- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- General Discussion
- →
- Human-Pig Hybrid Created
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| Human-Pig Hybrid Created | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jan 27 2017, 04:17 PM (2,446 Views) | |
| + Steve | Jan 31 2017, 11:04 PM Post #31 |
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
Oh come on it's pretty obvious people value people more than they do other animals... Here we go again with denying the should-be obvious.
...again, obviously because people care about human rights more than they do animal rights. Why is this a question aimed at me like I don't get that when I've clearly outlined it? "in any legal experiment" meaning not legal, because obviously people don't agree with testing on babies or humans in general depending on what tests we're talking about.
Intelligence, awareness, general emotional depth, greater potential to do something useful with their life. If it's a choice, then yeah.
Give me some good reasons why a cow would be a better or more logical choice. Why does the human deserve to die more? Is it a serial killer?
Yeah that's the neat thing about language, when you word it like that you can make it seem extra awful so that it fits your side of the argument. And going by that logic we're not talking about the worth of humans vs humans so stick to the subject please.
This would be less ridiculous if you had any argument for why a human deserves to die more than any other animal or any logical reasoning behind all lives being equal. |
 Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
 |
 
|
|
|
Jan 31 2017, 11:28 PM Post #32 |
|
I don't have the time right now to address your post point by point, but you're misunderstanding my entire argument. When did I say that a human deserves to die more than an animal? You have been the one claiming, in both this thread and in another, that animals deserve to die more than humans do, so I am countering that claim. I've given you plenty of reasons to believe that all lives are equal, and so have other members in numerous threads prior to this one. Why you disregard obvious facts and logic is beyond me. If you choose to believe that your life is more valuable or somehow more meaningful than that of any other animal on this planet, that is within your right to do so, but don't act surprised when people question you. As for your point about abortion and stem cell research, I don't know why you're trying to compare a case in which people debate whether something is alive or not to a case in which the subject is very much alive, sentient, and capable of feeling pain, but alright. If it will help you stomach the atrocities that go on in the world around us, tell yourself whatever you want to. |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Jan 31 2017, 11:52 PM Post #33 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
No, you've given me plenty reasons why you believe all lives are equal. I do not. If a mouse is about to be run over and a dog is about to be run over, I'll pick the dog every time. The mouse would probably only live a year or so more before a cat or disease got it and with their population growth there'd be another ten thousand mice in the world seconds after it was squished. Not to mention the greater emotional value a dog has to others, it's likely someone's family member. There's no reason you can give that would make me think that the mouse is just as significant, unless it's the carrier of a cure to all disease.
People debate whether or not it's alive because if it is then a human is dying, it's nothing to do with generally being alive it's the concept of killing a human baby people don't agree with. Why is that not obvious? This attitude extents to our current discussion. If it's a choice between animals being killed and humans people will pick humans most of the time because we value ourselves more than other animals hence why we enslave them, shoot them for fun, skin them alive and all sorts of other fun stuff whereas we fight against people who do it to humans and try to make the world a better place for humans we ally with in various ways. If killing was inherently wrong nature wouldn't encourage us to do it or make it worthwhile but it does and it makes most creatures on the planet do it too. There is no argument against that besides saying humans are some kind of special case because we're intelligent, which is hardly an argument at all. Edited by Steve, Jan 31 2017, 11:54 PM.
|
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 1 2017, 12:53 AM Post #34 |
|
If someone were to take your dog and skin it right in front of your eyes, or hang it up and harvest its organs, you would have a problem with that. You may say "Hey, that's my pet. I love that animal. We have an emotional bond. He's in pain." (Okay, you probably wouldn't say that exactly, but this is to illustrate a point.) If you had a cat, you would 100% guaranteed do the same thing. But what if you had a pet cow, a pet horse, a pig, a hamster, a mouse? I highly doubt you would be okay with someone stringing it up and harvesting its organs, their reasons being that they need your pet to further humanity, or they want to kill your pet because it isn't as important or sentient as a human being (all while it screams in pain). People who have cows, pigs, horses, hamsters, etc. as pets all claim the same thing that you claim about dogs--they're "different" somehow. They're emotional creatures capable of forming thoughts, habits, likes/dislikes, etc. So where do you draw the line here? I'm assuming you draw it at dogs, and this is probably due to your own biases. You haven't ever had a pet pig before, I would assume. Harvesting pigs organs is not as problematic to me as harvesting a humans organs, no, and I acknowledge that as a problem. I recognize that as social conditioning. We've convinced ourselves that because we are human, we are more important. We deserve to live more than any other animal. Some believe this because they're selfish, others due to social conditioning, and some due to religious regions. I accept that as a part of human nature. The problem lies in your inability to recognize that this egotism is an issue. It's selfish. If you can accept that and still think the same way, that's fine. But you don't even seem to be accepting that. It's like smoking a cigarette and denying the obvious fact that it kills you. It's fine to smoke as long as you know that it's damaging your body, but if you refuse to admit even that, you're just in denial. Why can't we just find other means to get what we want instead of exploiting other species? That's really all I'm saying here. Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Feb 1 2017, 12:57 AM.
|
|
|
|
| + Sandy Shore | Feb 1 2017, 10:14 AM Post #35 |
|
Steve, I'm not attempting to insult you, but you are being completely irrational in this topic. That's not my opinion because I think (very) differently to you, but because your mind is genuinely jumping to irrational places. You're under this delusion that something must be tortured and experimented on "jus coz". Someone points out to you that it's cruel to experiment on and torture others for the irrational crime of "not being us", and your irrational response is "but it's illegal to torture us". No one proposed that we then abduct and experiment on humans; that's your irrational mind concocting a non sequitur based on a notion you hold that is also irrational. It is simply unethical to abuse and torture anything that can be abused and tortured for your own selfish desires, and should therefore not be permissible in an ethical society. Before you say that's just my opinion against yours, read the entire post. Appealing to a majority and claiming "legality = ethical" are fallacious points that don't hold up, and that's the crux of your position. Your position is, I'm not afraid to say, logically flawed. It's obvious (read: uncritically accepted) to you and other people steeped in their human-centric, subjective, delusional biases. "It's human" isn't an argument, but an emotional knee-jerk, innately understood as justification. I could make the same "case" about anything with all the same rationality and sense: "it's a tree, therefore you can't cut it down. It's a tree." Only, you won't have that emotional knee-jerk to the expressed (non-)point that'll get you to agree with the sentiment, but that doesn't make it less unreasonable and empty. What is it about being a human that makes it "wrong", and can these things applied to others? If it can, but you refuse to spare them the same given that understanding, then you're being arbitrary. If you're being arbitrary, you're being unreasonable; illogical. If you're being unreasonable and illogical then you are absolutely wrong. You couldn't be more wronger. How else could we better explain your wrongness? It's not about which one is more significant. That's a value claim, and one steeped in your own human-centric delusions. In your hypothetical, and how it applies to the real world, it would be reasonable to run the mouse over to avoid hitting the dog because we reasonably believe that its ability to suffer is less of that than a dog - not because the mouse is inherently "worth less". It's not, and you have no basis for such a claim that is reasonably objective. It certainly doesn't follow that it's therefore okay to kill mice for pleasure, sport, or knowledge because it's less cruel than doing it to a dog. That would be a huge leap in logic - because it's founded on your delusions. Thirstly, that there needs to be a choice is your irrationality speaking. There doesn't need to be any such decision between the two, and an argument for ethics is an argument for neither animals nor humans being tortured and abused for the benefit of the humans. Second-lee, there was a time you could have made your very same argument in regards to white people and black people by swapping out words like "animals" for "Africans", and "humans/people" for Europeans. You could even argue it was "only natural" - as I'm certain you would have. You'd have even gotten away with appealing to the majority and law, too! Shame you were born too late, eh? However, as should be apparent to you now, that doesn't make something ethical, which is what has been argued. Not whether it can or will be done, but whether doing so is ethical or not. Another appeal to nature - another fallacy. Do you understand that arguments that consist of faulty logic are wrong? Will you finally see that yours involve nothing but a number of identifiable fallacious points, stacked on top of ingrained delusion and bias? I didn't think so. Do you detect the irony? Steve, you once asked someone for debating tips whilst on a painfully similar subject, and while they didn't answer, I hope you don't mind me giving you some myself. Stay away from topics you do not understand, and can not wrap your head around. I say so with no intended malice, and I'm certain there are a number of things you're very knowledgeable about, but logical, objective thinking is absolutely not your strong point. You honestly fail to see the point others are making, and consistently follow up with non sequiturs based on faulty beliefs and logic. Oh, what does it take to turn you on? |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Feb 1 2017, 02:03 PM Post #36 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
I feel no need to respond to all that(and I'm on my phone anyway) When we're talking about this subject in particular there IS a choice. Either it's a pig being used or a human. Any other testing some sort of animal or a human again. So yeah, there are choices. There's no harm in making up other examples even if they would never happen, the point is that scales come out at some point. If people have to choose between things they will think of reasons why one choice is better than the other for largely personal reasons Saying "nothing has to die" is pointless, feelings don't get results. If you feel that way then good for you but nobody is going to cure cancer with their imagination and so long as science exists people are always going to be trying to cure it and other things. Call that irrational all you want, I don't particularly care whether or not you agree. Again I've never said anything about what I think on the legality side so you're just arguing at me there, I could be a strong advocate for testing on babies but regardless of what I think when it comes to this topic that just wouldn't happen. I've said it's illegal therefore won't be allowed, I'm talking on behalf of what is legally considered ethical or not. This isn't meant to be a discussion on what I personally feel. The options are clearly laid out for us here, you're completely wasting your energy discussing what I believe in. Also OFG...why the hell would I not care if a pet, cow, mouse or whatever was going to be killed in front of me? Wut. The whole point of it being a pet is the emotional attachment, I have no idea why you would assume that. The death of anything you're attached to is devastating depending on the degree of attachment. If it's my dog or someone else's dog I'd feel sorry for both but obviously more for my own. If my pet mouse got eaten by the neighbours cat I wouldn't laugh it off as "cats will be cats" We exploit other species for science because it's currently the best option we have while testing on humans is illegal and there's no other alternative. You can't test how a virus reacts to an antiviral in a body of water and expect that to be exactly the same as in a living being. Sometimes it's unnecessary but in this specific case there's no other decent options. Growing a new set of human lungs in a rabbit for instance would probably just kill the rabbit and it wouldn't be as compatible so that's a bad choice. So we're once again back to what we allow, doesn't matter what any of us believe, human testing just isn't allowed for whatever reasons were decided. Therefore pigs because they're the closest we can get to humans without breaking the law while getting good results from the experiments/research. This is hardly the place to be going on a save the animals crusade. Not sure why every topic similar to this has to get derailed by that. This hybrid has been created and they're going to make more. Why does a "How do you feel about that?" discussion always have to devolve in to "My feelings are right, yours are wrong!" pissing contest every time? |
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| Know'm Sayin' | Feb 1 2017, 02:12 PM Post #37 |
ZERO HOOTS GANG
|
Irrelevant, because we already harvest piggys for their delicious fat back!!!!!! |
R.I.P. 3pac; ZERO HOOTS GANG
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 1 2017, 02:31 PM Post #38 |
|
But why does it have to be either? I really don't understand how you're not getting this. Why should we test products on animals? Why should we harvest other animals for their organs? There are other options available.
What does cancer have to do with this? As far as I know, we don't test cures for cancer on animals. If anything, this is an example that furthers my own point. We don't need to exploit other animals to get what we want. We don't need to exploit other animals to advance our own species.
And we don't care whether you agree or not either. We merely want you to accept the fact that we're right--exploiting animals for the gain of humans is unnecessary.
Clearly...
You were the one who brought up dogs being "superior" to other animals as far as companionship and usefulness to humans, so I pointed out how many humans keep other pets. My example was meant to illustrate your clear bias on the matter.
You can thank Lazuli for the link: http://www.livescience.com/46147-animal-data-unreliable-for-humans.html
What is the benefit of harvesting pigs for human organs? I know the answer to this; I'm asking you to make sure you're paying attention and following along.
Human testing just isn't allowed for whatever reasons were decided, and we can torture animals and harvest their organs for whatever reasons were decided. In other parts of the world, adulterers and homosexuals are stoned for whatever reasons were decided. Are you seriously trying to say that because something has already been decided, we should do nothing to change it? You may as well never post about politics or social issues again, Steve. It's obvious that we should fight against and attempt to change laws and regulations that are immoral/no longer in line with 21st century thinking.
"Derailed?" This is a discussion board. If anything, I'd say that you're derailing it with your illogical arguments.
"Gay marriage has been outlawed and it's going to stay that way. Why does a "How do you feel about that?" discussion always have to devolve into "my feelings are right, yours are wrong!" pissing contest every time?" Steve, come on. You don't have a leg to stand on here. |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Feb 1 2017, 02:57 PM Post #39 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
Alright so what options are these? Lab grown organs don't work as well we've not got there yet, pigs are a great substitute until we have. ...cancer is an example? I fail to see how that can be misunderstood. Smallpox or whatever then, by the confines of the law people could only test if a smallpox vaccine works on a rat or whatever to see if it worked. It's illegal to just inject people with random s*** and hope it doesn't kill them. That was done in the 1700's I think and it's still the best option we have for that area of science. But you're not right you just feel that way. It's not right according to law and outside of the law its subjective. If testing on an animal needs to be done to yeild results there is no reason why it shouldn't be. You can't just magically get results out of nowhere. If you believe human testing is all round okay, fine. That's not relevant to this discussion though is it? That argument belongs elsewhere, you make no progress having human success tested on by disagreeing with me. Everyone has bias, you would save people you love over people you don't. That's bias. If you were a kidney donor and were a match for your lover and some other person you would most likely pick your lover, unless it was a child or something on the other side. Bias. Everyone has bias, it's called having feelings. And when I talked about the superior thing it was in reference to the animals in an objective manner. I don't have some deep love for all animals, my heart doesn't weep when I see a dead seagull because they annoy the f*** out of me but I feel sad for a dead Robin because I like them and they don't divebomb me to steal my food. There is no rule that says we all have to care for everything equally and I doubt anybody truly does, unless they have no actual emotional connection with anything. The benefit of harvesting pig organs? Let's see, they grow quicker, with this development they can grow human organs quicker, it's thus more efficient, there aren't enough human organs available for transplant. If you think those aren't good enough reasons then okay but I do. If I need a new heart I'm taking a pig one not waiting three years on a donor list to potentially die during that time. Bringing up other human issues that are completely irrelevant is illogical. I'm not saying we should do nothing to change what has been decided...I'm saying I personally don't have to follow what you believe in. If you want to fight against animal testing go ahead...I'm happy to have the option of getting a pig heart and, y'know, not dying. Stop trying to recruit me if that's the whole idea here, our beliefs are different. Telling me I'm wrong is as useless as me telling you you're wrong. If you succeed in ending animal testing I'm happy to live with that. Currently I'm not going to fight against something that might save my life one day. If another better option becomes available then I might side with you because it would be stupid not to take advantage of a safer and more efficient one. I'm yet to see any suggestions. Perhaps you have some top secret documentation on a way to instantly grow new, perfect organs that the government hides from us. |
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| + Sandy Shore | Feb 1 2017, 03:04 PM Post #40 |
|
People don't have to cure illnesses; people want to cure illnesses. Understanding that very, very, very, very, very simple truth: people don't have to experiment on animals (or people, Steve); people want to experiment on animals - because they want to try and cure illnesses. For their own selfish ends and desires, they want to experiment on animals. Sound that f***er out and chant it until something gets through: People don't have to cure illnesses, they want to. Therefore, people don't have to experiment on animals, they want to. Avoiding the other debate of whether animal testing is even useful to these ends, the exact same point above still stands. You've been rambling on about there only being animals or people, when it could quite obviously be neither, if we were being truly ethical. It's not the rabbit's fault that people don't like stingy shampoo in their eyes, so the rabbits shouldn't have to suffer for it. And that goes for ailments and whatever else. I said specifically in my post - actually, I'll get it for you: We've all been arguing for whether it's ethical, right, moral—whatever-whatever—to experiment on animals (or people), and not whether it's legal or not. You're the one who keeps pointing out that it's legal, and apparently fine by the vast majority, and these thing somehow make it ethical. It doesn't, and we've now had two topics trying to explain this profoundly simple thing to you. Because you're always involved and saying the stupidest s*** imaginable, and some of us try and correct you on it. There's no delusion that this topic is in anyway helping anyone or anything - certainly not you. Clearly nothing can help you. No one is arguing with feelings. I couldn't give a toss about some African immigrant living the next town over, but I'd still argue against people experimenting on her because it's cruel as far as all definitions of the word and concept are concerned. Not because cruelty upsets me, and the mere mention of it makes me weep ever so much—people's obnoxious stupidity does, though—but because we all collectively agree that cruelty is wrong, and their arbitrary breaking of that is flat-out wrong in every conceivable way, and not justifiable. We're merely pointing this out to you. You keep going on about feelings, but it's just you once again failing to grasp anything that's being said to you. Why does any one talk to you about anything, I'm afraid I have to wonder. |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Feb 1 2017, 03:24 PM Post #41 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
Sorry, I did not know you were 12 years old apologies for hurting your feelings or something. People also don't have to not want to cure illnesses. Why the f*** should people be obligated to just let others die? That's completely ridiculous and you called me a psychopath, good lord. If you want everyone who gets sick to die, good for you. Not everyone has or should have your mindset just because your ego is the most important of all, it's obnoxious and I still can't tell if you're that arrogant or just want to rile people up 'cause it's all you seem to do. You don't want animals to be used for medical research etc etc, I get that. If there were better options at hand that scientists were allowed to use I'd feel the same. Not doing anything has no point or purpose besides serving your feelings, if you want us to go back to bashing rocks together and hoping we live more than thirty years I don't care, I'm happy to see us advance and utilise the gifts we developed, even if there are roadbumps along the way. Edited by Steve, Feb 1 2017, 03:25 PM.
|
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 1 2017, 03:31 PM Post #42 |
|
Read these links. Please, for the love of God. http://www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/why-we-do-it/alternatives-animal-testing http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/cosmetic_testing/facts/alternatives_animal_tests.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/ Especially these, as they pertain directly to the topic: http://www.livescience.com/46147-animal-data-unreliable-for-humans.html http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/science/sdut-organ-transplants-animal-ethics-2015may09-story.html http://www.crt-online.org/solutions.html |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Feb 1 2017, 03:35 PM Post #43 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
Perhaps later but I'd just like to point out that I've already said multiple times I don't agree with animal testing that isn't for something genuinely useful. So wipe anything to do with cosmetics off that. If it can help cure disease or take the weight off donor lists, provided it doesn't involve something totally unnecessary like burning the animals to death slowly first, then I generally agree with it. EDIT alright, I had a quick scan of most of them(as good as the crappy mobile versions let me) None of them provided an instant solution to any of the problems so far as I can tell. This is the problem here, I'm all for using animals until other options actually work properly. None of those are definitive and fast solutions to any of the problems. We will probably get to the point where human transplants are easy and 99% successful. But we haven't yet and we can't just instantly get there by not using animals. Animals are the best option currently while we work on alternatives. Does that explain what I mean by options or nah? We don't have to use animals forever but if we're doing it at all animals are the better choice currently. Edited by Steve, Feb 1 2017, 03:45 PM.
|
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| + Sandy Shore | Feb 1 2017, 05:17 PM Post #44 |
|
Yeah, my bad. Irrationality and delusion just breaks my heart. It's not "just letting others die", it's "not having others tortured for your problems", of which you're oh-so-fond-of. I'm not arrogant, and nor do I rile people up - I resent the claims. Though, everyone absolutely should have my mindset, in regards to everything. The world would be a far more fascinating place, and everyone would be immensely happy. Until they all die of starvation and stagnation. Then the pretty flowers can unite and take-over. I just don't believe you for some reason. I'd like to, but I just don't. Oh, how noble of you to carry such a burden. And you think I'm arrogant? Though, as well as serving my feelings—as everyone and everything should—I just wouldn't advocate killing and harvesting the organs of one person to save five others, is all. Yes, people are saved, but the means are not "humane", or ethical, or fair. It's not their fault that five other people don't want to die, is it? Then again, that's illegal anyway, right? Though, isn't this an analogy? Also, no one said anything about going back to bashing rocks. Though, I'm not at all surprised to see you have rocks on the mind. What is it with people these days and instant solutions? At the expense of anyone but themselves, at that. Tut. |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Feb 1 2017, 05:43 PM Post #45 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
If it can make lives better for many creatures I see it as a worthy sacrifice. It's not nice but not everything that isn't nice is wrong. Sue me.
Dying of untreated diseases would definitely make me immensely happy. It's such a shame we invented vaccines at the expense of lab rats and such they were tested on, you haven't lived if you haven't experienced a bit of Polio.
Not my problem. Your problem with me maybe but I don't mind.
How does accepting that there will be failures make me arrogant? |
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:28 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy