HIV Cure/Vaccine?

That was aimed at the group not just matix.

Well I wasn't, so why get uppity at me? I was directly attacking her statement that it's cruel. It isn't.

Did you willingly take part?

Yes I did. So is it that you want to add in wilful participation into our definition now? Because if you want to argue that way, fine, that's NOT what mattdrake is doing. Mattdrake is saying "look at the dictionary" in response to MY adding in common-sense caveats.

of course it is cruel

you just rationalise that it is justified

And even if you add in wilful participation.
Let's then take the example of a heroin junkie, and his parents who stage an intervention and sending him forcefully to rehab? I'm sure we're all well aware here of the devastating, crippling effects that withdrawal symptoms can have; so are the parents cruel for imposing this terrible suffering on him?

You're clearly not paying attention. I think it is justified, AND not cruel. They're two separate things. I've been arguing the latter for at least a dozen posts you've clearly missed

Thats just it you attacked. It wasn't a "well maybe it causes pain/suffering but less than would happen without it so it isn't cruel." Instead it was a reply dripping with contempt and eye rolling.

This is what people have a problem with. Moderate your delivery and don't complain when we accuse you of baiting people.

It's a subject I feel passionately about, sue me. Like Matix, it pisses me off. And I didn't have any eye-rolling at all in my post. And now it appears you're admitting that you're arguing purely based on delivery and not substance? Isn't that somewhat at odds with your wish to keep threads on-topic and with less conflict?

*sigh*

Do you think the academic use of the world "cruel" as it pertains to academic and scientific endeavours differs from the use and definition used by almost everyone else and, clearly, as intended by the original poster?

Or do you think the dictionary definition is too simple and therefore ultimately too flawed to be understood alone?

Do you see what I am getting at?

Constantly taunting a sibling with a rubber band is cruel, but nowhere as cruel as sticking a fire cracker up their arse.

Just because there is a means to an end, doesn't mean something is not cruel. But since there is no level within the word, it is hard to distingush one persons level of cruelty to another.

So I guess it is cruel, but the word cruel in itself does not have a sliding bar of how cruel something is, yes it may be cruel, but how cruel is it?

My opinion anyways

I'm not aware of any 'academic' definition? The definition I and gummi have been spouting is completely common-usage imo. The dictionary one is severely flawed though.

Do you agree that purpose is a factor though? ie is killing a rat because you're bored MORE cruel than killing one to save lives?

It's more subtle than that NR.

I'm going to try formalise my (but possibly not Yaksha's) argument so those that disagree can try rebut it instead of just saying "of course it is":

1: Animal testing involves animals suffering.

2: Animal testing results in a great benefit to humanity in terms of fighting diseases

3: Cruelty is the imposition of suffering on an organism with the primary intent of causing pain OR so as to enjoy the direct effects of that suffering e.g. cock fighting, those terrible animal shows in south east asia etc.

From 1 & 2, we can say:

C1: animal testing is justified due to a simple cost-benefit analysis

and separatelty (from 2 & 3)), we can say:

C2: Animal testing, while imposing suffering, does not amount to animal cruelty

I'm not sure if this has been brought up during the last 2 pages of posting....

but these scientists are ethically bound to put an animal down immediately if they cannot alleviate any pain that it is going through as a result of the testing, mercy killing or euthenasia for lack of a better word.

If they simply infected an animal, tried a vaccine that didn't work, and then decided to just chill out and watch the disease kill the animal die over the next 3 months - that would be pretty cruel, but that's not what actually happens.

Animal testing is very very heavily regulated. It's nowhere near as 'cruel' as it used to be. And yes testing on prisoners is actually a very good idea, they're human (only biologically, which works nicely for purposes of science) and they generally have a lot less to lose than real humans......so why not?

To the rat it's not.

Yes obviously, still makes it cruel though, just on a .035 level compared to a 9.45 level, or whatever you slider indicates

But since the word can't define that, arguements will start

Well said!



S xx

EXACTLY my view (except more diplomatic). I can't believe this had to be spelled out like this though.

Right ok. Just checking cause mattdrake disagrees

This is a good point, and I don't know the answer really.

I had assumed that people realise that scientists doing these experiments are humane, not cruel. So when the OP uses the term cruel, to me they imply more than the simple observation that the animals suffer.

And while people may roll their eyes and go, "It's just semantics", I think it's much more than that. It's this conception of laboratory scientists among the general populace as cold and heartless that gives rise to people characterising their work as cruel. And I vehemently disagree with that characterisation.

So it's not just about definitions imo

You know how you complain that people dont listen to exactly what you say? Well we feel the same when dealing with you.

Stop focusing on the minutiae and start listening with some intelligence of what we are saying.

If we *really* wanted to help keep the lounge threads from degenerating into OT soap boxes we would ban you rather than trying to talk to you.

meh

Right ok. Just checking cause mattdrake disagrees [/quote]

But do you agree that is is still cruel, even though it is on the lower end of that cruel scale???

Justified cruelty even??? Even though it is justified, it is still cruel, abeilt at the very much lower end of the spectrum as it has a means to an end??

You must concede that the (UK Oxford English) dictionary has an extra definition that doesn't require that the pain and suffering be inflicted for enjoyment of the direct effects?

What we're trying to say, I think, is simply this: your experience and therefore expectation of the common usage definition of cruelty differs from those who are not so versed in the ways of science.

That's not to say the definition is flawless, but that's English for you, especially when defined by the use by people who do not understand it in all its complexity.

How is this relevant here?

Sugalicious made two claims:
a) Without animal testing we wouldn't have these advances
b) It's still cruel

I have been responding DIRECTLY to (b).
How is it that I'm not listening to exactly what was said?

Look at how Gummi posts/argues if you want to see what we are getting at.

Vadz also understands how to have an intelligent argument/discussion while he trolls.

Hmmm... this is a different angle to the one I was coming from.

Well yeah, I do think the definition is flawed (I haven't actually checked tbh ) if it judges an act to be cruel (or not) based solely on the end result.

These abstractions we talk about and defend/attack so vigorously shouldn't be decided by the OED imo

I didn't miss them but re-stating the obvious that it IS cruel

animals suffer directly as a result of our intentional but self-justified cruelty and die therefrom or are eutahansed unlike your parental analogy of the junkie, the outcome of which is beneficial to the sufferer of the treatment which is harsh but not lethal if under controlled medical conditions

This pretty much sums it up.


One definition i just found

cruel 

–adjective, -er, -est. 1. willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.


So are the scientists willfully or knowingly causing pain?

Yes.

Does this prove that the OP is correct in saying animal testing is cruel.

Yes.

I agree, BUT, if the OED supports claim of common usage by enough people, the combined weight of the two sources can't be ignored, can it?

Gummi's definition doesn't require that either though. That was merely the second clause of his OR statement.

Genuine question, do you actually think common-usage of 'cruelty' DOESN'T take purpose into account? Are the numerous examples I've given all cruel, according to your conception of ordinary usage?

Animal testing is a big logical and emotional conflict for me. I'm a vegetarian and pretty big on animal rights, but one of my first jobs was working in a drug addiction research lab watching different kinds of animals pump themselves full of pharmaceutical cocaine and heroin and then die. It was kind of harrowing, especially since the animals all had big circuit boards implanted into their heads with cables snaking out to the top of the cage.

The animals for these tests are all ordered out of catalogs. You pick up the phone, dial, and say, "Yes, I'd like 500 rats, 50 pairs of rabbits, and ten monkeys please". And then you subject them to whatever tests you are running, kill them, and then dissect them to see how they died.

Now the big argument for animal testing is that it's the only way to observe physiological processes in living bodies under dangerous circumstances.

But that said, when I was at IBM a couple of years ago, they had just developed a program which simulated a nuclear bomb blast, making live nuclear testing effectively obsolete. There's certainly an argument which says that if we can simulate something like a nuclear blast down to the atomic level, we could probably simulate many (though not all) of these procedures which are currently tested on animals.

But hey, life is cheap, especially if it can't talk. So let's order up another thousand monkeys so we can kill em.

a) People CAN die from withdrawal-symptoms.
b) Who says the intervention is beneficial? Addiction isn't necessarily unhealthy. Heroin doesn't really do any damage per se, though it is heavily addictive. But if someone is rich enough to support their habit, who are the parents to impose their conception of what is better for the son? He may be perfectly happy.

I was having a perfectly intelligent discussion? I'm not trolling I was introducing logical points, and defending them rationally. Of course I know what you're getting at, but I don't really see anything wrong with that some people are more emotional about some subjects than others

I would assume if the parents have intervened then their child is definitely not ok and yes withdrawal is tough but under medically supervised conditions much less likely to kill

as to intent: the scientist intends to kill the test subject the parents to preserve life of a child clearly killing himself herself with their addiction

So you are saying that the intent is crucial do the determination of cruelty?

And what of the other examples then? Take the kickboxer. Is it cruel for a kickboxer to kick his opponent during a match? He intends to cause physical suffering, he does so willingly, and he does so not to help the opponent in any regard. Cruelty by your definition?

now to the Nazi analogy

Mengele clearly had a view of Jews gypsies et al as sub-human and therefore viable test subjects much as we consider animal test subjects

was he any more or less cruel than these scientists and if so on what basis?

Not really analagous here, but fun example all the same. Cruelty is determined by WHAT you're experimenting on. It's no more cruel to experiment on humans than animals, and Science experiments will do both routinely. It's just a preference for the sanctity of human life over animals.

But, if you want an answer, I would say the Nazi you speak of is no more or less cruel. Because he has the view that they are sub-human, and even though he's wrong, the intent matters.

That's supposed to say is *not*...

subjectively or objectively?

for all the animal testing is cruel people,

I'll ask you one question...

Is performing life saving surgery on a human cruel?

You're causing the human pain and suffering.

If you say it is cruel, well that's pretty messed up. If you say it is not cruel, then you have to recognise that causing pain and suffering does not necessarily mean an action is cruel.

Objectively. Jews are not sub-human, objectively

Fuk this debate is boring.

Awe now its stinking up CA.

CA is not a dumping ground for all your poo threads from the lounge guys.

Your first post had nothing to do with (b), you then shifted the argument (and perhaps your recollection).

You accused her of saying something that she specifically denied in her post and then added an *Honestly* at the end for good measure. I dont deny she dealt with it in a fairly silly manner but i think it wasnt completely unreasonable for her to get a bit pissed off with your post.

Rips: dont open it then. CA posters are expected to be able to restrain themselves from replying (or even opening) threads that they have a problem with. To expect that in the lounge would be futile.

This argument has turned into a CA thread.

Ok bob, fair enough. But that was one post out of dozens, the only one where I wasn't specifically talking about (b). And she carried on arguing to (b) anwyay

but he subjectively believes that they are sub-human and isn't that all that matters here?

we subjectively infer that we are superior life forms to test animal subjects and that this therefore justifies our 'cruelty' to them for our benefit

so Mengele in his subjective view tested on 'sub-human' subjects for the advancement of scientific knowledge that benefited Nazi war aims and his own private investigations and ultimately the wider human community

Which is why I said even though he's wrong, I would support the claim that he is no more/less cruel than today's scientist's because of his belief. Even though the choice of subject doesn't really have anything to do with cruelty

Arguing about the definiton of cruelty is a waste of time. Why not argue if any suffering they endure is justifiable? If cruelty is a such a blanket term then there is little point utilising it as little more 'bugger', as there is a vast array of activities by humans that can also fall under that umbrella.

proof reading for the win...

"than 'bugger'"

holy fuck, another argument over semantics? who would have thought.

some of you obviously don't have work to do.

Because everyone with a modicum of sense already agrees?

Was my point

Cruelty is such a meaningless word being so blanket that to me it's like "it's cruel? who cares!"

Well like gummi says, it's not just semantic.

The characterisation of scientists by anti animal-testing activists and the like as cruel heartless bastards is incredibly misguided at best, and downright criminally offensive at worst. I think an understanding of what defines cruelty is pretty axiomatic to this entire topic..

Wow, who'd have though ONE little word would turn into such a heated debate!



S xx

*thought even!



S xx

it's because some people don't have anything better to do suga.

Apparently so


S xx

Newsflash: words have meanings

If a reporter called the Queen a cunt to her face during an interview, do you think a heated debate would ensue between he and the security team? But it's just one word omg!

Bait. bite. fulla shit



S xx

Just ignore him...