 |
Cheat Engine
The Official Site of Cheat Engine
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AverageAzn247
Grandmaster Cheater
 Reputation: 34
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 909
Location: Austin,TX with 72 virgins
|
 Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 8:42 pm Post subject: Re: Testing on animals for medical reasons |
 |
|
| Haxory' wrote: | | AverageAzn247 wrote: | | Haxory' wrote: | | AverageAzn247 wrote: | | Haxory' wrote: | http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oxxAQAKRtI
Watch that. Then read comments by "noratmedicine"
He/she has an incredibly biased opinion and spreads plain lies like:
| Quote: | Cancer..."The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse... We have cured mice of cancer for decades - and it simply didn't work in humans." Dr. Richard Klausner, as director of the US National Cancer Institute
Tell me if you want more truth.
curediseas.net |
I personally think she should get hung from a tree but I tried conveying my opinion in a subtle way. See the reaction of 'pashqual' (me) and thumb it up if you agree, or don't. Entirely your call although I would appreciate it.
I also placed a comment on her profile:
| Quote: | | I dislike telling you this, but you have a highly biased view on things. Your heart is in the right spot but you're poorly informed. You tend to link to resources provided by animal protection agencies thus providing others with biased information making THEIR opinions biased. And that's where a line is crossed. Millions have been saved by animal testing. And I strongly dissaprove of testing on animals for make-up. For medication it's something entirely different. I admire your passion, but try seeing it from the other side. And feel free to message me if you disagree. |
I hope she responds so that she can give me a piece of her mind. I'd love fucking her over in every single argument she puts forward.
On a side note:
I'd mess her up IRL. |
U should ask her how many dog died in order to save blue babies. Also you can't fix stoopid. |
Just bumping this. Elabourate please. |
I saying surgeons kill hundreds of dog and pig in order to perfect the techniques they use on humans. I mean who wants to the first patient of a surgeon with no experience. Its a necessary evil for us to kill in order to save. Look at nature everything has to kill something. Animals have to eat other animals to survive.
Also, I got this:
| Quote: | | "some life is more precious than others" why do you think you have the authority to make that statement? don't you find that extremely arrogant and selfish. the only reason you deem human life more important than a rat's is because YOU are a human. white people used to (and some still do) consider their lives and well-being more important than black people's purely because the black people weren't them. you're in exactly the same category. |
| Haxory' wrote: |
And I replied
| Quote: | @NormbrettaMod No, YOU are in this same category. You are comparing african american humans to animals. I hope you are joking here because that would be quite offensive!
I am a left wing open minded person that chooses for the greater good. But comparing racisism to being in favour of animal testing is plain stupid. It's a clear cut fallacy, a false comparison. Please reconsider your argument. I am always open for new ideas, so go ahead and try to persuade me  |
I mean, are people fucking retarded. |
Its a false comparison because we all know a rat has the intelligences and emotions of a human rite? |
Thanks
|
And just in detail BLUE babies?
Oh god, now he/she expect me to reply to this:
Blue babies is slang for babies who have a heart defect preventing them from receiving enough oxygen thus the blue skin. It is corrected by surgery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_baby_syndrome
| Haxory' wrote: |
he/she sweared at me and i told her it was rude but that i respect her fanaticism towards this subject. She gives me this.
| Quote: | I don't usually swear in debates with people over Youtube. But I'm not going to apologise. I'm not going to show respect to someone who believes an animal's suffering is justified if it means he doesn't die of cancer. Respect is earned, not given. And I should be more offended by the fact you hinted that I was a racist!
I'm not going to apologise but I'm sure you're mature enough to realise that a word is no more than a word and no offence should be taken by it.
Ever since humanity has risen above nature we've been spiralling out of control. We've enslaved it, we've destroyed it, we've killed it for sport and we've made it suffer just so our population can rocket even further out of control.
Here's a little hypothetical situation
If it came between a baby being tortured then killed for an ill man to recover or the ill man to die naturally, would it be fair to kill that baby just because it has no real understanding of death like the man does? As I said before (at least I think it was to you): a baby is equally as sentient and intelligent (and in cases, less intelligent) than many mammals. Do you believe that's justified then?
The problem with humans is that we're arrogant. Disease is nature's way of controlling population but we seem to believe we're better than nature so deserve to evade our fate. And it's this arrogance that has made our modern day population so out of control.
Slavery made a great contribution to modern Western civilisation and it likely could have never been so "great" without it. So would you say slavery was for the greater good?
I'd also like you to explain why human life is so much more precious than the life of day, a dog. They have a will to live just like we do and they feel pain very similarly (if not exactly the same) to us. So is it because they look different to us that they're less important? Or because they think differently? Or because they don't demand as much from life as we do? Or is there some other "justification"?
A lot of retards (not in the offensive sense) could be classed as equally intelligent to some animals so are their lives worth less than ours?
|
WAT SAY? |
all i can says is she mad bro. So it is ok for that dog to kill and eat a squirrel to survive but not for us to kill that dog in the name of saving a baby. I am 100% sure that bear doesn't care about salmon he just om nom nomed on. I don't think u can reason with a nutjob who thinks a dog's life is equal to a human's. Her doc dissected dozens of animals to learn how the insides of a body works. Without animal testing, we can not keep prolong human life as much. No one wants to go back to a world where everyone dies at 25. If she thinks we are arrogant and should revert to the medieval ages remind her that her hair products are the result of animal testing or based of something that was tested on animals. Lets see how long she lives without shammpo.
_________________
| Waxxup wrote: | What are Night Elves?
A girl group? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hcavolsdsadgadsg
I'm a spammer
![]() Reputation: 26
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 5801
|
| Posted: Sun May 29, 2011 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
in disagreeing with animal testing, it more or less becomes hypocritical to use just about any medicine on the market. it's almost all been tested and developed on animals.
further than medicine even, stuff like heart valve replacements (which comes from pigs!)
animal testing is a necessity, anyone who cannot understand that can have fun wishing for divine intervention or trying other quack stuff like acupuncture when they are sick.
ps: i've given my dog benedryl (by direction of vet) so my dog (which as far as i can tell, is not a human but in fact an animal) got to reap the benefits of animal testing as well.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cryoma
Member of the Year
![]() Reputation: 198
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Posts: 1819
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
1. I hate most animal testing. In rare cases the animals are treated fine, like pets. For example, Stanford university has a bunch of monkeys for testing in the neuro prosthetics dept. The monkeys are kept in captivity, but they have room to live and play, like at a zoo but without all the noisy spectators. None of the testing is intrusive, they just get monitors taped onto their heads like an Emg. I say they are fine like that, but most animal testing is much worse, as we all know. As a result I am completely against animal testing. I get to say this without being hypocrytical because I do not use any medication at all. I refuse all prescriptions from doctors and drug-based treatments even when in the emergency room. The only thing I will buy from a drugstore is hydrogen peroxide. The only thing I put into my body is food and water, and I've gotten along fine so far. No shots or vaccines in my life. I'm a total cynic, if you will.
2. I forgot my next point.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Icklorfin
I post too much
 Reputation: -1
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 2346
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ask her about how far advanced in medicine we would be if there had never been any form of animal testing whatsoever.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Haxory'
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
 Reputation: 92
Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Posts: 1900
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | you seem to think that we're above nature. diseases are natural occurences and if we continue to find cures for more and more diseases then we're going to have to be colonising Mars pretty soon. i'm quite aware that we need animal testing for the development of medicines but that's my point: medical advancement is a negative thing whether it's tested on animals or not.
you also believe that it's okay for another animal to suffer if that means it will help you or your dog? why do you think you have the right to choose which species is worth sacrificing for the benefit of another?
what if (by the way this is hypothetical so don't criticise) every animal that wasn't human had entirely foreign body systems, organs etc. to us? and we could only experiment on humans? would that be a necessity? or would it not be worth it then, making one life suffer for the good of another?
or would you say we should experiment on the less-intelligent humans because they may be less aware of their lives than others?
p.s. everything you just said i was aware of before this began. try to come up with something i don't know in the next message...
p.ss. oh and contrary to what you might think, i'm not trying to get at you now. the more i piss you off the more you're probably going to want to prove me wrong. please read my points and acknowledge them and perhaps you'll see where i'm coming from.
|
ROFL. what a fucking retard.
Gave her this
| Quote: |
I have yet to see in a debate that ends with the opposing party joining the other party. And I've seen quite a few debates. I know we will never agree but I must admit I quite enjoyed this. Like the part where you hypothetically say wether we should test on less intelligent beings, ofcourse I understand this is maybe an extreme exaggeration but you have a point. But tell me, that if you were ill, would you refuse medicine? I dare say that if you have taken medicines, they have been tested on animals wich would be pure hypocritical.
Anyways, we can argue on and on, we're never going to reach an agreement on this.
I admire your passion, and I give you the kindest regards,
Pascal.
|
_________________
you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AverageAzn247
Grandmaster Cheater
Reputation: 34
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 909
Location: Austin,TX with 72 virgins
|
| Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Haxory' wrote: | | Quote: | you seem to think that we're above nature. diseases are natural occurences and if we continue to find cures for more and more diseases then we're going to have to be colonising Mars pretty soon. i'm quite aware that we need animal testing for the development of medicines but that's my point: medical advancement is a negative thing whether it's tested on animals or not.
you also believe that it's okay for another animal to suffer if that means it will help you or your dog? why do you think you have the right to choose which species is worth sacrificing for the benefit of another?
what if (by the way this is hypothetical so don't criticise) every animal that wasn't human had entirely foreign body systems, organs etc. to us? and we could only experiment on humans? would that be a necessity? or would it not be worth it then, making one life suffer for the good of another?
or would you say we should experiment on the less-intelligent humans because they may be less aware of their lives than others?
p.s. everything you just said i was aware of before this began. try to come up with something i don't know in the next message...
p.ss. oh and contrary to what you might think, i'm not trying to get at you now. the more i piss you off the more you're probably going to want to prove me wrong. please read my points and acknowledge them and perhaps you'll see where i'm coming from.
|
ROFL. what a fucking retard.
Gave her this
| Quote: |
I have yet to see in a debate that ends with the opposing party joining the other party. And I've seen quite a few debates. I know we will never agree but I must admit I quite enjoyed this. Like the part where you hypothetically say wether we should test on less intelligent beings, ofcourse I understand this is maybe an extreme exaggeration but you have a point. But tell me, that if you were ill, would you refuse medicine? I dare say that if you have taken medicines, they have been tested on animals wich would be pure hypocritical.
Anyways, we can argue on and on, we're never going to reach an agreement on this.
I admire your passion, and I give you the kindest regards,
Pascal.
|
|
did u tell her about hair products? Caz ALL of them were tested on dogs before humans. Also she wants to go back to the 18th century when half of your siblings would die before 12?
_________________
| Waxxup wrote: | What are Night Elves?
A girl group? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Haxory'
Grandmaster Cheater Supreme
Reputation: 92
Joined: 30 Jul 2007
Posts: 1900
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AverageAzn247 wrote: | | Haxory' wrote: | | Quote: | you seem to think that we're above nature. diseases are natural occurences and if we continue to find cures for more and more diseases then we're going to have to be colonising Mars pretty soon. i'm quite aware that we need animal testing for the development of medicines but that's my point: medical advancement is a negative thing whether it's tested on animals or not.
you also believe that it's okay for another animal to suffer if that means it will help you or your dog? why do you think you have the right to choose which species is worth sacrificing for the benefit of another?
what if (by the way this is hypothetical so don't criticise) every animal that wasn't human had entirely foreign body systems, organs etc. to us? and we could only experiment on humans? would that be a necessity? or would it not be worth it then, making one life suffer for the good of another?
or would you say we should experiment on the less-intelligent humans because they may be less aware of their lives than others?
p.s. everything you just said i was aware of before this began. try to come up with something i don't know in the next message...
p.ss. oh and contrary to what you might think, i'm not trying to get at you now. the more i piss you off the more you're probably going to want to prove me wrong. please read my points and acknowledge them and perhaps you'll see where i'm coming from.
|
ROFL. what a fucking retard.
Gave her this
| Quote: |
I have yet to see in a debate that ends with the opposing party joining the other party. And I've seen quite a few debates. I know we will never agree but I must admit I quite enjoyed this. Like the part where you hypothetically say wether we should test on less intelligent beings, ofcourse I understand this is maybe an extreme exaggeration but you have a point. But tell me, that if you were ill, would you refuse medicine? I dare say that if you have taken medicines, they have been tested on animals wich would be pure hypocritical.
Anyways, we can argue on and on, we're never going to reach an agreement on this.
I admire your passion, and I give you the kindest regards,
Pascal.
|
|
did u tell her about hair products? Caz ALL of them were tested on dogs before humans. Also she wants to go back to the 18th century when half of your siblings would die before 12? |
| Quote: | i've always medicines and consumed foods blindly up until the the last couple of months. of course if a medicine has already been developed then unfortunately it's too late and it would be stupid to refuse it. we can't change the past but we can change the future. my argument is against animal testing continuing because not only is it going to make animals suffer more but it's going to really make our population out of control.
you're reading the things i say but not actually saying something in response other than you think i have a point? what have you actually said to support your argument?
"I have yet to see in a debate that ends with the opposing party joining the other party"
i know it's happened with me. i used to want to be a fox hunter! and if it's going to possibly make less creatures suffer than i think it's always worth trying.
|
What a cunt.
>you're reading the things i say but not actually saying something in response other than you think i have a point? what have you actually said to support your argument?
SHE DOES THIS
i've always medicines and consumed foods blindly up until the the last couple of months. of course if a medicine has already been developed then unfortunately it's too late and it would be stupid to refuse it. we can't change the past but we can change the future. my argument is against animal testing continuing because not only is it going to make animals suffer more but it's going to really make our population out of control.
>SO SHE IS A FUCKING HYPOCRIT!
_________________
you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeyREDD
Cheater
![]() Reputation: -1
Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rather test on animals to see if it's safe rather than human beings.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
