|
U-Know! Forum » animal rights campaigners jailed |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 19:03
|
||
|
dee wrote: handofdave wrote: dee wrote: Well show me some examples of 'nice' vivisection then. And, for the record, im pro choice! Not all animal testing involves vivisection. And if you are hardline opposed to animal testing, but pro-choice, how do you reconcile the fact that, yes, a living fetus is being destroyed? Despite the claims that the neurology of a fetus isn't capable of feeling distress, it's an inescapable fact that a typical abortion is a pretty gruesome procedure. I am pro choice, but I'm not under any illusions that it's not a harsh thing. Well show me some examples of 'nice' animal testing then! I certainly dont revel in the idea of abortion! And its certainly not a decision to be taken lightly either. No, and the same holds for animal testing. You wouldn't call a woman who struggles with the choice to abort an inhuman cunt. I merely pointed out that not all researchers who employ animal testing should be judged that way either.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Jan 25, 2009, 19:14
Jan 25, 2009, 19:12
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: Come one man! You're applying contemporary limitations in computing power and knowledge to a future that hasn't happened yet. NO. No I'm not. God this is so hard to get accross to you without resorting to some horrible impenetrable jargon but I'll try. Okay, I developed an elegant abstraction model. It is capable of modelling system of any complexity, theoretically, I have the proof and the proof reviewed. Though I didn't publish. To achieve this it has to be truly polymorphic, as in completely flexible. Such as, to use the terms of relational databases: A record can become a table become a transaction become a report become a relationship etc, etc. From any state/structure to any other state/structure and possibly back again elegantly (the mathematical use of the word elegance here, as in ermm... best practice.. kinda). So ? Here is the unsolvable part of the problem. How do you leverage the model ? how do you, in fact, leverage any model ? The answer is you make a series of informed decisions, but these decisions remain subjective. Sure, you may have identified a very strong causal relationship between any given pieces of data, but you will never be sure if you're right. It only takes that one in a billion odd occasions for that assumption not to be actually true for the whole model to go to shit. However, as the model is insanely flexible, you can tweak it, capture that exception and move forward. But it is never finished, got it ? All application of mathematics is in fact subjective, to simplify it. Coming 'bloody close' frankly imo is really, really not good enough when we're talking about something that could result in somebodies death. Sure, as said, drug trials still kill volunteers, but do we really want to move to a purely systems based trial ? That is unacceptable. Now yes, in a lot of models 'bloody close' is good enough, I wouldn't have had a career at all if that wasn't the case. It isn't acceptable in the case we're citing, particularly as finding the exceptions we need to capture requires conducting highly risky observable experiments on people. There are plenty of examples in modern physics of theories for which we will never be able to create observal experiments that can prove them, although the maths itself does in fact work. Of course the maths work, maths like any other semiotic, regime of sign, is internally consistent. However just because the math works doesn't make the conclusion fact. Mathematics is actually a collection of internally consistent fields, and quite a lot of them do not actually relate to each other. It is the application of my model, and other directions (particularly in the social fields) in IT that made me quit the game. Have I made sense of what I'm actually saying now ? It has fuck all to do with current computing power, or knowledge of the future. These issues are not going to go away.
|
|||
|
dee 1955 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 19:14
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: dee wrote: handofdave wrote: dee wrote: Well show me some examples of 'nice' vivisection then. And, for the record, im pro choice! Not all animal testing involves vivisection. And if you are hardline opposed to animal testing, but pro-choice, how do you reconcile the fact that, yes, a living fetus is being destroyed? Despite the claims that the neurology of a fetus isn't capable of feeling distress, it's an inescapable fact that a typical abortion is a pretty gruesome procedure. I am pro choice, but I'm not under any illusions that it's not a harsh thing. Well show me some examples of 'nice' animal testing then! I certainly dont revel in the idea of abortion! And its certainly not a decision to be taken lightly either. No, and the same holds for animal testing. You wouldn't call a woman who struggles with the choice to abort an inhuman cunt. I merely pointed out that not all researchers who employ animal testing should be judged that way either. I was merely pointing out that anyone who experiments on animals, thus causing them distress, pain and in some cases death is a fucking rotten bastard. Thats my opinion and im sticking to it. I dont agree to animal testing and never will.
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 19:20
|
||
|
Also if your impossible vision did come true, and we did in fact create perfect virtual models of human beings then how could we distinguish them actually from human beings ? Surely if they were perfect then they would have a conciousness. The human mind, as we know, does play a large part in how our body reacts and therefore must also be perfectly modeled. Therefore, we've created humans, without organs and flesh, but philosophically they would be humans nonetheless. So, how would experimenting on them be anymore ethical ?
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 19:28
|
||
|
dee wrote: handofdave wrote: dee wrote: handofdave wrote: dee wrote: Well show me some examples of 'nice' vivisection then. And, for the record, im pro choice! Not all animal testing involves vivisection. And if you are hardline opposed to animal testing, but pro-choice, how do you reconcile the fact that, yes, a living fetus is being destroyed? Despite the claims that the neurology of a fetus isn't capable of feeling distress, it's an inescapable fact that a typical abortion is a pretty gruesome procedure. I am pro choice, but I'm not under any illusions that it's not a harsh thing. Well show me some examples of 'nice' animal testing then! I certainly dont revel in the idea of abortion! And its certainly not a decision to be taken lightly either. No, and the same holds for animal testing. You wouldn't call a woman who struggles with the choice to abort an inhuman cunt. I merely pointed out that not all researchers who employ animal testing should be judged that way either. I was merely pointing out that anyone who experiments on animals, thus causing them distress, pain and in some cases death is a fucking rotten bastard. Thats my opinion and im sticking to it. I dont agree to animal testing and never will. Hey, fine, but if someone tells you that women who choose to abort are fucking rotten because they are causing their fetus distress, pain, and most certainly death... you catch what I'm saying? It may be comforting to judge others with these absolutes but you have to be careful you're not walking into a logic trap.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 20:07
|
||
|
stray wrote: Also if your impossible vision did come true, and we did in fact create perfect virtual models of human beings then how could we distinguish them actually from human beings ? Surely if they were perfect then they would have a conciousness. The human mind, as we know, does play a large part in how our body reacts and therefore must also be perfectly modeled. Therefore, we've created humans, without organs and flesh, but philosophically they would be humans nonetheless. So, how would experimenting on them be anymore ethical ? And there we have it. Animal testing is a compromise we make because experimenting on people is too repulsive to anyone other than a Joseph Mengele. I'm afraid you did go over my head with that last post, a little, tho I do grasp the basic point you're making, re: Mathematics has its limits in modeling complex systems (the ever-exponentially-massive number of variables thing. I think?). But basically I think we're on the same page. Not all animals or people respond to a drug trial the same way. So researchers do many trials and come up with a best guess as to how the drug will work on MOST people. Getting back to the original subject, if we can arrive at more or less the same conclusions with a computer model, to narrow down the initial phase of the study, and THEN do live trials, it would cut down on the number of animals sacrificed. I'm not suggesting that there's a one stop solution to this problem via a 'virtual human'.
|
|||
|
machineryelf 3681 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 20:33
|
||
I'm just trying to bump the post count up to keep Stray happy, anyway what's wrong with a bit of post diversification.
|
|||
|
dee 1955 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 20:41
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: dee wrote: handofdave wrote: dee wrote: handofdave wrote: dee wrote: Well show me some examples of 'nice' vivisection then. And, for the record, im pro choice! Not all animal testing involves vivisection. And if you are hardline opposed to animal testing, but pro-choice, how do you reconcile the fact that, yes, a living fetus is being destroyed? Despite the claims that the neurology of a fetus isn't capable of feeling distress, it's an inescapable fact that a typical abortion is a pretty gruesome procedure. I am pro choice, but I'm not under any illusions that it's not a harsh thing. Well show me some examples of 'nice' animal testing then! I certainly dont revel in the idea of abortion! And its certainly not a decision to be taken lightly either. No, and the same holds for animal testing. You wouldn't call a woman who struggles with the choice to abort an inhuman cunt. I merely pointed out that not all researchers who employ animal testing should be judged that way either. I was merely pointing out that anyone who experiments on animals, thus causing them distress, pain and in some cases death is a fucking rotten bastard. Thats my opinion and im sticking to it. I dont agree to animal testing and never will. Hey, fine, but if someone tells you that women who choose to abort are fucking rotten because they are causing their fetus distress, pain, and most certainly death... you catch what I'm saying? It may be comforting to judge others with these absolutes but you have to be careful you're not walking into a logic trap. I do catch what you are saying Dave, but i am against animal testing and support a womans right to choose, maybe thats illogical. I dunno. Still like to hear some nice examples of animal testing. W could go on all night bro!!!! ;-)
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 20:45
|
||
There is no such thing as a 'nice' example of animal testing OR abortion. They are difficult choices that people make. They weigh the pros and cons of those choices and go forward with the choice that they deem to be the best one under the circumstances.
|
|||
|
dee 1955 posts |
Jan 25, 2009, 21:16
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: There is no such thing as a 'nice' example of animal testing OR abortion. They are difficult choices that people make. They weigh the pros and cons of those choices and go forward with the choice that they deem to be the best one under the circumstances. Of course not, but you have introduced abortion into this discussion and are using it to prove your point. your last sentence is a massive generalisation, not everyone who enters into abortion or animal testing weighs up the pros and cons. Dont know where you got that from.
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
