User talk:Juror8
|
Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, Juror8.
This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble. We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives. Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you. If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be. |
Please do not blank page content the first thing you do. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Abortion[edit]
I’d have thought that someone who’s strongly against killing a mouse just because it was an animal would be pro life, am I correct? Or is whether or not you value a life based on whether or not it can suffer? I’m not trying to expose some inconsistency in your views, just curious. Christopher (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- It is a complicated one isn’t it? Surely if I am against killing animals, I should be against killing foetuses. I’ll try to explain my position, stay with me.
- To me, suffering is the most important to reduce. I believe that quality of life is more important than the quantity of life. This is often something that comes up in AR debates. “If we stop using animal X for purpose Y, then they won’t exist anymore!! You’ll drive them to extinction”. To me, however, that doesn’t matter. The vast majority of all animals brought into this world for industrial use (food, experiments, clothing etc.) suffer immensely, are treated horribly or just want to be free. I struggle to see how this is better than non-existence. After all, should we just keep producing babies non-stop because even though there will be not enough resources to sustain them, at least they lived?
- Back to abortion, in my belief that quality of quantity matters, I am pro-choice. Consider a woman gets pregnant, and for whatever reason (rape, incest, not ready etc.) decides she does not want to keep it. If she is made to go through with the pregnancy, this will deeply affect her life and for the child, either they will be born to someone who never (and may still not) wanted them and/or be sent to live in an orphanage until they can find a home. Of course, in some cases, these eventualities can be avoided, but I doubt in most cases. Criminalizing abortions has never prevented them from being performed[1], it just makes them unsafe: illegal abortions cause an estimated 68,000[2] to 74,000[3] deaths, with five million suffering from complications each year.
- I’m not fully comfortable on my positions on this, and am open to changing my mind (I have before). But this is how I currently feel about it.
- RockyRob97 (talk) 12:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Auto patrolled[edit]
Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.
We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:
- Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox) searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
- web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again!} Christopher (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Your user page[edit]
We do more or less "have to" hurt animals.
- in vitro "Test tube" methods of safety analysis cannot identify problems that correspond with whole biology reactions. Test a chemical's safety on skin cells and it causes brain damage? Oops. My bad.
- "In silico" is a joke. There's no simulation that even remotely can approach testing the interaction of just 3 proteins, much less some superset of all life. This is an absurd solution, and will remain so for at least a century.
- "Consensual research" of drugs with unknown side effects up to and including death? You're a fucking murderer of poor people. Also it becomes much harder to control for the effects specifically of tested drugs when dealing with human beings with complex lives. You're undercutting the validity of the science putting even at least twice as many people at risk to reduce the p values to where they'd be with mouse models. How about intentionally giving some of the people cancer at all the same so we can have effective control group, who will then definitely die. That's a great idea, right? Murder. This is committing murder.
- Epidemiology is already done, and is useless for drug efficacy testing, because the experimental drugs are new.
- Mechanical models. You're fucking joking. "I'm gonna pour this ascyltlated benzene on this lump of steel and see how it affects its heart rate and blood pressure". This is a joke
- "physico-chemical methods", guess what's before the animal testing already. This merely establishes mechanism, and conjectured side effects.
- "mathematical models", once again, already done. It doesn't solve the problem of efficacy and safety. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
- Woah, slow down there boy. I never was suggesting that these methods would or could completely replace all animal testing. I wrote "a significant amount", granted the use of the word "significant" here is probably not appropriate. I will change it. Two other points on what you wrote:
- "Consensual research" of drugs with unknown side effects up to and including death? You're a fucking murderer of poor people ... That's a great idea, right? Murder. This is committing murder.". I meant more along the lines of consensual research whereby a person agrees to test a method that might cure them. For example if I was terminally ill with cancer and the doctors/scientists proposed to me a line of medication that "might" work to fix it, and then letting me decide if I want to try it knowing it hasn't been fully tested for certain yet. If it was my only hope I'd go for it.
- *Mechanical models. You're fucking joking. "I'm gonna pour this ascyltlated benzene on this lump of steel and see how it affects its heart rate and blood pressure". This is a joke". Indeed, it is a joke, cause that's not what I was talking about. This was in relation to using dummies instead of animals in crash tests and the use of human-patient simulators.
- Finally, the title of your subheading reading "Your user page" , although you only discuss a small part of a section within it, makes me hope that you enjoyed the rest of the content on the user page.
- RockyRob97 (talk) 09:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Sysop[edit]
You are one Christopher (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
"Over fifty billion land animals alone are slaughtered every year. Not for health nor survival, but instead for convenience, tradition, habit and taste."[edit]
And they are delicious. Uncle Mark (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- I don't disagree. "but instead for convenience, tradition, habit and taste" RockyRob97 (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Political philosophy[edit]
Do you have a political philosophy beyond hard green environmentalism? Like, say, you a green anarchist or something? Vee (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Dead?[edit]
Hi, did the vegan diet kill you? --Äxl (talk)