RE: Time to question bioengineering.
June 24, 2011 at 8:48 am
(This post was last modified: June 24, 2011 at 1:13 pm by Napoléon.)
@ Moros
I'll admit I probably was being ignorant, and I understand that it was wrong for me to say "I see no reason for using animals etc". My mistake.
I still think you're being a pedantic condescending ass over a very minute post. You say I'm arguing? LOL, you're getting on a hype because I posted something silly. Yes. You win. It was silly. Happy now?
When I said the post in question it was in direct relation to bio-engineering. I personally don't agree with controlling physically other creatures. Sure we take advantage of them all the time, but I don't think that warrants unnecessary manual control for experimentation purposes. The original post I made wasn't a clear reflection of my stance I'll grant you, and as such I fully accept the scrutiny you gave it. Please understand that this post wasn't exactly a frickin' 'argument' which I took about an hour to think over. I just posted it within seconds, and was just going with whatever came into my head at the time. Now fair does, the statement I made itself wasn't grounded on anything but a personal preference but where did I state it was anything but? Before you start going off on one about ONE fucking little post why don't you go and criticize every other minute post which people have made in haste. Trust me there's thousands of them, but I don't see you hanging over like a vulture waiting to pounce on them.
This made me LOL. You tell me all these things which are 'reasons for control' but then can't even answer whether the reason is experimentation or not? Well surely YOU would have done the research, because it is YOU making a fucking argument. It's not doing research for me it's doing research for YOU. If you don't know whether controlling animals is for experimentation or not yourself then what right do you have to suddenly start having a go at me, for asking a question regarding your argument?
I maintain I did not imply anything in my first post you seem to be arguing over. Someone asked for an answer to a subjective question, and I gave it. Now if you really have something to state as fact on that then you are the one doing the research.
When you assert a point you claim to be true but can't answer very simple enquries about the assertion you make then what's the point in making the assertion?
BTW I didn't ask for specifics about neural science for fuck sake, I just asked what is the purpose of controlling animals if you're NOT experimenting on them? If you can't answer this then stop making out like you're SOOO MUCH BETTER THAN MOI! for supposedly 'doing research'.
I mean really, I'm not impressed
I'll admit I probably was being ignorant, and I understand that it was wrong for me to say "I see no reason for using animals etc". My mistake.
I still think you're being a pedantic condescending ass over a very minute post. You say I'm arguing? LOL, you're getting on a hype because I posted something silly. Yes. You win. It was silly. Happy now?
When I said the post in question it was in direct relation to bio-engineering. I personally don't agree with controlling physically other creatures. Sure we take advantage of them all the time, but I don't think that warrants unnecessary manual control for experimentation purposes. The original post I made wasn't a clear reflection of my stance I'll grant you, and as such I fully accept the scrutiny you gave it. Please understand that this post wasn't exactly a frickin' 'argument' which I took about an hour to think over. I just posted it within seconds, and was just going with whatever came into my head at the time. Now fair does, the statement I made itself wasn't grounded on anything but a personal preference but where did I state it was anything but? Before you start going off on one about ONE fucking little post why don't you go and criticize every other minute post which people have made in haste. Trust me there's thousands of them, but I don't see you hanging over like a vulture waiting to pounce on them.
Moros Wrote:I find it quite telling that you are demanding that I do your research for you, even when I gave you something to start over.
This made me LOL. You tell me all these things which are 'reasons for control' but then can't even answer whether the reason is experimentation or not? Well surely YOU would have done the research, because it is YOU making a fucking argument. It's not doing research for me it's doing research for YOU. If you don't know whether controlling animals is for experimentation or not yourself then what right do you have to suddenly start having a go at me, for asking a question regarding your argument?
I maintain I did not imply anything in my first post you seem to be arguing over. Someone asked for an answer to a subjective question, and I gave it. Now if you really have something to state as fact on that then you are the one doing the research.
When you assert a point you claim to be true but can't answer very simple enquries about the assertion you make then what's the point in making the assertion?
BTW I didn't ask for specifics about neural science for fuck sake, I just asked what is the purpose of controlling animals if you're NOT experimenting on them? If you can't answer this then stop making out like you're SOOO MUCH BETTER THAN MOI! for supposedly 'doing research'.
I mean really, I'm not impressed
