"Animal Rights" Extremists Getting More Aggressive and Violent

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Spencer278


Of course you would site antibiotics which were discorved 100 years ago by accedent. There hasn't really been any new medical cures for diseases. Don't forget that people really had little to do with antibiotics except for turning it into a pill.

Bacterial infections are relatively easy to cure.

Cancer is quite difficult. Most cures work by killing both the cancer and the patient, with the hope that the cancer dies first. And viruses can hide in the body in a way that cannot be "cured." However, because of AIDS, anti-viral therapies have come a LONG way.

Most "cures" now are prevention. Medical science has prevented most major diseases through the use of vaccines.

Of course, you'll continue to display your ignorance and keep bleating this myth without any evidence whatsoever.

You just danced around his post when he pointed out that your example is a poor one.

Point is that antibiotics weren't "developed", they were accidently discovered. There was no specific research into developing antibiotics, there was no industry surrounding it and there was no major funding involved. No fiscal benefits were being weighed at the time and the interests were purely in the name of science. No one went into that project thinking "I'm going to develop medicine and make a bajillion dollars". So there would be no benefit to withholding their findings at that time in history. Who is to say that they didn't withhold information or findings to some degree?

Sorry you must have confused thinking medical science as incomptent with a conspiracy. To use a car model. Right now medical science is about the same as jiffy lube.

 

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Spencer278


Of course you would site antibiotics which were discorved 100 years ago by accedent. There hasn't really been any new medical cures for diseases. Don't forget that people really had little to do with antibiotics except for turning it into a pill.

Bacterial infections are relatively easy to cure.

Cancer is quite difficult. Most cures work by killing both the cancer and the patient, with the hope that the cancer dies first. And viruses can hide in the body in a way that cannot be "cured." However, because of AIDS, anti-viral therapies have come a LONG way.

Most "cures" now are prevention. Medical science has prevented most major diseases through the use of vaccines.

Of course, you'll continue to display your ignorance and keep bleating this myth without any evidence whatsoever.

You just danced around his post when he pointed out that your example is a poor one.

Point is that antibiotics weren't "developed", they were accidently discovered. There was no specific research into developing antibiotics, there was no industry surrounding it and there was no major funding involved. No fiscal benefits were being weighed at the time and the interests were purely in the name of science. No one went into that project thinking "I'm going to develop medicine and make a bajillion dollars". So there would be no benefit to withholding their findings at that time in history. Who is to say that they didn't withhold information or findings to some degree?

To do so would require a vast conspiracy.

And while basic penicillin was an accidental discovery, it too nearly 40 years for them to figure out how to make it useful. That's called "development."

And billions have gone into DEVELOPING newer, more effective forms of antibiotics.

Look, I'm not the one dancing here. I actually need say nothing more than "prove it."

You guys are suggesting some huge, vast, industry wide, world wide, science wide conspiracy to withhold drugs that can cure previously incurable diseases. The burden is on you.

And the idea is simply absurd. The first person to develop a cure for a disease would be wildly rich. The idea that all drug researchers, and scientists sit on their hands for the "greater good" of companies while ignoring their own wealth, and the lives of millions is just simply absurd.

Well when you actually deal with someone who works in the industry and has the inside track on a daily basis then I would be more inclined to believe your opinion. Since you have no such contact, your opinion is merely anecdotal. If I really put the effort in I'm sure I could secure some hard evidence from my gf's sister. When I move home I may just do that, though I'm sure this discussion will be long gone by then.

No, the developer would not be wildly rich. The company would be. Once the developer creates the drug he/she immediatly becomes useless and will lose his/her job and most likely their entire career. These people devote their entire career/lives to researching for a cure of a particular thing. Once that thing is solved everyone involved in that research has now become obsolete. They are not ignoring their own wealth. Research and development generates mass amounts of wealth. Taking that away would cripple so many different aspects of the medical industry. Everyone involved in the current treatment of such ailments would be out of jobs and the entire industry would crumble. That would affect so many aspects of different industries. While one company makes boat loads of cash, whole other industries would disappear.

Since there is no internet link, or cnn article on the subject you don't believe that it happens. Way to think critically.
I would venture to guess that you don't think petroleum companies (like dupont) didnt pour amazingly large sums of money into getting cannabis(hemp) scheduled. Or that the big 4 drag their feet on developing something better than the ICE because it would ultimately destroy the industry they worked hard on developing.

Planned obsolescence is a fact of life wether you want to believe it or not. Vast conspiracies do exist and why would anyone involved ever let that information slip? Look at all thoes WMDs we found in Iraq, look at enron, look at the US govt involvement in middle eastern affairs in the past 50 years and tell me with a straight face that these conspiracies have no chance of existing.

 

[Sphexi]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
I love it when they break into a lab and ruin years of research. Good thing they destroyed a cure for cancer to save a couple hundred rats.

You actually think we'll ever find a cure for cancer? Lol. Well, actually, let me rephrase that. You actually think a cure for cancer will ever be released?

I think your tinfoil hat is on a little too tight today.

*shrugs*. I don't really see how you can argue with it. Pharmaceutical companies exist to make money. There is much more money (say that five times fast ) in the treatment of a disease than there is the cure.

These companies want to make products that make them money. There's a reason we have hair loss pills and boner pills and no cure for AIDS, cancer, etc.. It's not that complicated to figure out.

Actually, it only shows your incredible ignorance about disease and drugs.

It simply amazes me the myths people will believe with no proof whatsoever.

My gf's sister is a Phd that works with mosquitos in relation to disease transmittal. She works with SUNY and pharm companies that develop drugs. She has the same bleak outlook on drug companies and related industry workings.

It's fairly common knowledge that there is more money in continuing drug research and treatment than there is in producing a "cure". When R&D stop, so does grant and other money to entities such as universities and other private research groups. Producing conclusive results in a field of research is a sure fire way to kill your usefulness as a researcher.

This is not a myth and is a very sad state of affairs.

You know, I hear this over and over, yet no one can produce ANY evidence of any such conspiracy. NONE.

Produce evidence? How about hearing it first hand from someone involved in the industry? Why would someone involved in the industry report something like that? That would be even worse career suicide than producing conclusive results in research. It's also something that is extremely hard to truly quantify. Besides someone stealing confidential information from a pharm company or research facility it is nearly impossible to "prove".

Just because it doesn't make news, doesn't mean it's not happening. There have been papers written on the subject and also other information on the subject is out there. Do I readily have the information at hand on the internet? No I don't. Could I talk to my gf's sister and ask her for more information and guiding light, yes I can. She has personally had her research master fired for making such claims at the university of illinois and SUNY oswego.

It's not my line of logic, it's just what I have been told and shown by someone who works directly with the research industry. The state of affairs of medical research 70 years ago is much different than it is today. Now it is a multi-billion dollar industry with much more clout than it ever had 70 years ago. You cannot compare the pioneering of a field/industry to the state in which it operates today. It's just not a fair comparison.

Apply your line of logic to things such as nuclear development, aircraft development, space development, weapons development, communication technology development, and a number of other fields. In your line of logic as soon as something is discovered/developed it will be released to the public and immediatly utilized for the "sake of mankind". If that was the case the US(and world) would have lost WW1 and WW2, would have lost the space race, would not be the largest and most advanced world military power, and we would probably be speaking russian right now. Information and developments are regularly withheld in order to benefit the originator. That is just common sense.

I'm not saying it's some HUGE conspiracy or anything, but I've heard enough directly from the horses mouth to believe that it happens, quite a bit. I'm much more inclined to believe someone directly working within the industry than your blanket opinion.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050518/ap_on_he_me/cancer_surprise

Funny enough, they've developed a drug that has a huge effect on MDS, a blood disorder similar to leukemia but more common. And I quote:

"Revlimid "is not yet on the market but almost certainly will be" because of these findings, he said."


So, a drug that is a CURE for MDS, not just a treatment, and they're doing every thing possible to get it onto the market ASAP, not trying to hide it away so they can keep making money with less effective treatments.

And just because you know one person who works at one company somewhere in the "industry", and she's all bummed out about her job, doesn't mean much. My aunt worked for Merck for 35 years, one of their top researchers. My boss' daughter works for them now, and his son works for a different pharmaceutical company. Everything I've heard from them leads me to believe that the companies see a huge market for such cures, and are working very hard to develop them, knowing full well that there'll be new diseases in the future to deal with.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Spencer278


Of course you would site antibiotics which were discorved 100 years ago by accedent. There hasn't really been any new medical cures for diseases. Don't forget that people really had little to do with antibiotics except for turning it into a pill.

Bacterial infections are relatively easy to cure.

Cancer is quite difficult. Most cures work by killing both the cancer and the patient, with the hope that the cancer dies first. And viruses can hide in the body in a way that cannot be "cured." However, because of AIDS, anti-viral therapies have come a LONG way.

Most "cures" now are prevention. Medical science has prevented most major diseases through the use of vaccines.

Of course, you'll continue to display your ignorance and keep bleating this myth without any evidence whatsoever.

You just danced around his post when he pointed out that your example is a poor one.

Point is that antibiotics weren't "developed", they were accidently discovered. There was no specific research into developing antibiotics, there was no industry surrounding it and there was no major funding involved. No fiscal benefits were being weighed at the time and the interests were purely in the name of science. No one went into that project thinking "I'm going to develop medicine and make a bajillion dollars". So there would be no benefit to withholding their findings at that time in history. Who is to say that they didn't withhold information or findings to some degree?

To do so would require a vast conspiracy.

And while basic penicillin was an accidental discovery, it too nearly 40 years for them to figure out how to make it useful. That's called "development."

And billions have gone into DEVELOPING newer, more effective forms of antibiotics.

Look, I'm not the one dancing here. I actually need say nothing more than "prove it."

You guys are suggesting some huge, vast, industry wide, world wide, science wide conspiracy to withhold drugs that can cure previously incurable diseases. The burden is on you.

And the idea is simply absurd. The first person to develop a cure for a disease would be wildly rich. The idea that all drug researchers, and scientists sit on their hands for the "greater good" of companies while ignoring their own wealth, and the lives of millions is just simply absurd.

Well when you actually deal with someone who works in the industry and has the inside track on a daily basis then I would be more inclined to believe your opinion. Since you have no such contact, your opinion is merely anecdotal. If I really put the effort in I'm sure I could secure some hard evidence from my gf's sister. When I move home I may just do that, though I'm sure this discussion will be long gone by then.

No, the developer would not be wildly rich. The company would be. Once the developer creates the drug he/she immediatly becomes useless and will lose his/her job and most likely their entire career. These people devote their entire career/lives to researching for a cure of a particular thing. Once that thing is solved everyone involved in that research has now become obsolete. They are not ignoring their own wealth. Research and development generates mass amounts of wealth. Taking that away would cripple so many different aspects of the medical industry. Everyone involved in the current treatment of such ailments would be out of jobs and the entire industry would crumble. That would affect so many aspects of different industries. While one company makes boat loads of cash, whole other industries would disappear.

Since there is no internet link, or cnn article on the subject you don't believe that it happens. Way to think critically.
I would venture to guess that you don't think petroleum companies (like dupont) didnt pour amazingly large sums of money into getting cannabis(hemp) scheduled. Or that the big 4 drag their feet on developing something better than the ICE because it would ultimately destroy the industry they worked hard on developing.

Planned obsolescence is a fact of life wether you want to believe it or not. Vast conspiracies do exist and why would anyone involved ever let that information slip? Look at all thoes WMDs we found in Iraq, look at enron, look at the US govt involvement in middle eastern affairs in the past 50 years and tell me with a straight face that these conspiracies have no chance of existing.

The only anecdotal crap I see here is yours.

Provide proof of this mythical vast conspiracy.

 

[Garet Jax]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: imtim83
What if these people are all hot women lol ?

Being hot makes it OK to violate other people's rights

I agree

 

[DannyBoy]

Text

 

[91TTZ]

I remember watching coverage of an animal rights protest, and this one guy had a sign that read, "Insect Rights!"

 

The only anecdotal crap I see here is yours.

Provide proof of this mythical vast conspiracy

You can't provide "proof" which is why it's a "conspiracy".
We had "proof" WMD's were in Iraq, what exactly happened to that? Oh oh, it was a "mistake" right?

So, a drug that is a CURE for MDS, not just a treatment, and they're doing every thing possible to get it onto the market ASAP, not trying to hide it away so they can keep making money with less effective treatments.

And just because you know one person who works at one company somewhere in the "industry", and she's all bummed out about her job, doesn't mean much. My aunt worked for Merck for 35 years, one of their top researchers. My boss' daughter works for them now, and his son works for a different pharmaceutical company. Everything I've heard from them leads me to believe that the companies see a huge market for such cures, and are working very hard to develop them, knowing full well that there'll be new diseases in the future to deal with.

The article says that the results warrant further research into the drug. It's not a cure yet, but I understand what you're saying.

Of course companies like Merck see a huge market for cures, that is their industry and they will benefit greatly from developing such drugs. At the same time though, their developments can crush many aspects of the same industry. This is something that is calculated by insiders and will affect the outcome of certain areas of research.
I wouldn't say shes bummed about her job at all, she loves it. She is more bummed about the state of affairs in research as a whole. These people do intentionally drag their feet to a certain extent, that is more the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SampSon

The only anecdotal crap I see here is yours.

Provide proof of this mythical vast conspiracy

You can't provide "proof" which is why it's a "conspiracy".
We had "proof" WMD's were in Iraq, what exactly happened to that? Oh oh, it was a "mistake" right?

I sincerely hope you realize how illogical and irrational your position is. The burden is on you to prove this conspiracy exists. You cannot.

/debate.

 

[Kenazo]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
I remember watching coverage of an animal rights protest, and this one guy had a sign that read, "Insect Rights!"

As you watch him swat a mosquito that was biting him.

 

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

The only anecdotal crap I see here is yours.

Provide proof of this mythical vast conspiracy

You can't provide "proof" which is why it's a "conspiracy".
We had "proof" WMD's were in Iraq, what exactly happened to that? Oh oh, it was a "mistake" right?

I sincerely hope you realize how illogical and irrational your position is. The burden is on you to prove this conspiracy exists. You cannot.

/debate.

Amazing how easily you shrug things off because you cannot fathom that they exist.
Yes I fully realize the burdon of proof rests on me, and I cannot provide hard evidence it exists. If I could, then the conspiracy wouldn't exist now would it?
Since everything cannot be proven with hard evidence then they must not exist, right? At one time the earth was flat, the universe revolved around earth and drilling holes in peoples head cured headaches.

I find it troubling that you cannot understand planned obsolescence or the existance of conspiracies.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon
You just danced around his post when he pointed out that your example is a poor one.

Point is that antibiotics weren't "developed", they were accidently discovered. There was no specific research into developing antibiotics, there was no industry surrounding it and there was no major funding involved. No fiscal benefits were being weighed at the time and the interests were purely in the name of science. No one went into that project thinking "I'm going to develop medicine and make a bajillion dollars". So there would be no benefit to withholding their findings at that time in history. Who is to say that they didn't withhold information or findings to some degree?

To do so would require a vast conspiracy.

And while basic penicillin was an accidental discovery, it took nearly 40 years for them to figure out how to make it useful. That's called "development."

And billions have gone into DEVELOPING newer, more effective forms of antibiotics.

Look, I'm not the one dancing here. I actually need say nothing more than "prove it."

You guys are suggesting some huge, vast, industry wide, world wide, science wide conspiracy to withhold drugs that can cure previously incurable diseases. The burden is on you.

And the idea is simply absurd. The first person to develop a cure for a disease would be wildly rich. The idea that all drug researchers, and scientists sit on their hands for the "greater good" of companies while ignoring their own wealth, and the lives of millions is just simply absurd.

Another point to add is that a company that gets a real cure for cancer to the market will be depriving their competitors of the income they would get from their "preventative" cancer products. They may be making less mony from the cure, but the budget hit their competitors take more than makes up for it. So what if they can't sell their old not-quite-a-cure product? Their competitors can't sell those products anymore either, and they have a monopoly on the cure.

 

[Baked]

Meh, they technically didn't physically hurt anybody, and what they damaged and stolen is chump changed to those who they stole from. Do you know how much a Merck executive makes a year?

 

[DPmaster]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Spencer278


Of course you would site antibiotics which were discorved 100 years ago by accedent. There hasn't really been any new medical cures for diseases. Don't forget that people really had little to do with antibiotics except for turning it into a pill.

Bacterial infections are relatively easy to cure.

Cancer is quite difficult. Most cures work by killing both the cancer and the patient, with the hope that the cancer dies first. And viruses can hide in the body in a way that cannot be "cured." However, because of AIDS, anti-viral therapies have come a LONG way.

Most "cures" now are prevention. Medical science has prevented most major diseases through the use of vaccines.

Of course, you'll continue to display your ignorance and keep bleating this myth without any evidence whatsoever.

You just danced around his post when he pointed out that your example is a poor one.

Point is that antibiotics weren't "developed", they were accidently discovered. There was no specific research into developing antibiotics, there was no industry surrounding it and there was no major funding involved. No fiscal benefits were being weighed at the time and the interests were purely in the name of science. No one went into that project thinking "I'm going to develop medicine and make a bajillion dollars". So there would be no benefit to withholding their findings at that time in history. Who is to say that they didn't withhold information or findings to some degree?

To do so would require a vast conspiracy.

And while basic penicillin was an accidental discovery, it too nearly 40 years for them to figure out how to make it useful. That's called "development."

And billions have gone into DEVELOPING newer, more effective forms of antibiotics.

Look, I'm not the one dancing here. I actually need say nothing more than "prove it."

You guys are suggesting some huge, vast, industry wide, world wide, science wide conspiracy to withhold drugs that can cure previously incurable diseases. The burden is on you.

And the idea is simply absurd. The first person to develop a cure for a disease would be wildly rich. The idea that all drug researchers, and scientists sit on their hands for the "greater good" of companies while ignoring their own wealth, and the lives of millions is just simply absurd.

Well when you actually deal with someone who works in the industry and has the inside track on a daily basis then I would be more inclined to believe your opinion. Since you have no such contact, your opinion is merely anecdotal. If I really put the effort in I'm sure I could secure some hard evidence from my gf's sister. When I move home I may just do that, though I'm sure this discussion will be long gone by then.

No, the developer would not be wildly rich. The company would be. Once the developer creates the drug he/she immediatly becomes useless and will lose his/her job and most likely their entire career. These people devote their entire career/lives to researching for a cure of a particular thing. Once that thing is solved everyone involved in that research has now become obsolete. They are not ignoring their own wealth. Research and development generates mass amounts of wealth. Taking that away would cripple so many different aspects of the medical industry. Everyone involved in the current treatment of such ailments would be out of jobs and the entire industry would crumble. That would affect so many aspects of different industries. While one company makes boat loads of cash, whole other industries would disappear.

Since there is no internet link, or cnn article on the subject you don't believe that it happens. Way to think critically.
I would venture to guess that you don't think petroleum companies (like dupont) didnt pour amazingly large sums of money into getting cannabis(hemp) scheduled. Or that the big 4 drag their feet on developing something better than the ICE because it would ultimately destroy the industry they worked hard on developing.

Planned obsolescence is a fact of life wether you want to believe it or not. Vast conspiracies do exist and why would anyone involved ever let that information slip? Look at all thoes WMDs we found in Iraq, look at enron, look at the US govt involvement in middle eastern affairs in the past 50 years and tell me with a straight face that these conspiracies have no chance of existing.

The only anecdotal crap I see here is yours.

Provide proof of this mythical vast conspiracy.

This article really doesn't deal with conspiracies but it does detail how cough syrup does not really help and is nothing more than placebos. It seems as though over-the-counter cough syrup is nothing more than a reassurance tool for parents and children alike. You could probably get better results with bowls of chicken noodle soup and orange juice.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: SampSon

The only anecdotal crap I see here is yours.

Provide proof of this mythical vast conspiracy

You can't provide "proof" which is why it's a "conspiracy".
We had "proof" WMD's were in Iraq, what exactly happened to that? Oh oh, it was a "mistake" right?

I sincerely hope you realize how illogical and irrational your position is. The burden is on you to prove this conspiracy exists. You cannot.

/debate.

Amazing how easily you shrug things off because you cannot fathom that they exist.
Yes I fully realize the burdon of proof rests on me, and I cannot provide hard evidence it exists. If I could, then the conspiracy wouldn't exist now would it?
Since everything cannot be proven with hard evidence then they must not exist, right? At one time the earth was flat, the universe revolved around earth and drilling holes in peoples head cured headaches.

I find it troubling that you cannot understand planned obsolescence or the existance of conspiracies.

I fully understand the existence of conspiracies. But you are suggesting one that not only involves many people, but ALL drug companies, universities, private individuals, and governments. Not only are most of these people in competition, they are all over the world, as well.

In your previous attempt to provide "conspiracies" as examples, you provided one within a single company among top level management with a common interest, another is a SNAFU of intelligence and an open foreign policy with obvious goals.

None come even close to what you are suggesting.

Meanwhile, I do not "believe" in something without proof as you seemingly do.

 

I fully understand the existence of conspiracies. But you are suggesting one that not only involves many people, but ALL drug companies, universities, private individuals, and governments. Not only are most of these people in competition, they are all over the world, as well.

In your previous attempt to provide "conspiracies" as examples, you provided one within a single company among top level management with a common interest, another is a SNAFU of intelligence and an open foreign policy with obvious goals.

None come even close to what you are suggesting.

Meanwhile, I do not "believe" in something without proof as you seemingly do.

No, I'm not asserting that everyone involved in the industry is involved in some huge conspiracy. I was asserting that withholding of research information happens to some degree in all aspects of the industry. If someone developed the overall cure for cancer, I would expect it to be developed until it is released to the public. The cure for cancer is a high dollar game and receives much publicity. Withholding of information is more likely to occur in less prevalent developments.

I mentioned enron, and dupont. You could throw Haliburton into the mix if you want as well. The same thing happens with many corporations (Monsanto) devoted to developing genetically modified seeds and related agricultural science.

You can call the war in Iraq whatever you want, but to deny that it was setup to benefit a certain small group of people is foolish. Paint the picture whatever color you want, that is what happened.

Believeing in something without proof is what drives people to research and search for meaning. If this ideal never existed, we would still be in the dark ages.

 

[jbaggins]

while i do not agree with all they do, researchers and scientists do do some pretty fckd up things to animals. Sewing eyes shut, inserting microchips in brains, spraying dangerous chemicals in the eyes of animals.

A lot of this stuff is wrong. Even if it is in the name of science its wrong, just as terrorists claim their actions are in the name of religion.

again, i disagree with their actions, but understand their contempt.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: jbaggins
while i do not agree with all they do, researchers and scientists do do some pretty fckd up things to animals. Sewing eyes shut, inserting microchips in brains, spraying dangerous chemicals in the eyes of animals.

A lot of this stuff is wrong. Even if it is in the name of science its wrong, just as terrorists claim their actions are in the name of religion.

again, i disagree with their actions, but understand their contempt.

Yeah, and the best meat comes from animals that are slowly clubbed to death over a period of three months.

- M4H

 

[jbaggins]

Do you know what many Muslims do? During Bakhri -Eid they don't kill a goat right away. They let it bleed to death, over days. You can hear it crying and wailing for days. They poke at it slowly.

The meat tenderizes. This is nothing new.

Its still damn inhumane. Shouldn't be done.

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: jbaggins
while i do not agree with all they do, researchers and scientists do do some pretty fckd up things to animals. Sewing eyes shut, inserting microchips in brains, spraying dangerous chemicals in the eyes of animals.

A lot of this stuff is wrong. Even if it is in the name of science its wrong, just as terrorists claim their actions are in the name of religion.

again, i disagree with their actions, but understand their contempt.

Yeah, and the best meat comes from animals that are slowly clubbed to death over a period of three months.

- M4H

 

[BadNewsBears]

I thinbk it'd be funny to leave like 30 dead bunny's on their porches.

 

[firefaux]

whats even worse is that these people, who are so for animal rights, dont say a damn thing about insects used in research. have you ever seen peta protesting the testings on insects? billions are used and killed in research yet they only seem to make a fuss when cute furry animals are used. thats hypocracy for you.

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: firefaux
whats even worse is that these people, who are so for animal rights, dont say a damn thing about insects used in research. have you ever seen peta protesting the testings on insects? billions are used and killed in research yet they only seem to make a fuss when cute furry animals are used. thats hypocracy for you.

Because it's arguable that these insects can't feel pain in the sense that we do.

EDIT: For vague response.

 

[0roo0roo]

yup.alf...peta...all nutbags