150 replies to this topic

[iargue]

If we have no guarantee that the person is really guilty then why do we keep them in prisons as a punishment? If they're innocent why are they not allowed to roam society?

Because we cant prove they are innocent either. This is why they are in prison.

[Volition]

Because we cant prove they are innocent either. This is why they are in prison.

What about people on death row who are executed? What if they were innocent and we failed to prove it?
And what about the people executed under the Napoleonic Code (guilty until proven innocent)?
The United States government has already tortured innocent people through waterboarding at guantanamo bay, yet there is little opposition toward it by the American people.

[DragonX]

Because we cant prove they are innocent either. This is why they are in prison.

Isn't supposed to be innocent until proven guilty ?

[Sweeney]

Isn't supposed to be innocent until proven guilty ?

Just because someone is proven guilty in court, doesn't mean they're actually guilty.

[Joanna]

Except its bullshit. There is no proof the animal can suffer. Until you prove that, stop using that as a basis for your argument. :|

Because a dog doesn't cry when you beat him, and a cat doesn't whine when left in a room all day by herself, and a cow doesn't wail when you brand him, and rabbits don't run away from predators who are going to rip them to shreds.

IMO that is proof enough right there. Because if animals can't tell us that they suffer means that they can't right?

Edited by jsteinberg, 26 May 2010 - 03:53 PM.

[Sweeney]

This times 1 million.

Not really.
Amours post contained one irrelevancy, followed by two lies.
It wasn't exactly a great post.

[Joanna]

Ask the prisoners at Abu Ghraib if there's any difference between a prison cell and a torture cell. As shown in the Stanford prison experiment the prison guards are already turning it into a torture cell. If its as simple as a vote, then direct some public discontent at a prisoner and let the people vote, the people of Nazi Germany displayed this quite well. Also I debate for the sake of debating, not trolling, so please use legitimate arguments rather than "what the hell are you thinking".

It wasn't a troll it was a valid question. Just because other people do it, doesn't mean we have to. Turning prison cells into torture cells is wrong- plain and simple. Because people don't want us to test on animals doesn't mean we do it on more unwilling living things just because they broke the law.
The prisoners have their punishment- surviving in prison. And don't give me that crap about great TV and food, I'm talking about gang wars, rape and murder... surviving that and living in a cell where your every move is watched is their punishment.
I don't care who does it when- torture is still illegal and torture is STILL wrong.
Suggesting that we torture prisoners instead is not fixing a problem but only making it worse.

Not really.
Amours post contained one irrelevancy, followed by two lies.
It wasn't exactly a great post.

Okay, well let me clarify then- It is in my opinion and experience that animals can suffer and that is where and how I agree with amour times 1 million.

[iargue]

Because a dog doesn't cry when you beat him, and a cat doesn't whine when left in a room all day by herself, and a cow doesn't wail when you brand him, and rabbits don't run away from predators who are going to rip them to shreds.

IMO that is proof enough right there. Because if animals can't tell us that they suffer means that they can't right?

Does it mean they suffer? What if I hit my dog and he forgets the pain instantly? Thats not suffering. If I beat my cat, and every time I hit him, he just forgets what it felt like. Thats not suffering.

They might even be getting pleasure from me hitting it. They might enjoy that feeling. You do not know this.


Stop assuming you know things that you do not know.

[Volition]

It wasn't a troll it was a valid question. Just because other people do it, doesn't mean we have to. Turning prison cells into torture cells is wrong- plain and simple. Because people don't want us to test on animals doesn't mean we do it on more unwilling living things just because they broke the law.
The prisoners have their punishment- surviving in prison. And don't give me that crap about great TV and food, I'm talking about gang wars, rape and murder... surviving that and living in a cell where your every move is watched is their punishment.
I don't care who does it when- torture is still illegal and torture is STILL wrong.
Suggesting that we torture prisoners instead is not fixing a problem but only making it worse.



Okay, well let me clarify then- It is in my opinion and experience that animals can suffer and that is where and how I agree with amour times 1 million.

I'm quite sure that rapists and murderers have trouble surviving their crime . Lessons not learned in blood are soon forgotten. The Stanford Prison Experiment has already shown that prison cells basically are torture cells, the guards themselves torture the prisoners, its just human nature.

[Joanna]

I'm quite sure that rapists and murderers have trouble surviving their crime . Lessons not learned in blood are soon forgotten. The Stanford Prison Experiment has already shown that prison cells basically are torture cells, the guards themselves torture the prisoners, its just human nature.

This makes it right, and means we should keep doing it?

Does it mean they suffer? What if I hit my dog and he forgets the pain instantly? Thats not suffering. If I beat my cat, and every time I hit him, he just forgets what it felt like. Thats not suffering.

They might even be getting pleasure from me hitting it. They might enjoy that feeling. You do not know this.


Stop assuming you know things that you do not know.

But You assume that they do not suffer based on the fact that we cannot prove that they do, but we cannot prove that that don't either.

(So maybe you should stop assuming things, Mr. BossyArguePants. .... hoe )

[Volition]

This makes it right, and means we should keep doing it?

No one is doing anything to stop it. If you aren't a part of the solution you are part of the problem. Might as well be condoning testing then.

[Joanna]

No one is doing anything to stop it. If you aren't a part of the solution you are part of the problem. Might as well be condoning testing then.

No one at all? Where is your proof on that?

[Volition]

No one at all? Where is your proof on that?

http://www.informati...article8451.htm
if you scroll down far enough you see a portion on guards being charged with murder and every single one of them being acquitted by jury

"Then, three weeks ago, reports emerged of 20 hours of video material from Guantanamo Bay showing prisoners being stripped, beaten and pepper sprayed. One of those affected is Omar Deghayes, one of the seven British residents still being held there.

His lawyer says Deghayes is now permanently blind in one eye. American military investigators have reviewed the tapes and apparently found ‘no evidence of systematic abuse.’ "

looks like the government is condoning it too.

Edited by SilentErektion, 26 May 2010 - 04:59 PM.

[iargue]

http://www.informati...article8451.htm
if you scroll down far enough you see a portion on guards being charged with murder and every single one of them being acquitted by jury

"Then, three weeks ago, reports emerged of 20 hours of video material from Guantanamo Bay showing prisoners being stripped, beaten and pepper sprayed. One of those affected is Omar Deghayes, one of the seven British residents still being held there.

His lawyer says Deghayes is now permanently blind in one eye. American military investigators have reviewed the tapes and apparently found ‘no evidence of systematic abuse.’ "

looks like the government is condoning it too.

You are aware that Obama is closing Guantanamo Bay, correct?

Which means someone is doing something about this. Please stay up to date on current facts.

But You assume that they do not suffer based on the fact that we cannot prove that they do, but we cannot prove that that don't either.

(So maybe you should stop assuming things, Mr. BossyArguePants. .... hoe )

The point is not to prove they dont. I cant prove that I wont die if I get out of bed. Does that mean I shouldnt do it anyways?. I cant prove that when I start my car it wont explode. Should I not do that as well?

I cant prove that if I look at you, your head isn't going to explode. Should I look at you?

Why is it up to them to prove the animal cant suffer? If the animal isn't doing anything to stop it, then that means its okay, right?

[Volition]

You are aware that Obama is closing Guantanamo Bay, correct?

Which means someone is doing something about this. Please stay up to date on current facts.

He's also opening a prison in Afghanistan

[Joanna]

You are aware that Obama is closing Guantanamo Bay, correct?

Which means someone is doing something about this. Please stay up to date on current facts.




The point is not to prove they dont. I cant prove that I wont die if I get out of bed. Does that mean I shouldnt do it anyways?. I cant prove that when I start my car it wont explode. Should I not do that as well?

I cant prove that if I look at you, your head isn't going to explode. Should I look at you?

Why is it up to them to prove the animal cant suffer? If the animal isn't doing anything to stop it, then that means its okay, right?

It is up to them to figure out if animals suffer because they are going to possibly be hurting these animals. Isn't that why they are testing it on them? To see if it reacts badly.... well, if it has the possibility of going badly then they should see whether or not this animal can suffer, it is their responsibility to make sure they are not hurting a helpless living thing.

[DragonX]

If the animal isn't doing anything to stop it, then that means its okay, right?

I'm pretty sure that the animals do TRY and stop what's being done. Pick up a rat and hold him down to inject something into him. He won't lie there quietly, he'll struggle.

While you can argue that we can not directly prove that the animal is indeed unhappy when it struggles, the same can be said for humans. A person's expression through words that they don't want to do that is the same as an animal's yelp. If someone injected medicine that ends up having toxic side effects into a person, words are used to say it hurts. How is that different from an animal who cries out? If you say an animal's yelp is not reflective of pain, then you can also say that a person's words is not reflective of pain. Afterall, despite the situation the person COULD be making it up.

Does it mean they suffer? What if I hit my dog and he forgets the pain instantly? Thats not suffering. If I beat my cat, and every time I hit him, he just forgets what it felt like. Thats not suffering.

Just because there's the possibility that they might forget the pain instantly, they would still have felt that pain for an instant. Are you saying that if a person has short term memory loss, whipping them with a belt every 10 minutes doesn't cause suffering?

Edited by Ken, 29 May 2010 - 04:10 PM.

[Redemptionist]

its good since if the animals die we won't eat the product.

[picole]

I find cowardice to test products in the animals

Edited by picole, 22 June 2010 - 07:08 AM.

[emerkeng]

animal testing on products has its uses it is a process that could be both good or bad

[MiladyM]

I think this is probably the most hypocritical argument of all time. Cause unless you're a fucking vegan, how is it right to butcher animals to satisfy your hunger when there's plenty of other opportunities around.. yet when people are running tests to create drugs that treat cancer, prevent viruses, and cure your damn migraine.. or if people are testing products to see if they're safe for human use, it's suddenly not right.. What difference does it make when we clearly don't value the lives of animals. For the sake of resourcefulness?

Havent you watched The Lion King?... It's the ciiirccle of life.
I'm against testing on animals when it's things like make-up, shampoo, etc. In the medical animal testing I find it hard to say if it's right or wrong, but I definatly find it horrible.

[emerkeng]

Havent you watched The Lion King?... It's the ciiirccle of life.
I'm against testing on animals when it's things like make-up, shampoo, etc. In the medical animal testing I find it hard to say if it's right or wrong, but I definatly find it horrible.

This. Eating meat is part of circle of life. But animal testing is inhumane.

Edited by pathentic, 18 July 2010 - 08:39 PM.

[MiladyM]

This. Eating meat is part of circle of life. But animal testing is inhumane.

Exactly

[AliceFi]

it's not easy to see if animals are suffering or not, but they do show it
a dog that is being neglected and locked up a lot tends to hurt itself, or start biting things - their behavior will show it if they are suffering or not
hitting a dog once won't be called 'bad' - i did it too to show my dog what's right and what's not. But i didnt hit him hard to really hurt him. He understands it as a signal that he did sth wrong

i once saw a documentary on tv about ppl adopting baby monkeys as their new 'baby', and the monkeys always went crazy in puberty bcz they weren't supposed to be taken away from their mother that early
they interpreted a grimace of the monkey as a smile, while it wasn't

you just have to understand the signals they give you right

[Zacharus]

This. Eating meat is part of circle of life. But animal testing is inhumane.

Ya I agree. Chopping off a cow's head and skinning it when its alive with the blood all spraying out while its struggling is not mean!!! But testing on it is