Ok, so I use facebook and found a group called "Animals are NOT humans." I go there and find that its for hunters/PETA haters, but some vegetarian gets on there and says something about how killing animals is bad, and hunting is murder and that animal testing is stupid. So I respond by pointing out that the predators that would normally keep animal populations in check have already been killed off so people have to hunt animals to keep everything in balance and prevent mass starvation becuase too many animals eat all the food. Then I said that animal testing is necessary because mammals like mice are nearly identical to humans on a biochemical level so they make good test subjects. They are also cheap to take care of, easy to keep in a laboratory, and have several generations in year with lots of offspring per litter. I pointed out that testing in humans would be terrible becuase humans are big and have a generation time of about 20 years.
The next day, some dumbass (Geordi) sends me this, so I (Im) respond to his jackassary:
I am amazed by the stregnth of his argumentation and logical reasoning. I eagerly await his response.
I'm all for eating meat. mmmmm…..bbq ribs
Hahahahaha nice comeback
+1 point for youI think that he's lame and should stop trying to insult people, and you should stop arguing about animal rights on facebook… seriously… why would you do that when you could go try getting laid.
To avoid trouble, I usually avoid posting on controversial topics. Anyway, I think that guy needs a good long nap. XP
dang it canttouchthis you made me hungry…
I hope to good. lol
Oh well. What a moron. I don't support animal hunting, or animal testing, but I truly hate mindless gay-word-involving insults from any side.
It's worth noticing that the idea of animal population control is pretty much wrong on its own account. As far as I know, the theory of nature achieving a state of homeostasis, or balance, on its own, is fundamentally flawed. Thus, sometimes hunting, for predators, or prey, helps estabilish the balance - if balance, understood as "not changing the current situation", is what you desire.As for animal testing - mice, or the more smart equivalent, rats, are mainly not just identifcal to humans on biochemical level, but also emotional or intellectual level. Some marketing and political scheme tactics have been tested on rat psychology by applying certain situations.And in any case, animals are not humans, but humans are certainly animals, and having 3% of your selfish DNA different and being capable of coming up with significantly nonsensical cultural concepts doesn't make you any better, you speciesist bastards :PPs. Testing on humans is not that bad of an idea. Do you know about Bayer concern? It's the major German pharmaceutical producer, wainly known for pretty effective aspirin. It developed its medications by signing a contact with concentration camp administration during WWII. Testing on people guarantees good results.Even if you take the moral impact of human testing out of consideration, using concentration camp prisoners would still be an innacurate testing method. The prisoners were overworked and underfed, and lived in crappy conditions. It would not be possible to seperate a bad effect of the drug from the bad effects caused by conditions the test subject was living in.