2 ms·

Thanks. I haven't had much sleep since starting this project, and so it looks like I mucked up the numbers. I'll redo the numbers and get the stats straight. S

Thanks. I haven't had much sleep since starting this project, and so it looks like I mucked up the numbers. I'll redo the numbers and get the stats straight. Stats aren't the core of what I'm doing here though. I'm creating a choice.

IanCal 13y ago
I'd also fix your reference to the experiment to either point out it was in 1967 or find a more recent one. > Stats aren't the core of what I'm doing here though. Of course they are. We can't weigh pros and cons without actual statistics. You ask the question " But is the outcome worth the cost?". The idea that a drop of 3 orders of magnitude doesn't affect your position is interesting. If before that, someone had said "You're right! I'll put through a legal process that doesn't affect the scientific output but saves 99.97% of the cats, it'll be in place tomorrow" would you have accepted that? Because that's essentially what's happened for you. I think you really need a source for this as well: > The unlucky ones end up in science labs to be experimented on. That doesn't sound right at all, experiments need very careful controls of things like genetics and disease. I'd definitely like to see a source for the suggestion that researchers just hit up random people on craigslist. > The cause of suffering and death of these animals are as varied and limitless as the researchers curiosity. This statement exists somewhere between inaccurate and libellous. Do you actually know what process is required to do animal testing and what controls there are? Unless you know this you cannot effectively argue against it.
- mindlines 13y ago
  I'm continuing to research the subject and have a few key interviews next week that will no doubt be highly informative. And don't threaten me with your libelous bs. The world of science and animal testing isn't as ethical and transparent as it should be. I'll call it as I see it.

IanCal 13y ago

I'd also fix your reference to the experiment to either point out it was in 1967 or find a more recent one. > Stats aren't the core of what I'm doing here though. Of course they are. We can't weigh pros and cons without actual statistics. You ask the question " But is the outcome worth the cost?". The idea that a drop of 3 orders of magnitude doesn't affect your position is interesting. If before that, someone had said "You're right! I'll put through a legal process that doesn't affect the scientific output but saves 99.97% of the cats, it'll be in place tomorrow" would you have accepted that? Because that's essentially what's happened for you. I think you really need a source for this as well: > The unlucky ones end up in science labs to be experimented on. That doesn't sound right at all, experiments need very careful controls of things like genetics and disease. I'd definitely like to see a source for the suggestion that researchers just hit up random people on craigslist. > The cause of suffering and death of these animals are as varied and limitless as the researchers curiosity. This statement exists somewhere between inaccurate and libellous. Do you actually know what process is required to do animal testing and what controls there are? Unless you know this you cannot effectively argue against it.

mindlines 13y ago
I'm continuing to research the subject and have a few key interviews next week that will no doubt be highly informative. And don't threaten me with your libelous bs. The world of science and animal testing isn't as ethical and transparent as it should be. I'll call it as I see it.