5 ms·
Humans need to have some fucking respect.
by adamnemecek 9y ago
Humans need to have some fucking respect.
- valuearb 9y agoA bear ain't going to treat you nearly as well when the tables are turned.
- adamnemecek 9y agoI don't care.
- fao_ 9y ago... that's really no excuse? 1. How many animals have humans driven to extinction now? Perhaps they would not be extinct were people to treat them with greater respect. 2. If you treat an animal with respect the tables will never have an opportunity to turn, because you won't be blatantly trespassing on it's turf.
- thatswrong0 9y agoUsing animals as test subjects isn't really comparable in magnitude to the damage we do on a global scale to ecosystems, which is what is actually causing extinction
- jacquesm 9y agoThat we do even worse is really no excuse.
- thatswrong0 9y agoIt’s not an excuse. There are just way way way better things to focus our outrage
- coldtea 9y agoWho said an excuse is needed? That's what nature is. Species using other species for food, for starters...
- musage 9y agoYou're saying this on HN, where people get shadowbanned for saying "peep". Instead of, say, advocating for people just murdering each other being the norm.
- fao_ 9y agoThat's whataboutism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
- coldtea 9y agoWhich is a different name to "putting things in perspective", -- used to make it sound like a bad thing.
- valuearb 9y agoWhat if you are just out for a run? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=renTN4IlSjQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=renTN4IlSjQ
- lopmotr 9y ago2. Pretty much all human buildings are on land that was previously occupied by animals and those animals are now excluded from those areas. Do you want to demolish human civilization and cut the population down to numbers small enough that we can all survive eating vegetables from places that animals can't reach?
- 0xfeba 9y agoThis reeks of naturalistic fallacy. Humans are bad because we exploit animals. Yet, humans are animals, and this is what animals do given the chance. We don't need an excuse. Just because we can introspect and consider the ethical state of things doesn't mean we have to abandon all progress and be an agrarian society. Can we improve? Sure. I don't like to see anything needlessly suffer, but a few bears being killed in the name of science is a drop in the bucket to other concerns.
- fao_ 9y ago> This reeks of naturalistic fallacy. Humans are bad because we exploit animals. Yet, humans are animals, and this is what animals do given the chance. We don't need an excuse. > Just because we can introspect and consider the ethical state of things doesn't mean we have to abandon all progress and be an agrarian society. It's exactly because we can introspect and consider the ethical state of things, that means that we should. The fact that you can think and reason about the fact that you're stealing from someone else, or otherwise harming something else, the fact that you are (hopefully) intelligent enough to think of a different way, means that you have a moral duty to be better than that. You argue that I succumb to the naturalistic fallacy, and yet you are the one doing so. You argue that we do not need an excuse for our behaviour because we are animals, and it is natural for animals to exploit other animals. In addition to that grave error, you're also making a complete false equivalency in equating "not using a random bear as a test pilot" with "abandoning all progress and becoming an agrarian society".
- userbinator 9y agoIndeed. In fact, a bear is quite a bit more sturdy than a human, so the fact that one survived an ejection only means a human might have a chance; but it was to establish a possible upper limit.
- coralreef 9y agoI don't know about that, a bear society that is capable of supersonic flight might have some different code of ethics.
- jakeasmith 9y agoThis got a loud, hearty laugh out of me. Someone get this person a beer.
- jacquesm 9y agoChances of bears testing humans in ejector seats are rather low. In spite of bears being massive and dangerous humans are far more dangerous to bears than the other way around, even before we start using them as test subjects for new technology.
- uhtred 9y agoSure, they'd eat you for food / out of necessity. They wouldn't mutilate you just as an experiment though.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Pxtl 9y agoIt's the reality of testing. You have no idea how many animals died to produce every drug you've ever taken: http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1676-5-horrifying-realities-testing-drugs-lab-animals.html http://www.cracked.com/personal-experiences-1676-5-horrifyin...
- userbinator 9y agoNo kidding. If it weren't for the animals it'd be us. It's always ironic to see animal rights advocates' responses when they are asked if they'd rather volunteer to be the research subjects instead. They are surprisingly reluctant... This tends to make them ponder a bit more: "If we hadn't experimented on animals, you might not even be alive today."
- XzetaU8 9y agoIt was for us as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...
- eeZah7Ux 9y ago> "If we hadn't experimented on animals, you might not even be alive today." That might apply to some life-saving drugs. Cosmetics and weapons are not medicines - far from it.
- HeyLaughingBoy 9y agoIf it weren't for some weapons, you might not be alive today either.
- duncan_bayne 9y agoThey do. For human life. Edited to clarify: that wasn't a criticism.
- coldtea 9y agoWell, the universe doesn't have any "respect" for anything.
- adamnemecek 9y agoWow, ur 2 smart. Mind=blown!