|
U-Know! Forum » anti-vivisectionists on medication? |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
dee 1955 posts |
Sep 09, 2005, 14:20
|
||
i think you're being paraniod dude, I was just trying to lighten things up a bit! I 've just worked out why you would think that -PINT( punch in the teeth) but no< i think I LEFT MY CAPS LOCK ON BY MISTAKE, me no like fighting. Have a good weekend folks!
|
|||
|
BSSM Steiner 63 posts |
Sep 09, 2005, 14:25
|
||
|
wow! lucky i checked. peace and love to all
|
|||
ratcni01 916 posts |
Sep 09, 2005, 14:57
|
||
|
Some anti-vivisectionists are dead, like Lewis Carol! You will notice that all Body Shop products are worded "Against Animal Testing" not "Not tested on animals". This is because they let the periodic tests required on cosmetic/cleaning stuff be done by other companies, because otherwise they'd have nothing to sell, it has to be tested on animals. You'll notice similar wording on other products too. If it were a choice between dying and using something that had been tested on animals, I'd go for the latter for medical purposes, of course there'd be a moral dilemma, lots of things have a moral dilemma, life isn't neat or easy .. what a surprise ;-)
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Sep 09, 2005, 17:11
|
||
|
Do you think there are environmentalists who drive to work? What about church-goers who covet their neighbours' wives? Policemen who look the other way sometimes? Fine upstanding Daily Mail readers that drop fag ends in the street? Some people try to do the best they can. Some people care about moral issues (which include testing things on animals) and worry about them and what they can do in their actions to make the world that little bit nicer. Just because they don't succeed 100% of the time doesn't mean to say that the thing they're striving for isn't worth it. You can't turn it round and say that people who don't agree with animal testing are the morally corrupt ones. It's so much easier not to think about unpleasant things like the way animals are forced to suffer for our supposed benefit. People who do think about it are developing ways to test things on tissue cultures etc. If you want a proper discussion you put forward your views and arguments. You don't set a straw man up right at the beginning.
|
|||
|
BSSM Steiner 63 posts |
Sep 09, 2005, 18:22
|
||
|
thanks for pointing that out rhiannon, but if you'd actually read any of my other postings on this topic you'd see that i have outlined my position. as far as i can tell the term for a church goer who covets his neighbours wife, a daily mail reader who drops fag ends and an environmentalist who drives to work is 'hypocrite'. and before you hit 'reply to this message', of course we're all hypocrites to greater or lesser degrees, myself included. i 'm genunely suprised by the anger that my posting has been on the receiving end of. all i wanted to do was get a reasoned explanation of a point of view that wasn't my own. surely that's a good thing? why do i have to set out my own position anyway? can you only express your views in a confrontational mode?
|
|||
|
BSSM Steiner 63 posts |
Sep 09, 2005, 18:23
|
||
|
thanks for pointing that out rhiannon, but if you'd actually read any of my other postings on this topic you'd see that i have outlined my position. as far as i can tell the term for a church goer who covets his neighbours wife, a daily mail reader who drops fag ends and an environmentalist who drives to work is 'hypocrite'. and before you hit 'reply to this message', of course we're all hypocrites to greater or lesser degrees, myself included. i 'm genunely suprised by the anger that my posting has been on the receiving end of. all i wanted to do was get a reasoned explanation of a point of view that wasn't my own. surely that's a good thing? why do i have to set out my own position anyway? can you only express your views in a confrontational mode?
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Sep 10, 2005, 00:39
|
||
Frankly your postings have made me angry. Of course maybe I'm taking it the wrong way, I dunno. There's way too many pundits these days who deliberately want to be as offensive to the political left as possible, and it's getting more and more annoying. Well maybe you're not one of those people but you're giving me that impression...
|
|||
|
BSSM Steiner 63 posts |
Sep 11, 2005, 13:55
|
||
|
i'm hardly a pundit! i think the problem might be that i've misunderstood the nature of this forum. it seems that there's quite a few poeple on it - yourself included - who want it to be a comfort zone where everyone agrees with each other and has a nice time having their opinions affirmed. fair enough. the reason i came to hh to get a view on vivisection was because i was aware that the political leanings of most people on it would mean there would be quite a few anti-vivsectionists who could respond. i can see now that people on hh don't appreciate an alien viewpoint invading their space. i won;t do it again. the thing i find a bit depressing is how a lot of people on hh seem to think that views come in a package, a package that extends to musical taste. so if you're a jc fan, you must be anti fox-hunting, anti-vivsection, anti-censorship, pro-debt relief etc. i am some of those things, but not others. i think that's what jc might describe as 'forward thinking'.
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Sep 12, 2005, 01:08
|
||
|
Well on the other hand you have Ann Coulter who thinks everyone even slightly to the left is a commie-pinko. Frankly if you want my opinion, i find fox-hunting disgraceful. I dunno if banning it is the answer, but I'm sure there's no logical defense for it. If I had no choice but to take a medicine that was tested on animals though, I'd go ahead. But I'd try to look for alternatives first. Maybe yr right. Maybe I'm just complacent and I just can't stand differences of opinion. But it's not very pleasant hearing from some kook who thinks all left-wingers are anti-Semites and Nazis because they won't support Israel, for example... Or someone who makes a big deal about supporting Bush's phony war on terror simply because Saddam Hussein was bad, or because of 9-11...
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Sep 12, 2005, 01:12
|
||
Don't let me stop you from posting again though. Everyone should have a chance to hear what you say however disagreeable it is.
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
