dead (Those poverty stricken African children will be better off, since they can't afford it).

And I agree with a lot of people here, I would not try anything unless it has been checked up on thoroughly, which means it is unfortunately tested on animals. Yes it is somewhat cruel, but it is necessary.

Also, what are you going to do? Stop multiple mega billion dollar corporations? (if you can, you are a bloody legend) And does talking about the issue but not actually doing anything about it make you feel better? Just help those damn African kids, instead of bitching about how the lotion you are using currently was tested on rat anus and shit. Consumerism is what we brought on ourselves. Just accept the consequences.

CrimsonGlaive said:
So, about those products you're buying...

LOL

Sep 27, 2011 8:36 PM

#183

AliceWill

Offline

Nov 2009

683

I'm going to continue to repost this again, because I really want to know the answer. Hope that's ok :)

What if the million animals were beloved pets?

Sep 27, 2011 8:47 PM

#184

Lauriet

Offline

Dec 2010

1769

Ah, talking about Nivea, I really do enjoy their products. Ah and I'm a consumer in the bodybuilding market as well, which is also fond of animal testing.

Is there an issue? Can you think of an alternative? Have you tried changing something? No? Hypocrite.

Sep 27, 2011 10:11 PM

#185

Offline

Jan 2011

1354

I'm for testing meds and such more on humans, earlier in the more potentially lethal phases.
I think it would be a great benefit to science and would boost progress.

Just line up some death row/lifer prisoners and see what happens. Then throw in some crack addicts and whoever else is dumb enough to sign up for it. This way even people like them can be of some slight use to society.

> The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6!
> Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown!

Sep 28, 2011 12:50 AM

#186

mococomono

Offline

Feb 2011

303

Instead of moaning about this issue. Just do this.

Just have an memorial day, think of it like this. They "sacrificed" (don't even say they were forced into it. Forget about that) themselves for the better world of humanity.

This means you can grieve and remember the lost ones. Since none of the peeps that are against the testing haven't really bothered to give any suggestions to actually improve this 'issue', I came up with this.

I'm such a genius.

Sep 29, 2011 2:18 AM

#187

Saitoe

Offline

Apr 2008

8333

Purged off-topic/flaming posts.

If you wish to discuss abortion/general morality/philosophy/etc, find an appropriate thread or create a new one. If you want to flame each other, take it off MAL.

Sep 29, 2011 10:51 AM

#188

CrimsonGlaive

Offline

Oct 2010

kwangsta said:
If everyone started using untested toxic sh*t on our skin, house etc, half the population would be in hospital and probably dead (Those poverty stricken African children will be better off, since they can't afford it).

They don't need to use toxic chemicals in the first place. For all those cosmetics and households goods there are working natural alternatives. That's all I'm going to say on the matter.

Sep 29, 2011 11:05 AM

#189

Offline

Mar 2011

9988

What's wrong with using death-row prisoners anyway, apart from the fact there aren't enough of them? The usual response is that it's morally wrong, I just don't get that argument.

Sep 29, 2011 11:12 AM

#190

Offline

Jul 2018

561864

InfiniteRyvius said:
What's wrong with using death-row prisoners anyway, apart from the fact there aren't enough of them? The usual response is that it's morally wrong, I just don't get that argument.

It is morally wrong. That's all there is to it.

"Morality" is an entirely personal affair.

Though if you can't see why using Death Row inmates as guinea pigs might be morally 'wrong' I suggest you look up:

Torture.

Of course, it never stopped this guy:

Josef Mengele.

Quite frankly, I'm gobsmacked people are against testing on animals but have no problem with forcefully sending human beings to do the job. Do you people not think using someone for expeirments against their will is a bit, I dunno, barbaric? Horrible? Cruel? Sadistic?

Humanity, why do you feel the need to frighten and sicken me so?

Sep 29, 2011 1:41 PM

#191

ThN3w

Offline

Oct 2010

I think animal testing is necessary.
Imagine that you test some medical product on a Human and he dies, its way worst then killing an animal while testing something that could cure many people.

What I dont agree with is testing unecessary products, products that wont really save anyone or products that are not that risky for humans, like those Beauty products from some brands you posted.

Killing animals for that is just cruel

Sep 29, 2011 3:25 PM

#192

Offline

Mar 2011

9988

AnnoKano said:

Now, testing doesn't necessarily involve pain. Forcing them would be wrong admittedly, although I don't have much sympathy for people who are on death-row given their horrible crimes. Perhaps a scheme could be set up so that death-row prisoners who sign up to be tested on can get some slight benefit. Stuff is tested lots well before the animal testing stage, so I doubt any of the drugs that they'd use on the inmates would cause massive amounts of pain.

Perhaps more risky tests could be reserved for them, and others for volunteers. It's a far more effective test than animal testing, because they're human, and animals aren't.

Sep 29, 2011 5:19 PM

#193

Offline

Jan 2011

1354

AnnoKano said:

We put them in tiny cages against their will.
Fact is that our society made a decision that we don't do X or Y. And if someone breaks that rule, we as a society take that person and remove them from society.

What's so different about this?

When these people decided to slaughter dozens of innocent civilians, or rob a bank and kill some cops, commit war crimes, or chop the heads of of children and store them in the freezer, they pretty much gave up their right to life.
Nowhere do the laws of the universe state that everyone has the right to life. WE as a society GIVE eachother that right, and WE as a society can take it away as we please.

They should be happy we keep them alive at all, and if there's some way their pathetic existance might be of some use to the rest of us, then they should be so grateful for the chance at some slight amount of redemption for their crimes.

Remember, these aren't normal people we're talking about. They're death row inmates. Monsters, in the strictest sense of the word.

> The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6!
> Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown!

Sep 29, 2011 5:24 PM

#194

Jack_Rav

Offline

Dec 2010

874

InfiniteRyvius said:
Now, testing doesn't necessarily involve pain. Forcing them would be wrong admittedly, although I don't have much sympathy for people who are on death-row given their horrible crimes. Perhaps a scheme could be set up so that death-row prisoners who sign up to be tested on can get some slight benefit. Stuff is tested lots well before the animal testing stage, so I doubt any of the drugs that they'd use on the inmates would cause massive amounts of pain.

Perhaps more risky tests could be reserved for them, and others for volunteers. It's a far more effective test than animal testing, because they're human, and animals aren't.

'Forcing them would be wrong','Slight benefit', 'I doubt any of the drugs would cause pain'...hmm.

Firstly, are you for or against forcing death-row prisoners to be tested upon? If you're for it, then there would be no need to give them any benefits at all, because lolprisonershavenorights. If you're against it, there's no need to target death-row prisoners any more than the next guy. (Unless you're suggesting that because death appears more of an inevitability to them they'd be more manipulable to such schemes?)

Secondly, there have been cases of there being adverse effects on human subjects even after animal testing has taken place. Most famously (in the UK, at least) was the Thalidomide disaster, although there have also been more recent catasrophes (before you go down that path of saying how procedure has changed to cancel out any such event). The event I'm thinking of but can't put a name to involved elephantiasis-like effects on the human subjects...

EDIT: @Vinters: Firstly, if we're talking about which rights society has given each other...google 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Secondly, isn't there something about society exacting similar/worse justice upon an individual that just leaves a foul taste in the mouth?

Jack_RavSep 29, 2011 5:30 PM

Sep 29, 2011 6:15 PM

#195

Offline

Mar 2011

9988

Jack_Rav said:

'Forcing them would be wrong','Slight benefit', 'I doubt any of the drugs would cause pain'...hmm.

Firstly, are you for or against forcing death-row prisoners to be tested upon? If you're for it, then there would be no need to give them any benefits at all, because lolprisonershavenorights. If you're against it, there's no need to target death-row prisoners any more than the next guy. (Unless you're suggesting that because death appears more of an inevitability to them they'd be more manipulable to such schemes?)

You'd never be able to force drugs testing upon people, even if they were sentenced to death, so they'd have to consent to it. Since they are on death row, it's much easier (and cheaper) to give them incentives than the average civilian. For civilians, you need to give them quite a sum of money, whereas for prisoners, a slight delay in the time of their execution or a nice meal may be enough to persuade them. Since they don't have any freedom, giving them incentives is easier. Maybe it'd even work for all prisoners with sentences over 2 years.

Jack_Rav said:
Secondly, there have been cases of there being adverse effects on human subjects even after animal testing has taken place. Most famously (in the UK, at least) was the Thalidomide disaster, although there have also been more recent catasrophes (before you go down that path of saying how procedure has changed to cancel out any such event). The event I'm thinking of but can't put a name to involved elephantiasis-like effects on the human subjects...

Sure there has been the occasional case, but shying away from the benefits of testing because of an unlikely (though dangerous) risk is wrong. Events like those you refer to are getting increasingly rare as our knowledge of medicine grows, and our procedure has improved (it's improving all the time).

Basically, this is just risk management. The Pay-off of testing can potentially be huge, the risk is small, though it can be very dangerous (though only for the limited amount of people being tested on), so it's worth testing. You'd still get in a car and drive despite the fact that there is the possibility you'll die in a car accident, because the pay-off is worth the risk. That's true here. If a few prisoners suffer pain and/or die from testing, then they were just unlucky.

Sep 29, 2011 9:18 PM

#196

Offline

Jan 2011

1354

Jack_Rav said:

EDIT: @Vinters: Firstly, if we're talking about which rights society has given each other...google 'cruel and unusual punishment'. Secondly, isn't there something about society exacting similar/worse justice upon an individual that just leaves a foul taste in the mouth?

From my point of view the cruel thing would be to leave them alive. Not only to them, because being depraved of your freedom is worse than death, but for the families of the victims, who's taxes are paying for their food and clothes in prison.

Isn't that sort of rubbing salt in their wounds?

There is absolutely no point to it.
These people will never again see the light of day. It has been decided that they are too dangerous, too demented, or too psychotic to ever be released. They can never live amongst normal human beings.
All they will do, is suck money from the system, money that could be spent on education, or research, or healthcare, until the day they die of natural causes or are executed. We're wasting money that could be used for saving people, on keeping murderers and rapists alive, how illogical is that?

Either way, they die, might as do it quickly and save some money.
You have to look past the immediate sense of distaste and consider what's best for the majority, and paying millions and millions for prisoners isn't it.

> The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6!
> Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown!

Sep 30, 2011 7:58 AM

#197

Offline

Jan 2011

1354

Mods keep deleting my posts. We're just discussing things, we're not hatching schemes to take over the world. No need to be so serious.

Sure, I might be playing devils advocate here. And sure, my argument might have been morally reprehensible, but it was LOGICALLY sound. And that's all that really matters, isn't it?
We live in a world of facts. Deciding things based on emotion is stupid. Because emotions aren't always right, but facts are.

Where was I going with this again?... Oh right, so no need to get all zealous about a simple conversation. How else are we going to learn if we don't push the important issues and discuss the unpopular opinions?
It would be easy just sitting around with people who believe the same as yourself and agreeing with eachother, reaffirming what we already believe, but that's not a conversation, that's a religion.
You gain nothing, intellectually, from something like that.

You have to surround yourself with people who disagree with you. Because the only way to know which choice is correct, is if you can see all sides of the argument, and weight them against eachother.
How are we supposed to grow as individuals if we can't even challenge eachother's preconceived notions?

> The Fellow MAL Users Social Link has reached level 6!
> Your power to create Forum Posts of the Anime Arcana has grown!

Sep 30, 2011 8:43 AM

#198

Jack_Rav

Offline

Dec 2010

874

InfiniteRyvius said:
You'd never be able to force drugs testing upon people, even if they were sentenced to death, so they'd have to consent to it. Since they are on death row, it's much easier (and cheaper) to give them incentives than the average civilian. For civilians, you need to give them quite a sum of money, whereas for prisoners, a slight delay in the time of their execution or a nice meal may be enough to persuade them. Since they don't have any freedom, giving them incentives is easier. Maybe it'd even work for all prisoners with sentences over 2 years.

So you are suggesting that prisoners are likely to be more malleable than the average citizen, so by extension conceding that there is no inherent reason why prisoners should have drugs tested upon them other than the fact 'it's cheaper'.

@Vinters: 'Logically sound' based on your own opinions; there are multiple people (for example) who would disagree with you that a lack of freedom is worse than death.

Secondly, your entire argument rests on: There is no inherent 'higher-ness' to human rights law and they are merely given to each other by society; prisoners who breach their societal contract forfeit any such right to similar protection under human rights laws.

I would be inclined to disagree that human rights laws have/deserve no extra protection from the hot-headed actions of the political branches of government, and by extension argue that certain laws have a more fundamental nature to them than others do. There are certain rights/expectations/understandings which do not need a 'functional' society in order to have a certain resonance to them. It is the role of the judicial branch (and, one would hope, society as a whole) to protect and evolve these rights as society itself evolves. Allowing for prisoners to be tested upon represents a marked regression in our society, not progression.

As for your dehumanisation of the prisoners, that's a point upon which our positions are irreconcilable. As long as a person is alive, there are certain rights/expectations/understandings about what a person should not be put through (I hate my phrasing here..oh well). A person's right to bodily integrity is surely the core expectation; I can do to my body whatever I want, and no-one can do anything to my body which I do not want - this rationale forms the core of a plethora of the legal offences there are today (aside from some unrelated misgivings I have with the law...).

The society as a whole itself cannot be sanctioned to breach those fundamental rights and principles which it itself holds so dearly. It is hypocritical, and breach of such a fundamental principle in such a brazen manner is entirely disproportionate and is merely punishment for punishment's sake. (I disagree with capital punishment, btw).

Sep 30, 2011 12:53 PM

#199

Offline

Jul 2018

561864

Vinter said:

From my point of view the cruel thing would be to leave them alive. Not only to them, because being depraved of your freedom is worse than death, but for the families of the victims, who's taxes are paying for their food and clothes in prison.

Isn't that sort of rubbing salt in their wounds?

Capital punishment costs more to implement than life imprisonment.

Whether being depraved of your freedom is worse than death is entirely the subject of opinion.

Vinter said:
There is absolutely no point to it.
These people will never again see the light of day. It has been decided that they are too dangerous, too demented, or too psychotic to ever be released. They can never live amongst normal human beings.

Assuming that they really are guilty, of course.

If behaviour cannot be corrected, would that not make it more of a psychological disorder?

In that case wouldn't sending them to an asylum be a better option?

Vinter said:
All they will do, is suck money from the system, money that could be spent on education, or research, or healthcare, until the day they die of natural causes or are executed.

Death penalty is more expensive to implement than life imprisonment.

Vinter said:
We're wasting money that could be used for saving people, on keeping murderers and rapists alive, how illogical is that?

The cheapest option would be to let them do as they please.

Then we wouldn't have to spend any money on law enforcement, on legal systems or on prisons, which we could then spend on better healthcare.

Of course, we would have criminals running around the place. So I suppose that you need to make a compromise somewhere.

Vinter said:
Either way, they die, might as do it quickly and save some money.

Yet you are hear to talk to us; presumably then living must offer something.

Vinter said:
You have to look past the immediate sense of distaste and consider what's best for the majority, and paying millions and millions for prisoners isn't it.

You have to look past your anger and vengence and consider what's best for society and mankind.

The purpose of Prison is to reform people and bring them back to society; that is why we send people who have commited less serious crimes to prison, as well as murderers. Punishment for the sake of punishment is cruel and pointless. Seeking vengence will not help society, and giving governments the opportunity to send civilians to their deaths should be a frightening thought.

The death penalty is not what is good for society; that is why it is illegal in this country despite massive popular support for reintroducing it. Letting the ignorant masses -who are often reactionary and emotionally sensitive, not to mention bloodthirsty- have their way on matters like this is like letting them sleepwalk into a authoritarian, oppressive government that will seek to limit the freedoms of society.

Look back through history and you will notice that we have become more liberal over time; at the same time we have seen a greater increase in personal freedom. The only exception of course being facist governments of the early to mid twentieth century. Do you think that shift is simply a coincidence?

Sep 30, 2011 3:28 PM

#200