Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: nycbull on February 10, 2007, 08:28:59 AM
-
and for her lover Devon97
http://www.peta.org/feat/stateoftheunion/index.asp?c=petasotublogad
-
some women make me laugh, they act as if people are waiting with baited breath to see their average American female bodies naked, gimme a fucckin' break. ::)
-
too bad "nakeder" isn't even a word. and too bad there isn't a way to fast forward to the tits.
-
She ain't worth a shoe.
-
She's not Sharon Bruneau. But I wouldn't begrudge her 10 seconds of love.
-
some women make me laugh, they act as if people are waiting with baited breath to see their average American female bodies naked, gimme a fucckin' break. ::)
Heh heh. It's actually 'bated' breath, but I think, in this case, 'baited' is the more correct term. :)
-
Also: Brazilian waxing must die. God gave your slit an obscuring bush for a reason, ladies.
-
and for her lover Devon97
http://www.peta.org/feat/stateoftheunion/index.asp?c=petasotublogad
What a stupid, ignorant bitch! I'd like to see her to talk about 'animal rights' (as if there is really such a concept ::)) when she or a loved one of hers gets some deadly disease, to find the cure for which scientists will have to run tests on animals prior to declaring them safe for human consumption. It is sad when animals are abused, but to actually go to the lengths of doing something ridiculous like stripping or staging protests is just downright ridiculous. The funny thing is, most of these people have no f*cking idea what an invaluable role animal testing plays in research. They want all the comforts and advantages modern science offers us, but without the unavoidable animal testing. Good luck.
-
What a stupid, ignorant bitch! I'd like to see her to talk about 'animal rights' (as if there is really such a concept ::)) when she or a loved one of hers gets some deadly disease, to find the cure for which scientists will have to run tests on animals prior to declaring them safe for human consumption. It is sad when animals are abused, but to actually go to the lengths of doing something ridiculous like stripping or staging protests is just downright ridiculous. The funny thing is, most of these people have no f*cking idea what an invaluable role animal testing plays in research. They want all the comforts and advantages modern science offers us, but without the unavoidable animal testing. Good luck.
just another clueless delusional airhead skank who thinks that everyone is going to be hypnotized by her average small breasted, large waisted, big hipped naked body. ::)
-
Haha yes i wouldn't give her a dime.
-
just another clueless delusional airhead skank who thinks that everyone is going to be hypnotized by her average small breasted, large waisted, big hipped naked body. ::)
Hahahahaha yes. I just wish she'd somehow come to know that I turned the volume all the way down after 5 secs and turned the video off the second she went fully nude. The only thing I could get from the whole video was that she is a brutal 5 out of 10 who'd look better fully bald downstairs hahahahahaha.
-
im not really a chubby chaser
-
What a stupid, ignorant bitch! I'd like to see her to talk about 'animal rights' (as if there is really such a concept ::)) when she or a loved one of hers gets some deadly disease, to find the cure for which scientists will have to run tests on animals prior to declaring them safe for human consumption. It is sad when animals are abused, but to actually go to the lengths of doing something ridiculous like stripping or staging protests is just downright ridiculous. The funny thing is, most of these people have no f*cking idea what an invaluable role animal testing plays in research. They want all the comforts and advantages modern science offers us, but without the unavoidable animal testing. Good luck.
brilliant kiwiol, just when i liked you again.
You owned yourself in your own post. You are absolutely right animal testing has no valuable place in research, even the NY Times listed it as the least reliable form of scientific testing and yet you support the continued use of millions of animals that are suffering at the hands of researchers.
The only reason it continues is because inferior research labs are hungry for US tax payer grant money and the NIH is so old school and bogged down in bureaucracy they cant admit they are wrong. They are sold out to companies and labs with government contracts and the rich PR firms afraid of scandal.
Why would Procter and Gamble agree to phase out all their animal testing in the next five years if animal testing was so important and if their weren't better alternatives? They are leading the way. But you are towing the old company line.
As I said to Devon97, if you are concerned for human safety, campaigning against animal welfare is a strange choice. Your time could be better spent on demanding cures for Cancer and improving child welfare than getting in the way of people who care about animals. Odd choice and very suspect.
I agree dudes, valhalla is an ugly chick, I am just surprised she would strip for PETA.
-
Everyone is being a little too harsh on that broad.
She's not smoking hot but I'd still slam the schit out of her. And I bet everyone else would too if given the chance.
The only way to watch that clip is with your speakers turned off, that way it's just a strip show.
-
The only way to watch that clip is with your speakers turned off, that way it's just a strip show.
That almost warrants a "Well, duh".
I'm in favor of animal rights and I still wouldn't spend two seconds listening to what that airhead has to say.
-
That almost warrants a "Well, duh".
I'm in favor of animal rights and I still wouldn't spend two seconds listening to what that airhead has to say.
Yet, lots of posts complained about what she said. Hmmmmmmmm.
Perhaps you should have posted your "Well, duh" quip before everyone viewed the clip.
-
brilliant kiwiol, just when i liked you again.
You owned yourself in your own post. You are absolutely right animal testing has no valuable place in research, even the NY Times listed it as the least reliable form of scientific testing and yet you support the continued use of millions of animals that are suffering at the hands of researchers.
The only reason it continues is because inferior research labs are hungry for US tax payer grant money and the NIH is so old school and bogged down in bureaucracy they cant admit they are wrong. They are sold out to companies and labs with government contracts and the rich PR firms afraid of scandal.
Why would Procter and Gamble agree to phase out all their animal testing in the next five years if animal testing was so important and if their weren't better alternatives? They are leading the way. But you are towing the old company line.
As I said to Devon97, if you are concerned for human safety, campaigning against animal welfare is a strange choice. Your time could be better spent on demanding cures for Cancer and improving child welfare than getting in the way of people who care about animals. Odd choice and very suspect.
I agree dudes, valhalla is an ugly chick, I am just surprised she would strip for PETA.
I knew there was going to be some sensitive soul getting all edgy about my post. Before I address your post, I'd like you to know that I studied Microbiology with a molecular biology major, so bear in mind I'm not just saying stuff I read in Readers Digest or anything.
Opinions, especially in the field of Science are as varied as can be. There is no universal agreement on any theories or procedures or technologies or whatever, bar on basic metaphysical laws that are universal. The opinions of some even contradict that of others sometimes. What I'm trying to say is that given such a case, it's not hard for someone to back up their opinion / theory / claim by something that's mentioned in 'The NY times' or 'The London Chronicles. So, something doesn't necessarily become true or false just cause a 'prestigious' newspaper or even an established scientific magazine like Nature says it is so.
And just because one company, no matter how big it is, is phasing out animal testing doesn't mean this is way of the future or the only way to go. One company out of the tens of thousands of others is statistically insignificant, although of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Exceptions often prove the rule, so we'll call that a draw.
Bear in mind I do like animals and if given a choice, I'd rather they didn't suffer as they do in a lot of situations now. But our species is still evolving and learning, especially in the realm of Science and IN THIS CONTEXT, the end does justify the means. I won't go into the specifics or even the morality of animal testing, but I'll tell you this much - it is very much an invaluable part of research, especially for the pharmaceutical industry.
It's very easy for us to sit in the comfort of our home and talk about animal rights and such, but when you're one of the millions of unfortunate souls in third world countries, starving and facing death from various diseases, finding the cure for which some animals will be made to suffer, you'll look at it very differently. Concepts like morality, ethics etc will fly through the window when your stomach's empty. Of course, like I said, that doesn't justify it, but it does demand it and therefore, justice does take a back seat.
Like I said, we are still learning and evolving and are faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ar from being able to efficiently use resources and maintain sustainability at the same time, but that's alright. Sometime in the distant future, will evolve different technologies and branches of Science that will be more efficient and less demanding and damaging to the environment and the organisms that live in it, but until then, we're gonna have to put up with things like this.
-
Kiwiol, take The True Adonis for example, did he use animals to test the Adonis principals? No, he got the closest thing to a monkey he could find, Tweeter.
-
I knew there was going to be some sensitive soul getting all edgy about my post. Before I address your post, I'd like you to know that I studied Microbiology with a molecular biology major, so bear in mind I'm not just saying stuff I read in Readers Digest or anything.
Opinions, especially in the field of Science are as varied as can be. There is no universal agreement on any theories or procedures or technologies or whatever, bar on basic metaphysical laws that are universal. The opinions of some even contradicts that of others sometimes. What I'm trying to say is that given such a case, it's not hard for someone to back up their opinion / theory / claim by something that's mentioned in 'The NY times' or 'The London Chronicles. So, something doesn't necessarily become true or false just cause a 'prestigious' newspaper or even an established scientific magazine like Nature says it is so.
And just because one company, no matter how big it is, is phasing out animal testing doesn't mean this is way of the future or the only way to go. One company out of the tens of thousands of others is statistically insignificant, although of course, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Exceptions often prove the rule, so we'll call that a draw.
Bear in mind I do like animals and if given a choice, I'd rather they didn't suffer as they do in a lot of situations now. But our species is still evolving and learning, especially in the realm of Science and IN THIS CONTEXT, the end does justify the means. I won't go into the specifics or even the morality of animal testing, but I'll tell you this much - it is very much an invaluable part of research, especially for the pharmaceutical industry.
It's very easy for us to sit in the comfort of our home and talk about animal rights and such, but when you're one of the millions of unfortunate souls in third world countries, starving and facing death from various diseases, finding the cure for which some animals will be made to suffer, you'll look at it very differently. Concepts like morality, ethics etc will fly through the window when your stomach's empty. Of course, like I said, that doesn't justify it, but it does demand it and therefore, justice does take a back seat.
Like I said, we are still learning and evolving and are faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ar from being able to efficiently use resources and maintain sustainability at the same time, but that's alright. Sometime in the distant future, will evolve different technologies and branches of Science that will be more efficient and less demanding and damaging to the environment and the organisms that live in it, but until then, we're gonna have to put up with things like this.
I am not asking that a human suffer over an animal, nor is anyone else. Certainly human beings come before animals and if the only way to cure a disease is to use them then use them. But as of today we could phase out all the other unnecessary testing and experimenting and we could prevent millions of animals from suffering and have safer drugs and products on the market. We could enact laws to protect factory farm animals and have healthier meat (offered now at Chipotle grill), and we could enact stronger laws to protect all animals from exploitation.
I can understand the annoyance some people have against PETA and animal rights people. They can be smug and self righteous. But if you really looked at the fight they are up against you will see a real David and Goliath battle. The numbers of people and the amount of money helping animals is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of people, money, PR firms and industries supporting animal exploitation. If you saw how disproportionate it was and how immense and absolutely mind boggling the suffering is you would not get so annoyed with a few campaigns here and there.
I mean if PETA wants to retire some chimps that have been experimented on their entire lives and they demand they be spared a few years without pain before they die, why would anyone stand in the way of that? After they have served you all so well?
Would you have been annoyed with the Boston Tea Party or the March from Selma, or the Love Canal protesters? PETA is as American as you can get. They are one of the last true grass roots organizations in this country upholding Freedom of Speech and the freedom to protest. Someday people under 30 will wake up and want to take their country back from the government, corporate media conglomerates and religious fanatics and will to look to PETA as a model for activism. They are acting on all the principles that has made this country great. Why get annoyed with them? You may be need them someday.
I do not think everyone needs to support animal rights, I am not a purist or a utopianist but if some of you look at the immense battle they are up against and I mean huge and the little good they are trying to do you might choose not to stand in their way.
And plus you can get in Pamela Lee's pants. ;D
-
What an ugly slag..... get a fucking life you dumb bitch
-
Yet, lots of posts complained about what she said. Hmmmmmmmm.
Perhaps you should have posted your "Well, duh" quip before everyone viewed the clip.
Sorry if my post came across as hostile. I really only wanted to boast of my good sense in engaging the mute before clicking the link. ;D
-
I am not asking that a human suffer over an animal, nor is anyone else. Certainly human beings come before animals and if the only way to cure a disease is to use them then use them. But as of today we could phase out all the other unnecessary testing and experimenting and we could prevent millions of animals from suffering and have safer drugs and products on the market. We could enact laws to protect factory farm animals and have healthier meat (offered now at Chipotle grill), and we could enact stronger laws to protect all animals from exploitation.
I can understand the annoyance some people have against PETA and animal rights people. They can be smug and self righteous. But if you really looked at the fight they are up against you will see a real David and Goliath battle. The numbers of people and the amount of money helping animals is a drop in the bucket compared to the number of people, money, PR firms and industries supporting animal exploitation. If you saw how disproportionate it was and how immense and absolutely mind boggling the suffering is you would not get so annoyed with a few campaigns here and there.
I mean if PETA wants to retire some chimps that have been experimented on their entire lives and they demand they be spared a few years without pain before they die, why would anyone stand in the way of that? After they have served you all so well?
Would you have been annoyed with the Boston Tea Party or the March from Selma, or the Love Canal protesters? PETA is as American as you can get. They are one of the last true grass roots organizations in this country upholding Freedom of Speech and the freedom to protest. Someday people under 30 will wake up and want to take their country back from the government, corporate media conglomerates and religious fanatics and will to look to PETA as a model for activism. They are acting on all the principles that has made this country great. Why get annoyed with them? You may be need them someday.
I do not think everyone needs to support animal rights, I am not a purist or a utopianist but if some of you look at the immense battle they are up against and I mean huge and the little good they are trying to do you might choose not to stand in their way.
And plus you can get in Pamela Lee's pants. ;D
Sorry, but I don't follow the drift of this at all. Firstly, I don't want to get into Pamela's pants - a below-average looking blonde with fake tits and a face that's cosmetically enhanced to a point where it's just plain gross doesn't do it for me.
Secondly, I was talking about the necessity of animal testing and the role it plays in development of drugs. I never said anything about the playing field being level between PETA and pharmaceutical industries, which is what you're presenting an argument against. Nor am I saying I will do everything I can to stop protests of people who've got nothing better to do than whine about animals suffering in labs, bad as it may be.
One thing you'll need to realise is that you're wishing animals were treated with kindness and dignity, but this is a ridiculous notion when applied to the animal kingdom as a whole. People develop surrogate friendship with a few limited species of animals and even come to depend on them emotionally in extreme cases. You can't apply the same logic to other species that can't be domesticated.
It's only my opinion of course, but the way I see it, animals have a value only in the eyes of the beholder. You may be an animal lover and choose to go out of your way by sharing your hard-earned efforts (in the form of money) on your pet by making it's life as 'luxurious' as possible, by providing it with high quality food, shelter, love etc, which of course the creature reciprocates in it's own way (at least some of them do). But you may also be a poacher to whom an animal is nothing more than a means to an end, in that you kill it or maim it for your personal gain.
It's not easy to say who is right or who is wrong, assuming it is such a black and white issue, which it isn't. I'm just trying to say that it's ridiculous for some people to try and make other people adhere to what they think is right and wrong, IN THIS CONTEXT. I'm sure you've used fly spray to kill roaches and stuff like that at some point in your life - where do you draw the line? Do you make up a list of your favorite animals that you like simply cause you think they look 'cute' etc and say that anything that doesn't make that list is OK to be killed or mutilated? And what do you do when another person has a list that includes creatures you didn't, within the line and excludes creatures you did, within the line? See where I'm going with this?
PETA and other organisations need to realise that there are many more worthwhile causes to be fought for and injustices that need to fought against. People will have different perceptions of the same thing depending on their exposure to the same - you see someone have a heart attack and it'll panic the shit out of you. But to an ER doctor, it's nothing more than an everyday occurrence. It's the same with people like chicken farmers - I don't think they WISH to be cruel to their stock, but when they're dealing with hundreds of birds everyday that they know are going to be butchered, maybe they don't cry a river about some of the birds sustaining injuries while being transported etc.
Of course, like I said, this is all just my opinion. You will look at the whole thing in a very different way which is fine - that's the way it should be. All I'm saying is just don't get carried away with this subject to the point of condoning other people who feel a lot differently and are perhaps justified in doing so.
-
/mute
edit: damn. too bad i can't /treadmill her chubby ass.
-
One thing you'll need to realise is that you're wishing animals were treated with kindness and dignity, but this is a ridiculous notion when applied to the animal kingdom as a whole. People develop surrogate friendship with a few limited species of animals and even come to depend on them emotionally in extreme cases. You can't apply the same logic to other species that can't be domesticated.
Thats nonsense. Aren't we in a relationship, or "friendship", with all animals by virtue of sharing the same land with them and benefiting from their ecological support?Isn't it true that the mere knowledge of animals existence in the wild makes millions of people and children happy? Is that not a relationship? If wild animals were to suddenly disappear don't you think it would cause some severe psychological distress to masses of people?
And when we use wild animals for our own purpose or destroy their habitat are we not establishing a relationship, a bad one perhaps, but a relationship none the less? I am suggesting that within that relationship that animal suffering be avoided when reasonably possible. I am not suggesting holding back progress or putting humans second.
It's only my opinion of course, but the way I see it, animals have a value only in the eyes of the beholder. You may be an animal lover and choose to go out of your way by sharing your hard-earned efforts (in the form of money) on your pet by making it's life as 'luxurious' as possible,
To say an animals only value is in the eye of a human beholder sounds like an eerily religious argument. I will not get into a religious argument or whether if a tree falls does it make a sound if no human is there to hear it. Animals have a value in and of themselves and to suggest otherwise is certainly a human centric 14th century notion which led to the burning of many animal welfare advocates (by the church) at the stake. I think we have evolved since then. And from a scientific standpoint doesn't each animal have a value by simply keeping its ecosystem healthy? Apsychologicaly by the fact that their mere existence in the world makes millions of people and children happy?
And don't put words in my mouth, I and most activists in no way support overindulging animals with "luxuries". I find people who do so stupid and think the money could be better spent. Animal "lovers" are often as ignorant as abusers. I am not asking for overindulgence and even over the top "love" for animals I am simply asking for respect.
I'm sure you've used fly spray to kill roaches and stuff like that at some point in your life - where do you draw the line? Do you make up a list of your favorite animals that you like simply cause you think they look 'cute' etc and say that anything that doesn't make that list is OK to be killed or mutilated? And what do you do when another person has a list that includes creatures you didn't, within the line and excludes creatures you did, within the line? See where I'm going with this?
I can't argue existential arguments, like where do we draw the line on bugs or dogs or rabbits and how much pain do they feel and on and on. I will not let it paralyze me into an inactive stupor. I think it is safe to say that expanding ones circle of compassion outside just yourself isn't that hard to do and a worthy and noble pursuit by anyones philosophies. I cannot draw the line just like abortion activists can't draw a line in their debate. This is no reason to devalue the entire cause.
PETA and other organisations need to realise that there are many more worthwhile causes to be fought for and injustices that need to fought against. People will have different perceptions of the same thing depending on their exposure to the same - you see someone have a heart attack and it'll panic the shit out of you. But to an ER doctor, it's nothing more than an everyday occurrence. It's the same with people like chicken farmers - I don't think they WISH to be cruel to their stock, but when they're dealing with hundreds of birds everyday that they know are going to be butchered, maybe they don't cry a river about some of the birds sustaining injuries while being transported etc.
There will always be other causes to fight for....so by your logic one should do nothing. Nonsense. And as I have pointed out. One fight helps the other. A more humane world for animals by extension will be a more humane world for people. There are certainly enough people and resources in this world to fight all the good fights.
And just because a person is desensitized to animal suffering doesn't make it OK to do nothing about it. The Nazi guards at the concentration camps made the same argument for their inaction. Its bullshiit.
Any reasonable person can identify suffering in a human or animal and it is reasonable to expect that they would take some action to alleviate it. I cannot buy into your "its all relative" theory.
-
Wow, some good debating going on here, but I think it's St. Francis FTW. :)
-
Thats nonsense. Aren't we in a relationship, or "friendship", with all animals by virtue of sharing the same land with them and benefiting from their ecological support?Isn't it true that the mere knowledge of animals existence in the wild makes millions of people and children happy? Is that not a relationship? If wild animals were to suddenly disappear don't you think it would cause some severe psychological distress to masses of people?
And when we use wild animals for our own purpose or destroy their habitat are we not establishing a relationship, a bad one perhaps, but a relationship none the less? I am suggesting that within that relationship that animal suffering be avoided when reasonably possible. I am not suggesting holding back progress or putting humans second.
To say an animals only value is in the eye of a human beholder sounds like an eerily religious argument. I will not get into a religious argument or whether if a tree falls does it make a sound if no human is there to hear it. Animals have a value in and of themselves and to suggest otherwise is certainly a human centric 14th century notion which led to the burning of many animal welfare advocates (by the church) at the stake. I think we have evolved since then. And from a scientific standpoint doesn't each animal have a value by simply keeping its ecosystem healthy? Apsychologicaly by the fact that their mere existence in the world makes millions of people and children happy?
And don't put words in my mouth, I and most activists in no way support overindulging animals with "luxuries". I find people who do so stupid and think the money could be better spent. Animal "lovers" are often as ignorant as abusers. I am not asking for overindulgence and even over the top "love" for animals I am simply asking for respect.
I can't argue existential arguments, like where do we draw the line on bugs or dogs or rabbits and how much pain do they feel and on and on. I will not let it paralyze me into an inactive stupor. I think it is safe to say that expanding ones circle of compassion outside just yourself isn't that hard to do and a worthy and noble pursuit by anyones philosophies. I cannot draw the line just like abortion activists can't draw a line in their debate. This is no reason to devalue the entire cause.
There will always be other causes to fight for....so by your logic one should do nothing. Nonsense. And as I have pointed out. One fight helps the other. A more humane world for animals by extension will be a more humane world for people. There are certainly enough people and resources in this world to fight all the good fights.
And just because a person is desensitized to animal suffering doesn't make it OK to do nothing about it. The Nazi guards at the concentration camps made the same argument for their inaction. Its bullshiit.
Any reasonable person can identify suffering in a human or animal and it is reasonable to expect that they would take some action to alleviate it. I cannot buy into your "its all relative" theory.
Mate, I'd love to go deeper and deeper into this debate, but TBH I don't see the point. We both have different premises that we're basing our arguments on and as a result, our trying to justify any point we make (to the other party) isn't going to be effective. Whatever opinion we present will be a logical extension of the underlying premises (at least in my case), so there is no point in arguing something like this when it's the fundamentals that we should be arguing about. And an in-depth argument on fundamentals and metaphysics isn't something that either of us can possibly type up and post, cause the time and effort required to do the same makes it impractical to do so. I will tell you this much - I'm not religious, at all. I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in (the existence of) God or supernatural phenomenon or similar things. I know this doesn't have an immediate bearing on the topic at hand, but am mentioning it cause you brought up the possibility of part of my arguments being defended on the grounds of (organised) religion.
Also, I'm not saying that every one of the animal rights activists out there should abandon their cause and move on to what I think is a more worthwhile cause. I'm just saying that it's unreasonable for you to expect sympathy, given the situation can be looked in a lot of different ways (which in fact, is the case), one version of which is my take on the whole thing. If you're passionate about a cause, you should go ahead and try to do the best you can to achieve what you possibly can. You can even go one step further and try to get other people involved in a positive way that'll advance your campaign positively. But what is not cool is being a crybaby when others refuse to share your enthusiasm for whatever it is that you're occupied with.
So, I'm not saying you should stop doing what you're doing or pointing out all the flaws in your philosophy. You're free to do what you wish, as long as it doesn't affect the 'rights' of another individual of course. I'm just sticking up for the rarely acknowledged, albeit invaluable and appallingly under-appreciated prime movers like scientists, who do animal testing for the sole purpose of ultimately improving the quality of human life.
Peace.
-
LMAO @ nycbullshit
-
Mate, I'd love to go deeper and deeper into this debate, but TBH I don't see the point. We both have different premises that we're basing our arguments on and as a result, our trying to justify any point we make (to the other party) isn't going to be effective. Whatever opinion we present will be a logical extension of the underlying premises (at least in my case), so there is no point in arguing something like this when it's the fundamentals that we should be arguing about. And an in-depth argument on fundamentals and metaphysics isn't something that either of us can possibly type up and post, cause the time and effort required to do the same makes it impractical to do so. I will tell you this much - I'm not religious, at all. I'm an atheist who doesn't believe in (the existence of) God or supernatural phenomenon or similar things. I know this doesn't have an immediate bearing on the topic at hand, but am mentioning it cause you brought up the possibility of part of my arguments being defended on the grounds of (organised) religion.
Also, I'm not saying that every one of the animal rights activists out there should abandon their cause and move on to what I think is a more worthwhile cause. I'm just saying that it's unreasonable for you to expect sympathy, given the situation can be looked in a lot of different ways (which in fact, is the case), one version of which is my take on the whole thing. If you're passionate about a cause, you should go ahead and try to do the best you can to achieve what you possibly can. You can even go one step further and try to get other people involved in a positive way that'll advance your campaign positively. But what is not cool is being a crybaby when others refuse to share your enthusiasm for whatever it is that you're occupied with.
So, I'm not saying you should stop doing what you're doing or pointing out all the flaws in your philosophy. You're free to do what you wish, as long as it doesn't affect the 'rights' of another individual of course. I'm just sticking up for the rarely acknowledged, albeit invaluable and appallingly under-appreciated prime movers like scientists, who do animal testing for the sole purpose of ultimately improving the quality of human life.
Peace.
Agreed that there is no longer a point to our discussion. And I respect your point of view. And I am not so sure we are at odds on all things. I am all for science. Scientists are our greatest ally in making the world a better place, they do so much good, no doubt.
And I am all for finding cures for humans even if using animals is the only way to do it. (although you yourself admit that better alternatives are on the way). I just don't understand why those same scientist cant find it in themselves to perhaps provide a little larger cage, or maybe provide a bit of sunlight during the day, or see it in themselves to retire an animal after several years of torture? That would only be human. Not to do so because of some cry baby animal rights people would only be an act of spite and what good does that do?
peace to you too.
-
Agreed that there is no longer a point to our discussion. And I respect your point of view. And I am not so sure we are at odds on all things. I am all for science. Scientists are our greatest ally in making the world a better place, they do so much good, no doubt.
And I am all for finding cures for humans even if using animals is the only way to do it. (although you yourself admit that better alternatives are on the way). I just don't understand why those same scientist cant find it in themselves to perhaps provide a little larger cage, or maybe provide a bit of sunlight during the day, or see it in themselves to retire an animal after several years of torture? That would only be human. Not to do so because of some cry baby animal rights people would only be an act of spite and what good does that do?
peace to you too.
So does this mean I win ;D ?
-
She has an ugly figure... to chubby for me!!!
-
Nice nips, she got some wide hips, which eqautes to child birthin' hips= can take a pounding.