View Full Version : fao DrSzin
Is your name one of those on the petition in support of animal testing?
No, it's not. I hadn't heard of the petition or the Research Defence Society until about an hour ago.
It's a really tough subject, and not something I know much about to be honest. I know I should take a more active interest, but I've always taken the easy option and largely ignored it. The whole business can be so emotional: some decry the suffering of animals; others point to children whose lives have been saved or improved by the results of animal experiments. Like many people, I have been sickened by reports of live-animal experiments, but I guess I've largely turned a blind eye and vaguely satisfied myself that people's lives are more important, and that most scientists wouldn't cause unnecessary suffering to animals.
Testing of commercial products on animals is of course a totally different can of worms.
But I don't really know what I'm talking about and I'm mouthing platitudes here, so I'll shutup...
It is a very emotive subject and I guess we are singing from the same hymn sheet (albeit metaphorically) on this one.
Margaret M.
24-Aug-05, 17:00
Posted some time ago but still pertinent:
Testing something on an animal and expecting to see similar results in humans has proven to be totally unrealistic. The director of toxicology and research for a physicians' group trying to end animal testing, previously worked for the EPA and as a consultant for the chemical industry which often required ordering animal testing. He now has this to say, "Once I started thinking outside the science-as-usual box, I began to see that animal research isn't just cruel - it's not good science, nor is it a wise use of resources. Animals are just not good models for humans. Years from now when we look back on this period in our culture, we will wonder why we took so long to change". He is now working at the national and international level to eliminate the use of animals in medical education, toxicity testing and medical research.
Animal testing sounds simple and one would think that the labs do all they can to limit the pain felt by the animal, not so. The needless torture that lab animals endure and it's not just mice, rats and monkeys by any means, it's cats, dogs, rabbits, someone's pet that has been swiped from their backyard, etc., is proving to be flawed and totally unnecessary. Cruelty aside, the results from animal studies are proven again and again not to translate well to humans. A prime example is the polio vaccine, animal studies led to a faulty interpretation of how the disease was transmitted and really sidetracked progress. The animal testing results translated to human injuries and fatalities before it was rectified through human experimentation. Thalidomide is another, seemed to do fine in animals but had tragic results when expectant mothers took it for morning sickness. Vioxx is the most recent example - none of the animal testing showed the results that have now come to light. In fact, Vioxx and other COX-2 drugs actually had a heart-protective effect in mice and other animals, exactly opposite of how the drugs later performed in humans.
Things are slowly changing. A survey conducted in August 2004 shows that 82% of British GP's are concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans and want an evaluation of the scientific value of animal experimentation.
In the US, there is a group of thousands of physicians actively seeking to end animal experimentation. The unspeakable toture that the animals endure oftimes serves no other purpose than to get a government grant. Some charities are still conducting the most inhumane testing on animals for experiments from which conclusions were reached many years ago, why not, the people donating to their charity don't make much effort to see what tests they are conducting.
Margaret, do you know who wrote this and why?
If I were being unkind, I would say it sounds like the poorly-justified personal opinions of someone who perhaps wishes to remain anonymous for reasons unknown. It certainly doesn't smell like expert opinion to me...
But then, perhaps he is simply trying to raise awareness in politicians and/or the general public. The style of the article is anecdotal and wouldn't convince me of anything.
Of course, that doesn't mean he's wrong! It just means that he's waffling. Just like I am. ;)
Margaret M.
24-Aug-05, 18:56
Margaret, do you know who wrote this and why?
Why, yes I do, Moi!
I would say it sounds like the poorly-justified personal opinions
LOL, personal opinions yes, but I've done enough research to be convinced that the results of animal testing are not useful enough to justify the suffering to which the animals are subjected.
Your post did make me chuckle though -- doesn't smell like an expert indeed. :D
Lol, I thought it might have been you, but decided it probably wasn't. Whoops...
Seriously, one thing I've learnt over the years is that it's very, very difficult for non-experts (and non-scientists in particular) to make rational objective judgments about scientific research. The problems are many-fold but even knowledgeable, well-researched critics usually rely far too heavily on a few minor exceptions to general phenomena, and they almost always display no understanding whatsoever of probability and statistics. Heck, it's hard enough for scientists to make objective judgments on research in fields relatively close to their own, so God knows how policy makers like career politicians and those trained as lawyers or accountants are supposed to manage. In general they don't manage, as the debacle in the UK on long-term solutions to nuclear waste storage has exemplified. Similarly for the debate on non-CO2-producing energy, eg wind & wave versus nuclear. It seems to me that many of the most vocal protagonists (on both sides) don't understand some of the most basic issues.
And I'm not even going to mention the so-called "debate" on Darwinian evolution vs "intelligent design" (sic) that seems to be raging in the US right now. Double whoops...
--
(Edited to fix a couple of silly typos -- that's all.)
LOL, personal opinions yes, but I've done enough research to be convinced that the results of animal testing are not useful enough to justify the suffering to which the animals are subjected.
Then could you say just what percentage of drugs used on humans have different results when used on animals? You quote a few which don't but you don't say how many do.
I know myself that many of the drugs used by vets are identicle to those used by doctors, antibiotics seem to have the same affect on a sheep as they do on a human, frusemide has the same affect on a dog as on a human, insulin has the same affect of a pig as it does on a human.
Could you say how many drugs there have been which never went on to be tested on humans because problems were found at the animal testing stage?
Doctors and scientists say that animal testing is a vital part of medical research, I don't think they would say that if it wasn't.
Animal testing is a very emotive subject.
I have pondered over this for many years and I have changed my mind on it so many times.
But my current opinion is that animal testing should not be used on cosmetics, a woman's vanity is not worth even a rat's life.
Animal testing should not be used to find out effects on recreational drugs like alcohol, cigarettes, heroin ecstacy etc because why test on animals when we have enough human volunteer who would be willing to take part in any trials
Animal testing for medical research should be allowed as long as human testing is not practicable.
Having just watched a report on the news on this very subject, the thought crossed my mind that if the activists are so against any form of animal experimentation and really want to stop it why don't they all volunteer to be human guinea pigs.
Pardon my pun but it would "Kill two birds with one stone."
Margaret M.
25-Aug-05, 00:15
Here ye go, Fred:
Dangerous Medicine: Examples of Animal-Based “Safety” Tests Gone Wrong
By John J. Pippin, M.D., and Kristie Stoick, M.P.H.
Biological differences between and within species require scientists to proceed with caution when interpreting the results of any experiment. Animals of different ages, sexes, developmental stages, and of different health status can all respond differently to experimental treatments. It is no surprise, then, that humans respond differently to administered pharmaceuticals than other animals. The surprise comes when scientists, physicians, and regulatory officials are willing to risk the health of patients by relying on animal experiments to predict the effects of drugs in humans—sometimes with grave results.
According to some estimates, adverse drug reactions are responsible for 2.2 million hospitalizations and 106,000 deaths annually. Furthermore, as many as 50 percent of FDA-approved drugs are withdrawn or relabeled due to unanticipated side effects in humans. A shockingly low 56 percent of known human teratogens are positive in one of six species surveyed. Below are a few selected examples to illustrate the dire need for better, more human-specific drug safety tests.
Thalidomide
Perhaps the most famous teratogen, this drug was given to pregnant women in the 1950’s to control nausea, causing more than 10,000 births with limb-reduction defects. After thalidomide was withdrawn from the market, tests in pregnant mice, rats, and guinea pigs were negative; finally, one strain of rabbit (the New Zealand white rabbit) was found to be susceptible. Cats, hamsters, rats, and mice were later found to be sensitive only to extremely high doses.
Oraflex, Opren (Benoxaprofen)
Even though year-long tests in rhesus monkeys6 gave no indication of risk, months after this non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) was released onto the market in 1982, patients began experiencing severe liver toxicity and phototoxicity, eventually resulting in withdrawl of the drug, but only after more than 3,500 serious adverse events and 60 deaths occurred in Britain alone.
Flenac (Fenclofenac)
This NSAID, despite passing animal toxicity tests in 10 animal species (mice, rats, guinea pigs, ferrets, rabbits, cats, dogs, pigs, horses, and monkeys), produced severe liver toxicity in humans.
Butazolidin (Phenylbutazone)
This NSAID is commonly used in equine medicine to reduce pain and inflammation, but in humans can produce serious phototoxicity, as well as serious or fatal liver or bone marrow disease. Bone marrow toxicity was demonstrated in human cell cultures after the drug was released and produced more than 10,000 fatal cases of aplastic anemia.
Cylert (Pemoline)
Fifteen children suffered acute liver failure after taking this attention deficit hyperactivity disorder treatment, and 12 of those cases resulted in liver transplant or death. No animal tests that showed an indication of hepatic toxicity could be found.
Rezulin (Troglitazone)
This drug, intended to treat type 2 (adult-onset) diabetes, was approved by the FDA in 1997. Rezulin lowered the blood sugar in rats without producing adverse effects, but reports of severe and even fatal liver failure appeared immediately after approval. Due largely to an aggressive investigation by the Los Angeles Times and after four label changes, Rezulin was withdrawn in 2000 after 391 deaths were attributed to the drug.
Propulsid (Cisapride)
Propulsid was approved by the FDA in 1993 and was used primarily to treat gastric reflux in children. Heart rhythm disturbances had appeared in clinical trials, but not in animal studies. By 1995, heart rhythm deaths in children became evident through adverse events reports. The drug remained on the market with five label changes, until being withdrawn in 2000 after causing over 300 deaths.
Inocor (Amrinone)
This short-term therapy option for patients with severe heart failure produced severe and sometimes fatal thrombocytopenia (decreased blood clotting ability) in humans, despite no evidence of this effect in 2-year-long animal tests. Only after approval, and only in marmosets and a very specific, metabolically compromised strain of rat, were similar effects found.
Baycol (Cerivastatin)
Baycol was a popular drug approved in 1997 for the treatment of dyslipidemia (abnormal cholesterol levels), but it was withdrawn after substantial risk for severe or fatal rhabdomyolysis (muscle wasting) was revealed in patients. Muscle wasting was not seen in pre-clinical animal tests, including rats, mice, minipigs, dogs, or monkeys; only at very high doses were indications of effects on muscle tissue seen. The authors concluded that cerivastatin was well tolerated in all species. Post-withdrawal tests using rat and human muscle cells in vitro revealed that rat cells are 200 times more resistant to the drug’s effects. Eventually more than 100 deaths were linked to cerivastatin.
Such a high error rate begs the question: How many possibly life-saving therapies have clinicians never investigated because of toxicities in other animal species? Penicillin, which was originally discovered in 1929, wasn’t used until 1939 because of its ineffectiveness in curing infected rabbits. If it had been “safety” tested in cats, guinea pigs, or hamsters, it would have been abandoned as toxic.
Furosemide (Lasix) is one of our most important diuretics, used to reduce fluid retention during heart failure and other diseases. Though experiments in mice show extensive liver damage, decades of clinical use have proven its safety for humans.
One of our most relied-upon pain relievers, Aspirin (Acetylsalicylic acid), causes teratogenic malformations in mice, rats, dogs, cats, rabbits, and monkeys.
Here ye go, Fred:
That didn't actually answer any of the questions I asked though. Just seemed to be stating the obvious to me, drugs have different affects on different people so it's pretty obvious that they will have different affects on different species. I'm sure that is all taken into account by the people doing the testing and does not suggest in any way that testing on animals is not a vital part of medical research.
Penicillin causes alergic reaction in some people but not in others, does this mean that clinical trials are worthless and should be abolished? Quite the opposite I would have thought.
As I said I know that a lot of drugs used by doctors are also used by vets, identical drugs made by the same companies and in some cases in the same packaging. It seems to me that the information gained in the animal testing stage is invaluable to vetinary medical research as well as to human and has been responsible for relieving the pain and suffering of a vast number of animals. Even when research shows that a drug is not suitable for humans it can show that it is suitable for animals. Would you suggest that drug companies release drugs for use by vets on animals without testing them on animals first?
As Rheghead said animal testing is a very emotive subject which is why it is so often jumped on by control freak activists looking for an excuse to bully, intimidate and manipulate people. I'm affraid what you wrote has all the hallmarks of activist propaganda.
Have to agree with Fred on this one, but this:
I'm affraid what you wrote has all the hallmarks of activist propaganda.
made me laugh :lol: :lol: :lol: ;)
I'm with Margaret M on this one,
I loved Fred's quote "Doctors and scientists say that animal testing is a vital part of medical research, I don't think they would say that if it wasn't."
Then he comes out with this "I'm affraid what you wrote has all the hallmarks of activist propaganda. "
Well do I need to say more [disgust]
I'm with Margaret M on this one,
I loved Fred's quote "Doctors and scientists say that animal testing is a vital part of medical research, I don't think they would say that if it wasn't."
That's right, over 500 British doctors and academic scientists have signed a declaration in the last month stating that animal testing is a vital part of medical research. They include 3 Nobel laureates and 190 Fellows of the Royal Society. A further 100 foreign scientists and 100 industrial scientists makes that over 700 qualified people who know what they are talking about signing a declaration that animal testing is vital to medical research.
Then he comes out with this "I'm affraid what you wrote has all the hallmarks of activist propaganda. "
Well do I need to say more [disgust]
Yes, I think you do need to say more, I think you need to explain that statement.
Margaret M.
26-Aug-05, 23:07
Then he comes out with this "I'm affraid what you wrote has all the hallmarks of activist propaganda. "
Well do I need to say more
Yes, I think you do need to say more, I think you need to explain that statement.
Well, I've never been accused of smelling like an expert but I believe some think you may be the pot calling the kettle black. Do I need to say more? :D
Then he comes out with this "I'm affraid what you wrote has all the hallmarks of activist propaganda. "
Well do I need to say more
Yes, I think you do need to say more, I think you need to explain that statement.
Well, I've never been accused of smelling like an expert but I believe some think you may be the pot calling the kettle black. Do I need to say more? :D
The 500 top academic scientists and doctors in Britain are experts, they did sign a declaration that animal testing is a vital part of medical research, that isn't propaganda.
Is there anyone here doesn't know someone who has benefited from advancements in medical science? Someone who has had an operation or recieved treatment that just wasn't available 50 years ago? That's down to the work of those 500 doctors and scientists and others like them. They get my support and when they say that animal testing is a vital part of their research then I believe them.
On the other hand we have a family in Staffordshire which has been the victim of a hate campaign for years, hate mail, mallicious phone calls, bomb threats. The body of one of their relatives was removed from its grave and held to ransom, they were told that they either did what the activists told them or their loved one would never rest in peace.
They have now had to close down their business supplying animals for medical research, not through a democratic change in the law, not through the weight of public opinion but as a result of the terrorist activities of a small minority using false arguments like yours to justify their crimes.
[ not through the weight of public opinion but as a result of the terrorist activities of a small minority using false arguments like yours to justify their crimes.
Hmm Fred you condem the animal right activists but support the pro Iraqi/Afghan suicide bomers [disgust]
I've just been talking to a high-flying medic friend and a colleague he claimed to be the best plasic surgeon in Scotland. I didn't get much in the way of opinion on animal testing out of either of them, but afterwards my friend spent ages waxing lyrically about his friend (http://www.theclinics.co.uk/directory/clinics.cfm/clinic/Quaba%20A%20Mr) and how brilliant he was. It seems he can work wonders on your eyes, face, body (all parts, not just what it says on that website -- you name it, he does it). I wonder how they test all the procedures and drugs he uses!
Margaret M.
27-Aug-05, 12:19
Fred wrote:
Margaret M. wrote:
Then he comes out with this "I'm affraid what you wrote has all the hallmarks of activist propaganda. "
Well do I need to say more
The above statement was not written by me, Fred. However, I did say that some were amused by you accusing me of using activist propaganda, like you have never done this yourself. Many of your statements particularly in the Bombing in London thread sounded like propaganda to me.
Fred wrote:
The 500 top academic scientists and doctors in Britain are experts, they did sign a declaration that animal testing is a vital part of medical research, that isn't propaganda.
Margaret wrote:
A survey conducted in August 2004 shows that 82% of British GP's are concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans and want an evaluation of the scientific value of animal experimentation.
So tell me, what makes my statement activist propaganda and your statement gospel?
Fred wrote:
They get my support and when they say that animal testing is a vital part of their research then I believe them.
And I choose to believe those who say it is not beneficial. My beliefs and opinions are mine and just as you can find information to support yours, there is documentation to support mine.
Dr Szin, I thought that Ian JAckson was meant to be top dog in the palstic surgery.........but I think he may be in the USA now. He was the guy who reconstructed the Peruvian lads face - the boy David. That kind of work is worthwhile :cool:
hey Margaret M.
I was reading your last post and was disappointed to see how similar in structure it was to the way Fred's posts often look (check out some classic Rheghead vs Fred "round and round the rugged rocks the ragged rascals ran" type posts under other topics) - structure looks like "quote pick apart, quote pick apart" - watch out, Fred is the master baiter - don't let him suck you into his world and his way of arguing a point... saying the same thing 20 times without progressing or concluding his point. Argument by attrition.... Arguing with Fred is like the Battle of Stalingrad... particularly draining if you engage fully and at the end you wonder if it was worth it all in the first place, couldn't you just have gone round it...
Margaret, you are better than that - be strong, be free... save yourself while you can... don't run the risk of rising to his bait!
... if Fred wants the last word, let him have it too ...it fills an unconscious need in him - and helping Fred should help us all....
;)
Good post Hereboy! Now everything is clear now about fred, but why didn't you point me in the right direction as well? You could have saved me a lot o' bother... :D
Margaret M.
27-Aug-05, 17:45
save yourself while you can... don't run the risk of rising to his bait!
LOL hereboy, you nut, not to worry that was my last post on this subject.
And I choose to believe those who say it is not beneficial. My beliefs and opinions are mine and just as you can find information to support yours, there is documentation to support mine.
I widna believe anything anyone says about such an emotive subject. This is an ethical problem for each individual and not only for the experts.
In a world that rears and farms animals for our food chain, uses the by-products in everyday life (leather,pet food, cosmetics) what does it really matter if they are used in this way for the good of mankind (and womankind)? :(
It seems the animal rights people have all the odds stacked against them on this one. Ethically they havnt got a leg to stand on. Unless of course they are vegitarian, use man made products for their clothes, and can supply proof through research that animal testing is only carried out by people (scientists) whose only satisfaction must be some unconscious sadistic desire to torture animals.
Good post Hereboy! Now everything is clear now about fred, but why didn't you point me in the right direction as well? You could have saved me a lot o' bother... :D
Well, its a bit like watching a bullfight, you know its wrong - but you can't stop yourself from watching - you get strangely drawn to it...
also, there is always the hope that the matador gets one from the bull - and that makes it all worth the money - those special moments in life... ;)
It seems the animal rights people have all the odds stacked against them on this one. Ethically they havnt got a leg to stand on. Unless of course they are vegitarian, use man made products for their clothes, and can supply proof through research that animal testing is only carried out by people (scientists) whose only satisfaction must be some unconscious sadistic desire to torture animals.
I'd imagine veggies have got the odds stacked against them as well. But do they really deserve ridicule when they have no choice but to do something or buy something that is against their principles?
I dislike it when people sneer at veggies when they buy a pair of leather shoes or even receive them for a gift. The fact that they have drawn a line in the sand by avoiding animal products,meat and products that are tested on animals takes a hell of a lot of dedication and ultimately research. And there is nothing more disheartening than having someone who equates, say, wearing a pair of leather shoes to sneaking to the fridge for a bacon sarnie when no one is looking. An 'all or nothing approach' is impossible and ridiculous.
I guess muslims and jews have similiar issues when they move to a place like Caithness where they are unable to buy meat that is killed in accordance with their beliefs.
We wouldn't dream of calling them 'unclean' now would we? Then again I sometimes wonder? :roll:
Fred wrote:
The 500 top academic scientists and doctors in Britain are experts, they did sign a declaration that animal testing is a vital part of medical research, that isn't propaganda.
Margaret wrote:
A survey conducted in August 2004 shows that 82% of British GP's are concerned that animal data can be misleading when applied to humans and want an evaluation of the scientific value of animal experimentation.
So tell me, what makes my statement activist propaganda and your statement gospel?
I didn't pick out that part of your article and say it was activist propaganda, I said that all of what you wrote had the hallmarks of activist propoganda. The reasons are as I stated, you only point out the instances where there are differences between the affects of drugs in humans and in animals but do not say in how many cases the affects are the same, you only mention failures in animal testing but do not say how many drugs never went on to human trials because of animal testing and you cite thalidomide as a failure in animal testing but fail to mention that thalidomide was never tested on pregnant animals and if it had been then the tragedy would probably never have happened.
As for your survey you didn't mention that 10% of the doctors answered "don't know" or people might start wondering just how qualified the average GP is to offer an informed opinion.
Hmm Fred you condem the animal right activists but support the pro Iraqi/Afghan suicide bomers [disgust]
Do I?
I would live to see a world without suicide bombers I just feel that we would have a better chance of achieving that goal if we didn't go marching into other peoples countries and killing them.
As for animal rights activists I must admit to having a dislike for people who go round digging up peoples grannies.
hey Margaret M.
I was reading your last post and was disappointed to see how similar in structure it was to the way Fred's posts often look (check out some classic Rheghead vs Fred "round and round the rugged rocks the ragged rascals ran" type posts under other topics) - structure looks like "quote pick apart, quote pick apart" - watch out, Fred is the master baiter - don't let him suck you into his world and his way of arguing a point... saying the same thing 20 times without progressing or concluding his point. Argument by attrition.... Arguing with Fred is like the Battle of Stalingrad... particularly draining if you engage fully and at the end you wonder if it was worth it all in the first place, couldn't you just have gone round it...
Yes hareboy, that is how inteligent debate works. You look outwards at the subject being discussed, you look at what has been written and what facts you can ascertain, decide how closely what was written conforms with reality and you argue your case. This way eventially after going round the rugged rocks a few times you can cut through the prejudices, misinformation and downright untrue and produce something people can form an opinion on.
You may prefer the more accepted method of believing what you want to believe and slagging off anyone who doesn't agree with you but myself I don't find that very productive.
Yes hareboy, that is how inteligent debate works...you look at what has been written and what facts you can ascertain, decide how closely what was written conforms with reality and you argue your case...
Hmmm what reality would that be then? Your reality I presume, to which the rest of us should adhere or you'll tell us again?
In the words of Edward de Bono.... "Argument is meant to reveal the truth, not create it" I am afraid your style leans towards the latter.
and besides, if you read closely, I was attacking your argument techniques and not referring to you personally...
but, I'll leave the last word to you... or to Joubert, whichever you prefer...
"The aim of an argument or discussion, should not be victory, but progress"
Hmmm what reality would that be then? Your reality I presume, to which the rest of us should adhere or you'll tell us again?
It's not the reality of the half truths and untruths of Dr C Ray Greek who was quoted in this forum that's for sure.
My reality says there will be a median line, that a balance sheet should be drawn weighing the benefits of animal testing against the cost in animal suffering and that controls should be placed accordingly. That I believe is the state we are in with medical research at the moment and whether the line needs to be moved one way or the other I really am not qualified to say.
In my reality truth does not lie at the extreme as it does for the Societies America for Medical Advancement which Dr Greek founded or the Anti Vivisection League for whom he is scientific advisor who both call for an outright ban on all animal testing.
In the words of Edward de Bono.... "Argument is meant to reveal the truth, not create it" I am afraid your style leans towards the latter.
By asking questions? I entered this debate asking questions from someone who claimed to have " done enough research to be convinced that the results of animal testing are not useful enough to justify the suffering to which the animals are subjected". How does asking questions create the truth?
Not that you need my support Fred but you have it. I'm puzzled by hereboys comments too. :confused
Fred I was not talking specifically about this topic, I was passing comment on your style in general, across a number of topics I have read to which you have contributed... in particular the to-ing and fro-ing around Hiroshima....Terrorism...War...etc.
And often times you do ask questions, but they are rhetorical or tongue in cheek and then you proceed to answer them yourself. You do go around in circles beating the same drum to death without progressing the discussion.
and my comment about reality stands... I did not say that you created truth by asking questions (this is some classic Fred diversion) - I was suggesting that you create truth by measuring things against your own reality (reality is subjective) and then trying to convince others that your viewpoint is the correct one and that others are naive for thinking otherwise.
Fred, if you truly were a master questioner, you would use your questioning skills to progress the discusions whereas in most of the discussions that you engage, you seem to automatically take an opposing view and the discussion ends up being one of defending opposing positions (like this one) and then runs out of steam - other forum users become observers, it becomes effectively a two horse race... the original intent of the post becomes lost...etc...
How about asking some questions that move the conversation forward and not asking questions designed to back the other person into a defensive stance.
Think about your questions before you pose them Fred, will they steer the other person to where you are already sitting? or will they really open up the discussion to a direction that neither one of you has been before?
Thats progress.
Your assumptions are based on a flaw which is that the reality you see is the reality that everyone else sees - sorry to break it to you, but it ain't so...
Question 1. Animal Testing, what would the alternatives look like?
Question 2. Awareness, are we really as aware of how we appear to others as we thing we are? or would like to be?
Happy Sunday Chums...!
Gleeber, does this make my position less puzzling? (I am not looking for agreement or disagreement, just have a think about it). ;)
and my comment about reality stands... I did not say that you created truth by asking questions (this is some classic Fred diversion) - I was suggesting that you create truth by measuring things against your own reality (reality is subjective) and then trying to convince others that your viewpoint is the correct one and that others are naive for thinking otherwise.
Interesting article in the Guardian today about the government being warned over a year ago that the war in Iraq was fueling Muslim extremism in Britain.
Remember you heard it here first.
the law of probability shows that if you talk long enough you are bound to get something right by accident now and again...
well done...
;)
the law of probability shows that if you talk long enough you are bound to get something right by accident now and again...
well done...
;)
Hareboy you've worked out that when you stand at one end of the lake you see the reflection of the moon in one place and if you stand at the other end of the lake it's someplace else so you're part way there.
Now you just need to work out where the reflection of the moon is when no one is looking.
is that similar to when a mighty tree falls, does it still make a noise even though no one is there to listen?
;)
is that similar to when a mighty tree falls, does it still make a noise even though no one is there to listen?
;)
No.
Did you see the bomber video? Seems I got lucky again.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.