Three years of autism/schizophrenia research destroyed by

[Pogo]

Do you know what sentient actually means? What evidence do you have that animals are sentient other than your ability to anthropomorphize inanimate objects?

Animals are inanimate now.

Bizarre.

Strange, I don't recall saying that. What I did was equate a posters claim that animals are sentient with his habit of anthropomorphizing inanimate objects. I am not surprised the subtleties of that escaped your mental capacity.

Nor am I surprised, given your level of reading comprehension, that you don't see your own words sitting all of half an inch away.

Sheeesh.

 

[newpolitics]

animals are inanimate now.

Bizarre.

strange, i don't recall saying that. What i did was equate a posters claim that animals are sentient with his habit of anthropomorphizing inanimate objects. I am not surprised the subtleties of that escaped your mental capacity.

nor am i surprised, given your level of reading comprehension, that you don't see your own words sitting all of half an inch away.

Sheeesh.

rofl. Incredible.

 

[Montrovant]

I repeat my question, what evidence do you have that animals are sentient? Is the problem here that you don't understand the word evidence?

Not directed at me, but I couldn't resist.

Compassion in World Farming - Scientific papers

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course you are not impressed with something that refutes your position. Your Cartesian view of animals is outdated. Catch up with the times. Animals suffer. Suffering is only possible if an entity is sentient. This is how sentience is defined. Shall I go to another source? No problem.

Lets go to the dictionary, you ******* dickhead.

"Main Entry: sen·tient
Pronunciation: \ˈsen(t)-sh(ē-)ənt, ˈsen-tē-ənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin sentient-, sentiens, present participle of sentire to perceive, feel
Date: 1632
1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions 2 : aware 3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling"

Tell me now, where in this definition does it say that sentience means self-awareness. All it describes is the ability to feel or sense your surroundings in any capacity. Animals are demonstrably capable of this. To deny this is idiocy.

Let us find out what the article you didn't read actually says about animals and sentience.

Sentience in Buddhism is the state of having senses (sat + ta in Pali, or sat + tva in Sanskrit). In Buddhism, the senses are six in number, the sixth being the subjective experience of the mind. Sentience is simply awareness prior to the arising of Skandha. Thus, an animal qualifies as a sentient being.
Animal rights and sentience

Main articles: Animal consciousness, Animal cognition, Animal rights, and Pain in animals
In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain. Animal-rights advocates typically argue that any sentient being is entitled at a minimum to the right not to be subjected to unnecessary suffering, though they may differ on what other rights (e.g., the right to life) may be entailed by simple sentience. Sentiocentrism describes the theory that sentient individuals are the center of moral concern.
The 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham compiled enlightenment beliefs in Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, and he included his own reasoning in a comparison between slavery and sadism toward animals:

The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor [see Louis XIV's Code Noir]... What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?[2]
​

In the 20th century, Princeton University professor Peter Singer argued that Bentham's conclusion is often dismissed by an appeal to a distinction that condemns human suffering but allows non-human suffering, typically "appeals" that are logical fallacies (unless the distinction is factual, in which case the appeal is just one logical fallacy, petitio principii). Because many of the suggested distinguishing features of humanity—extreme intelligence; highly complex language; etc.—are not present in marginal cases such as young or mentally disabled humans, it appears that the only distinction is a prejudice based on species alone, which animal-rights supporters call speciesism—that is, differentiating humans from other animals purely on the grounds that they are human.
Gary Francione also bases his abolitionist theory of animal rights, which differs significantly from Singer's, on sentience. He asserts that "all sentient beings, humans or nonhuman, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others."[3]
Andrew Linzey, founder of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics in England, is known as a foremost international advocate for recognizing animals as sentient beings in biblically-based faith traditions. The Interfaith Association of Animal Chaplains encourages animal ministry groups to adopt a policy of recognizing and valuing sentient beings.
In 1997 the concept of animal sentience was written into the basic law of the European Union. The legally-binding protocol annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam recognizes that animals are "sentient beings", and requires the EU and its member states to "pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals".
The laws of several states include certain invertebrates such as cephalopods (octopuses, squids) and decapod crustaceans (lobsters, crabs) in the scope of animal protection laws, implying that these animals are also judged to be capable of experiencing pain and suffering.[4]
David Pearce is a British philosopher of the negative utilitarian school of ethics. He is most famous for his advocation of the idea that there exists a strong ethical imperative for humans to work towards the abolition of suffering in all sentient beings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

That basically translates to sentience in animals being a matter of faith.

I repeat my question, what evidence do you have that animals are sentient? Is the problem here that you don't understand the word evidence?

You have utterly confirmed that animals are sentient by any definition. Thank you?

What evidence do you have that other minds exist? It is the same sort of question, and yet there is no evidence. This is the problem of hard solipsism. I can no more prove conclusively that animals feel pain than you can prove that anybody else has a mind. However, it is a valid inference that animals feel pain, because they possess the exact same nerves as we do as well as a very similar central processing unit (brain) used for processing and receiving pain signals. Therefore, they have all of the required hardware to feel pain. It is necessary for any organism to sense their environment if they are to survive. and they exhibit very recognizable pain reactions, even for humans. To say humans feel pain but animals don't would require you to explain away all of these similarities. This was attempted by Descartes when he said all animals are basically automatons. Scientific progress doesn't bear this out, and neither does any level of intuition. I find your position offensive and willfully ignorant of the facts.

I have only proved that animals are sentient if sentience is a matter of faith, I want evidence. Do you have evidence, yes or no?

 

[newpolitics]

You have not even proved that, Quantum. You have proved that under any definition you can find of sentience, animals are sentient. It is not a matter of faith, but simply beyond epistemic reach. Inferring subjective states of other beings is not a conclusive endeavor, as I mentioned above. Just as there is no evidence that other minds exist, there can be no conclusive evidence animals feel pain, or that the universe exists at all. When you get to this level of skepticism, nothing is provable, so why not be consistent as a skeptic and ask yourself about the evidence that other people feel pain or are sentient. What evidence do you have that other minds exist? Once you understand why this can not be answered, you will understand why your demand for such conclusive evidence is unreasonable. I already explained all of this is in my previous post, but for you once just doesn't seem to be enough. The evidence that is useful for inferring inductively that animals feel pain was already stated: anatomy and behavioral responses of pained animals. They have all of the same hardware we have. We feel pain. Therefore, animals also feel pain. If this is insufficient for you, then you are admitting, without realizing it, that you are a solipsist. If you don't want this title, then you must admit the problem of other minds. Selecting only animal minds as being unprovable is intellectually dishonest. The same applies to humans, so you are only digging a big hole for yourself if you dig deeper into this. Show me the evidence that there are other minds, or that anyone else has a subjective experience.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I respectfully disagree. Yes, those animals ARE tortured. Daily. Just to "see what happens". Does it save human lives? Sometimes. But how many animals have to die to find a cure? They want to experiment..I'm with Noomi. Let them use their own bodies.

To show your support you should decline all life saving drugs when you become ill.
That'll show em.....

What a ******* stupid argument.

Vast amounts of previously inaccessible medical knowledge was gained during the brutal and unethical experiments of Nazi Doctors. By your logic, every time you go to the doctor, you are endorsing Nazi Germany and the experiments done on live humans. Being that this conclusion false, so is the premise, and by analogy, so is your argument. We have certain medical knowledge now, however unscrupulously gained, and using it is not an endorsement of how it was procured. The same with any drugs gotten so far with any amount of animal experimentation. We have these drugs that work, yet any drugs now being used have passed all FDA standards and no longer need to be tested on animals, therefore you are NOT supporting animal testing merely by using a drug was WAS tested on animals. My point is, stop vivisection, but continue the drugs we do have and find another model for research testing. Animal anatomy and physiology is not generalizable to humans. The model is flawed, and millions of animal suffer for this flawed model that doesn't give us any direct knowledge about ourselves.

It is the acceptance of vivisection as viable that is the problem, itself, as it is an avenue of research that still considered acceptable. It is not. Vivisection is absolutely torture, and I am happy these animals were freed. Anyone that says vivisection is not torture doesn't know about vivisection, of thinks the suffering of animals does not matter or is less than than that of humans, which is fallacious reasoning and extremely biased.

Quantum Windbag, Beagles are commonly used in vivisection experiments. Learn a ******* thing before you debate it.

Come on! It fits you lib jackwads to a T.
It's no different then you fuckheads crying about global warming yet you still drive cars and use electricity.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

These people torture the crap out of animals, infecting them with diseases, crippling them, keeping them in cages and then killing them when they have served a purpose.

I don't condone what the animal rights freaks did, but I am happy those animals were released from the confines of some lab.

Perhaps Miss Matteoli can infect herself with a deadly disease, or give herself autism or something else?

"These people" save lives and cure diseases.

That may be true, but is it okay to torture animals in order to do that - and keep in mind that it takes years, even decades, for them to find a drug that works. That's thousands of dead animals for a drug that hasn't even been through human trials yet!

Do you eat meat? Had a vaccine? Use glue?

Shut up.

 

[Noomi]

"These people" save lives and cure diseases.

That may be true, but is it okay to torture animals in order to do that - and keep in mind that it takes years, even decades, for them to find a drug that works. That's thousands of dead animals for a drug that hasn't even been through human trials yet!

Do you eat meat? Had a vaccine? Use glue?

Shut up.

I never said I was perfect, did I? I just believe that there is a different option out there - or at least there will be, eventually.

 

[newpolitics]

To show your support you should decline all life saving drugs when you become ill.
That'll show em.....

What a ******* stupid argument.

Vast amounts of previously inaccessible medical knowledge was gained during the brutal and unethical experiments of Nazi Doctors. By your logic, every time you go to the doctor, you are endorsing Nazi Germany and the experiments done on live humans. Being that this conclusion false, so is the premise, and by analogy, so is your argument. We have certain medical knowledge now, however unscrupulously gained, and using it is not an endorsement of how it was procured. The same with any drugs gotten so far with any amount of animal experimentation. We have these drugs that work, yet any drugs now being used have passed all FDA standards and no longer need to be tested on animals, therefore you are NOT supporting animal testing merely by using a drug was WAS tested on animals. My point is, stop vivisection, but continue the drugs we do have and find another model for research testing. Animal anatomy and physiology is not generalizable to humans. The model is flawed, and millions of animal suffer for this flawed model that doesn't give us any direct knowledge about ourselves.

It is the acceptance of vivisection as viable that is the problem, itself, as it is an avenue of research that still considered acceptable. It is not. Vivisection is absolutely torture, and I am happy these animals were freed. Anyone that says vivisection is not torture doesn't know about vivisection, of thinks the suffering of animals does not matter or is less than than that of humans, which is fallacious reasoning and extremely biased.

Quantum Windbag, Beagles are commonly used in vivisection experiments. Learn a ******* thing before you debate it.

Come on! It fits you lib jackwads to a T.
It's no different then you fuckheads crying about global warming yet you still drive cars and use electricity.

It fits you fuckheads to a T to not care about anyone or anything other than yourselves, and in being empathically blind, cause damage and suffering all around you while calling yourselves moral, all the while persecuting others for what they do in the privacy of their bedroom. Your ******* dumbass. Animals suffer. You cause it. You don't care. **** you.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What a ******* stupid argument.

Vast amounts of previously inaccessible medical knowledge was gained during the brutal and unethical experiments of Nazi Doctors. By your logic, every time you go to the doctor, you are endorsing Nazi Germany and the experiments done on live humans. Being that this conclusion false, so is the premise, and by analogy, so is your argument. We have certain medical knowledge now, however unscrupulously gained, and using it is not an endorsement of how it was procured. The same with any drugs gotten so far with any amount of animal experimentation. We have these drugs that work, yet any drugs now being used have passed all FDA standards and no longer need to be tested on animals, therefore you are NOT supporting animal testing merely by using a drug was WAS tested on animals. My point is, stop vivisection, but continue the drugs we do have and find another model for research testing. Animal anatomy and physiology is not generalizable to humans. The model is flawed, and millions of animal suffer for this flawed model that doesn't give us any direct knowledge about ourselves.

It is the acceptance of vivisection as viable that is the problem, itself, as it is an avenue of research that still considered acceptable. It is not. Vivisection is absolutely torture, and I am happy these animals were freed. Anyone that says vivisection is not torture doesn't know about vivisection, of thinks the suffering of animals does not matter or is less than than that of humans, which is fallacious reasoning and extremely biased.

Quantum Windbag, Beagles are commonly used in vivisection experiments. Learn a ******* thing before you debate it.

Come on! It fits you lib jackwads to a T.
It's no different then you fuckheads crying about global warming yet you still drive cars and use electricity.

It fits you fuckheads to a T to not care about anyone or anything other than yourselves, and in being empathically blind, cause damage and suffering all around you while calling yourselves moral, all the while persecuting others for what they do in the privacy of their bedroom. Your ******* dumbass. Animals suffer. You cause it. You don't care. **** you.

Nope....I dont give a **** what you do in your bedroom. How much of your personal time have you donated at boxer rescue or any other animal rescue operation?
I would bet ZERO.
How many animals have you adopted?
I dont care for animal testing. But it is a necessary evil.
You stupid ***** paint yourself into a corner with your outcries because you still use the products and medicines developed with animal testing. Just like global warming and abortion. You still drive a car and you kill babies all while crying about pollution and the death penalty.
Fucken hypocrites.

You stand for nothing.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

These people torture the crap out of animals, infecting them with diseases, crippling them, keeping them in cages and then killing them when they have served a purpose.

I don't condone what the animal rights freaks did, but I am happy those animals were released from the confines of some lab.

Perhaps Miss Matteoli can infect herself with a deadly disease, or give herself autism or something else?

Especially since lab animals are not short hairy humans.

There are two reasons for using animals and pretending they are humans -

One is that we are still stuck into the "publish or perish" idea. The only way to get funding is to publish and the only way to get published is the do what is called "basic model" research.

"Basic" means that the it has been done before and "model" refers to using animals.

Once you get published, you can then apply for more funding - to do it all again.

Every time you see a headline that there has been a "breakthrough", look for a couple of things: One will be that the results, though promising, cannot be extrapolated to human being and (Yep, you guess it), more experiments are needed. Two, you will never ever ever ever ever ever hear of that breakthrough again. The "researcher" will have gotten the funding to do it all again but must now come up with some new take on it in order to get funding for the next time.

The second reason for doing animal research is insurance. That's it. Everyone is so afraid of being sued, the insurance companies demand animal "studies" to lessen liability.

Think about this: we all know that every human being reactions differently to drugs and/or treatments. Why would we believe that a rat's (or as the neurologist so famously said, rat, pig, boy) will all react the same as others of their own species as well as the same as other species?

Animal experimentation has slowed our progress in medical knowledge but as long as people accept it and as long as insurance companies let manufacturers get away with it, we're stuck and many more millions of animals will be tortured for no really reason at all - except money.

 

[koshergrl]

Come on! It fits you lib jackwads to a T.
It's no different then you fuckheads crying about global warming yet you still drive cars and use electricity.

It fits you fuckheads to a T to not care about anyone or anything other than yourselves, and in being empathically blind, cause damage and suffering all around you while calling yourselves moral, all the while persecuting others for what they do in the privacy of their bedroom. Your ******* dumbass. Animals suffer. You cause it. You don't care. **** you.

Nope....I dont give a **** what you do in your bedroom. How much of your personal time have you donated at boxer rescue or any other animal rescue operation?
I would bet ZERO.
How many animals have you adopted?
I dont care for animal testing. But it is a necessary evil.
You stupid ***** paint yourself into a corner with your outcries because you still use the products and medicines developed with animal testing. Just like global warming and abortion. You still drive a car and you kill babies all while crying about pollution and the death penalty.
Fucken hypocrites.

You stand for nothing.

They stand against progress, and humanity. That's what they stand for.

 

[koshergrl]

These people torture the crap out of animals, infecting them with diseases, crippling them, keeping them in cages and then killing them when they have served a purpose.

I don't condone what the animal rights freaks did, but I am happy those animals were released from the confines of some lab.

Perhaps Miss Matteoli can infect herself with a deadly disease, or give herself autism or something else?

Especially since lab animals are not short hairy humans.

There are two reasons for using animals and pretending they are humans -

One is that we are still stuck into the "publish or perish" idea. The only way to get funding is to publish and the only way to get published is the do what is called "basic model" research.

"Basic" means that the it has been done before and "model" refers to using animals.

Once you get published, you can then apply for more funding - to do it all again.

Every time you see a headline that there has been a "breakthrough", look for a couple of things: One will be that the results, though promising, cannot be extrapolated to human being and (Yep, you guess it), more experiments are needed. Two, you will never ever ever ever ever ever hear of that breakthrough again. The "researcher" will have gotten the funding to do it all again but must now come up with some new take on it in order to get funding for the next time.

The second reason for doing animal research is insurance. That's it. Everyone is so afraid of being sued, the insurance companies demand animal "studies" to lessen liability.

Think about this: we all know that every human being reactions differently to drugs and/or treatments. Why would we believe that a rat's (or as the neurologist so famously said, rat, pig, boy) will all react the same as others of their own species as well as the same as other species?

Animal experimentation has slowed our progress in medical knowledge but as long as people accept it and as long as insurance companies let manufacturers get away with it, we're stuck and many more millions of animals will be tortured for no really reason at all - except money.

Wow, you really are a fruit loop.

Sometimes I despair of the human race because of what I see in here..then one of you nuts writes something that reminds me how far from the Madding crowd you really are. I think usmb sends fliers to group homes that house schizophrenic personality disorder patients.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

As someone who has a schizophrenic mom, this saddens me.

I can't wait for a cure for her.

I also have intimate knowledge of the disease and my heart goes out to you.

But, animal experimentation is not the answer. There are many examples of exactly that. If you do some research, you'll find that it actually slows our knowledge.

No pun intended but this really is a sacred cow that people are terrified of learning about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What a ******* stupid argument.

Vast amounts of previously inaccessible medical knowledge was gained during the brutal and unethical experiments of Nazi Doctors. By your logic, every time you go to the doctor, you are endorsing Nazi Germany and the experiments done on live humans. Being that this conclusion false, so is the premise, and by analogy, so is your argument. We have certain medical knowledge now, however unscrupulously gained, and using it is not an endorsement of how it was procured. The same with any drugs gotten so far with any amount of animal experimentation. We have these drugs that work, yet any drugs now being used have passed all FDA standards and no longer need to be tested on animals, therefore you are NOT supporting animal testing merely by using a drug was WAS tested on animals. My point is, stop vivisection, but continue the drugs we do have and find another model for research testing. Animal anatomy and physiology is not generalizable to humans. The model is flawed, and millions of animal suffer for this flawed model that doesn't give us any direct knowledge about ourselves.

It is the acceptance of vivisection as viable that is the problem, itself, as it is an avenue of research that still considered acceptable. It is not. Vivisection is absolutely torture, and I am happy these animals were freed. Anyone that says vivisection is not torture doesn't know about vivisection, of thinks the suffering of animals does not matter or is less than than that of humans, which is fallacious reasoning and extremely biased.

Quantum Windbag, Beagles are commonly used in vivisection experiments. Learn a ******* thing before you debate it.

Come on! It fits you lib jackwads to a T.
It's no different then you fuckheads crying about global warming yet you still drive cars and use electricity.

It fits you fuckheads to a T to not care about anyone or anything other than yourselves, and in being empathically blind, cause damage and suffering all around you while calling yourselves moral, all the while persecuting others for what they do in the privacy of their bedroom. Your ******* dumbass. Animals suffer. You cause it. You don't care. **** you.

We currently have two litters of rescue kittens in our house, and have been doing this for years, how many rescue animals have you taken in.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

These people torture the crap out of animals, infecting them with diseases, crippling them, keeping them in cages and then killing them when they have served a purpose.

I don't condone what the animal rights freaks did, but I am happy those animals were released from the confines of some lab.

Perhaps Miss Matteoli can infect herself with a deadly disease, or give herself autism or something else?

Especially since lab animals are not short hairy humans.

There are two reasons for using animals and pretending they are humans -

One is that we are still stuck into the "publish or perish" idea. The only way to get funding is to publish and the only way to get published is the do what is called "basic model" research.

"Basic" means that the it has been done before and "model" refers to using animals.

Once you get published, you can then apply for more funding - to do it all again.

Every time you see a headline that there has been a "breakthrough", look for a couple of things: One will be that the results, though promising, cannot be extrapolated to human being and (Yep, you guess it), more experiments are needed. Two, you will never ever ever ever ever ever hear of that breakthrough again. The "researcher" will have gotten the funding to do it all again but must now come up with some new take on it in order to get funding for the next time.

The second reason for doing animal research is insurance. That's it. Everyone is so afraid of being sued, the insurance companies demand animal "studies" to lessen liability.

Think about this: we all know that every human being reactions differently to drugs and/or treatments. Why would we believe that a rat's (or as the neurologist so famously said, rat, pig, boy) will all react the same as others of their own species as well as the same as other species?

Animal experimentation has slowed our progress in medical knowledge but as long as people accept it and as long as insurance companies let manufacturers get away with it, we're stuck and many more millions of animals will be tortured for no really reason at all - except money.

You missed the real reason for doing it. What a surprise, the left is anti science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As someone who has a schizophrenic mom, this saddens me.

I can't wait for a cure for her.

I also have intimate knowledge of the disease and my heart goes out to you.

But, animal experimentation is not the answer. There are many examples of exactly that. If you do some research, you'll find that it actually slows our knowledge.

No pun intended but this really is a sacred cow that people are terrified of learning about.

Animal research is not the answer? Are you trying to claim you are smarter than every single neurobiologist in the world?

 

[newpolitics]

Come on! It fits you lib jackwads to a T.
It's no different then you fuckheads crying about global warming yet you still drive cars and use electricity.

It fits you fuckheads to a T to not care about anyone or anything other than yourselves, and in being empathically blind, cause damage and suffering all around you while calling yourselves moral, all the while persecuting others for what they do in the privacy of their bedroom. Your ******* dumbass. Animals suffer. You cause it. You don't care. **** you.

We currently have two litters of rescue kittens in our house, and have been doing this for years, how many rescue animals have you taken in.

What does fostering or adopting pets have to do with vivisection experiments? Absolutely nothing. Nice appeal to hypocrisy, a form of ad hominem. What I so personally has no bearing on whether my argument is valid/sound. You can't attack my points, so you resort to attacking me. This is where the immaturity of the right really shines. For the record, I am an ethical vegan. I don't support factory farms or vivisection. I don't take any drugs that were derived from vivisection labs. That is what is relevant here. Funny that you would care for cata but not give a **** about other animals, and let them be experimented on and tortured, but that's okay because you have two dozen rescues cats! Your reasoning is idiotic. It's as if you have filled your moral quotient with animals by adopting a few cats, so now you can just harm the rest and feel okay about it.

 

[newpolitics]

Come on! It fits you lib jackwads to a T.
It's no different then you fuckheads crying about global warming yet you still drive cars and use electricity.

It fits you fuckheads to a T to not care about anyone or anything other than yourselves, and in being empathically blind, cause damage and suffering all around you while calling yourselves moral, all the while persecuting others for what they do in the privacy of their bedroom. Your ******* dumbass. Animals suffer. You cause it. You don't care. **** you.

Nope....I dont give a **** what you do in your bedroom. How much of your personal time have you donated at boxer rescue or any other animal rescue operation?
I would bet ZERO.
How many animals have you adopted?
I dont care for animal testing. But it is a necessary evil.
You stupid ***** paint yourself into a corner with your outcries because you still use the products and medicines developed with animal testing. Just like global warming and abortion. You still drive a car and you kill babies all while crying about pollution and the death penalty.
Fucken hypocrites.

You stand for nothing.

It doesn't actually matter how animals I've adopted, or what I do personally at all. What matters in this discussion, is that I can show this vivisection is unethical. There is no logical connectivity from how much I donate to boxer rescue, and how many animals are vivisected, so the point is moot. I am an ethical vegan, so, I try not to support any endeavors that harm animals, in any industry. I already donate to two charities for human children, and I don't have much money. I used to volunteer at an animal shelter. Is that good enough for you, person who thinks its okay to torture animals in labs for human gain?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It fits you fuckheads to a T to not care about anyone or anything other than yourselves, and in being empathically blind, cause damage and suffering all around you while calling yourselves moral, all the while persecuting others for what they do in the privacy of their bedroom. Your ******* dumbass. Animals suffer. You cause it. You don't care. **** you.

We currently have two litters of rescue kittens in our house, and have been doing this for years, how many rescue animals have you taken in.

What does fostering or adopting pets have to do with vivisection experiments? Absolutely nothing. Nice appeal to hypocrisy, a form of ad hominem. What I so personally has no bearing on whether my argument is valid/sound. You can't attack my points, so you resort to attacking me. This is where the immaturity of the right really shines. For the record, I am an ethical vegan. I don't support factory farms or vivisection. I don't take any drugs that were derived from vivisection labs. That is what is relevant here. Funny that you would care for cata but not give a **** about other animals, and let them be experimented on and tortured, but that's okay because you have two dozen rescues cats! Your reasoning is idiotic. It's as if you have filled your moral quotient with animals by adopting a few cats, so now you can just harm the rest and feel okay about it.

Are you misusing words again?

For the record, vegans are the functional equivalent of zombies. Every drug on the shelf comes from some type of animal experiment.