Humans are "ok" as long as they legally consend to it.
animal experimention - mistreating animals
- Thread starter spuriousmonkey
- Start date
they don't?
could you explain why?
Oh so then it’s a religious theological/mythological thing?
He is technically right of course that cats don't have a soul, since not a single animal (humans included) has got a soul.
Wellcookedfetus; are humans really ok as long as they legally consent to it? I mean, most pharmaceutical tests would involve the people dieing, in which case I’m thinking it would be manslaughter…Have any ethical committees Ok a proposal to test anything meaningful on humans without having tested it on animals?
Heres an thought; maybe the reason that we use animals for drug testing, instead of testing them on sick people is because they work better on the animals in tightly control situations.
Heres an thought; maybe the reason that we use animals for drug testing, instead of testing them on sick people is because they work better on the animals in tightly control situations.
Ya so what are you getting at?
Originally posted by weebee
Heres an thought; maybe the reason that we use animals for drug testing, instead of testing them on sick people is because they work better on the animals in tightly control situations.
Sounds more like another convenient justification to me.
Do you honestly think that is why they started and continue to test on animals instead of humans? :bugeye:
Sorry about the 'arrogance,' heh, but lemme elaborate on my take of the soul bit...I believe that there's some things that can't be proven, the presence of souls are one of them...but most of those things are dangerous to be taken a certain way. Let's say that we believe that animals have souls...and killing them is a sin. Well then, animals can also sin if they have souls, and them killing other animals would also be a sin, correct? Now, one can plead ignorance and say that they don't know that it's wrong, but if they have souls, then it is up to us to teach them that it is wrong, and if we can't teach them, then we are morally obligated to stop them from committing sin and punishing them when they do. Sorry if I sounded too simple-minded before, I already thought this out, I just didn't have the time to type it up at the moment.
Well then get off the "science" sub-forums because we only deal with what can be proven. By the way what is a "soul" exactly? well you say it the thing that makes us humen but what is it that makes us humen?
JESUS FUCKING CHRISt, you brought up the soul deal, 'member? All I was originally saying was: "here's a thought on animal cruelty...people should consider animal cruelty in how it affects humans"...you brought you brought up this soul shit...I figured I might as well give you my two cents on that too. Are you always this much of an asshole to newbies?
Yeah wcf!
Leave this poor defenseless fan of animal torture alone
Leave this poor defenseless fan of animal torture alone
I just don’t buy the mythology that humans have a soul, and I thought your argument was void because it was based off this primes, sorry.
Soul is religious concept as you might know and I think the best place to look for a definition is in the religion forum. But of course, no one will agree on the definition on soul there, so it will be a wild goose chase. But if a 'soul' would exist, then also 'god' would exist and hence I assume that souls do not exist. Because of this correlation I do not think I have to define soul.
is that good enough?