Well, in order to eat them, they are killed on purpose. Testing make up on them kills them without purpose, and then, because of the chemicals, they aren't even edible! What a waste.:nono:
In Case You Missed It...
- Thread starter Nineveh
- Start date
Skeptic
New member
Saying something is "ok" is like an endorsement. I do not endorse "relations" with animals. Generally, I would recommend against it for health reasons. I do not, however, think such "relations" are a sin, because I don't think anything is a sin. Religious folks believe in sin. As I've said, I don't believe in any religious dogma or moral absolutes, such as those found that collection of fairy tales and superstitions called the Bible. All moral principles are human constructions derived from the human condition.
BTW, I've been a vegetarian for 30 years.
No. I don't eat humans.
You don't eat rats either. It's not like animal testing is causing a meat shortage. And even if it were, that's no excuse to start killing humans instead.
Why are you more willing to endanger humans than animals? Why, when given the choice to endanger a human or an animal, do you opt to endanger the human?
Skeptic
New member
That is correct.
What do I think about it? I think it is a silly and foolish practice. But I do not object to it on moral grounds. There are plenty of other things I can object to on moral (not absolute) grounds, like murder, rape, stealing, or doing other physical or psychological harm. If people choose to have "relations" with animals, I will not tell them it is immoral, any more than that smoking cigarettes is immoral. Getting it on with animals can be unhealthy, just like smoking cigarettes can be unhealthy. However, smoking cigarettes is probably worse for one's health.
Just wanted to let you know that I probably have more respect for animals than most.
My only stance is that animals can consent, knowing full well the dangers. But if science wants to test on street rats, then all power to them.
Who? Me and Turbo?
Nineveh
Merely Christian
I wanted to know where spetic stood on the issue.
As far as the interview, read it, read it again... read it a third time. It isn't going to change any. But for those who feel this thread should only focus on the interview.... there is an open letter to Scott about her misrepresentation of Dr. Humphrey's work:
I won't hold my breath waiting for her to reply...
As far as the interview, read it, read it again... read it a third time. It isn't going to change any. But for those who feel this thread should only focus on the interview.... there is an open letter to Scott about her misrepresentation of Dr. Humphrey's work:
I won't hold my breath waiting for her to reply...
Like evolution, for example.
aharvey
New member
Hey, Nin, I thought you were disgusted with the so-called reliance of the evolutionary view on "woulda coulda shoulda"? So how come you keep citing a paper whose abstract begins with "God could have started magnetic fields in the solar system in a very simple way:...", and continues with "could haves" and "would haves" throughout? [Added: just so you know, Humphreys uses 13 "could"s and 31 "would"s in this short paper to explain his ideas].
And ends with "This theory is consistent with all the known data and explains many facts which have puzzled evolutionists." ! Thus, this paper only supports the argument that I and others here have made that even the best creationist "science" can do is claim "consistency" (i.e., lack of overt contradiction).
The validity of his assumptions, calculations, and assertions is another issue altogether, but even if we grant every one of these (questionable!) claims, though, we still have nothing more than "coulda woulda shoulda" (which I thought was unacceptable to y'all) leading to lack of overt contradiction (which, again, is the weakest form of scientific support). Lack of overt contradiction (i.e., "consistency") has many potential causes besides a correct model, such as a limited number of comparisons or a vaguely worded model.