3 ms·
> Try arguing a point rather than coming from a place of emotion. Arguing that someone with a disability should support this because they might benefit, withou
by teachingassist 5y ago
> Try arguing a point rather than coming from a place of emotion.
Arguing that someone with a disability should support this because they might benefit, without reason or evidence for that, is an appeal (only) to emotion.
I find it ableist, to use disabled people as an abstract hypothetical grouping in this way, only to support a point that is indefensible any other way.
If you don't want me to have an emotional reaction, don't set up an emotive point.
- bigcorp-slave 5y agoYou know what I find gross and ableist? Using people like me as a tool to argue against the development of treatments that could help us. That is what you’re doing. You are so concerned with the suffering of animals that you are discarding the suffering of humans. You don’t have any evidence the other way either, you are exactly as guilty as the person you are responding to. Except you are arguing against performing research that can help people.
- teachingassist 5y agoI agree that suffering is a risk that we should balance. Your point in the other comment was that you would cause suffering to and sacrifice "hundreds of billions" of primates for a small chance to heal yourself. That's clearly not balanced. I personally don't think that animal testing as it exists today, and given the complete lack of direct results that it has to show us, is balanced either. Do you really value yourself, as a human, trillions of times higher than a chimpanzee? I don't and won't respect that. You saying that, out loud, only makes me wonder how much you internally value other humans.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]