.gif.6f457e4bb640d4d99fbf6055f573cf5d.gif)
.jpg.5e504fd389349f70b86804253b74e96e.jpg)
The Bard
-
Posts
8698 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by The Bard
-
I can't believe Fopp closed down
-
In b4 lock eh?
-
I'm happy with the limitations. The guys who got horrifically ill, yeah, that sucks for them, but at the end of the day, I couldn't give a shit, they volunteered, so it's alright. In fact, they should be admired. Hell, this is getting into Euthanasia territory, but I think the subjects might be aware that excessive drug trials could result in a mild case of death. I'm not volunteering, because I genuinely don't care. I accept that I might get very ill, I have been before, and like then, I won't refuse drugs either, but as I've stated before, if the drug is not there, I'm not the sort to get all weepy at the idea of my own mortality. Maybe, like applying to be a donor when you die, you should be able to apply to be a guinea pig when you turn into a vegetable. I don't know, fear of death leads people to do irrational and inconsiderate things...*points to Sonnet 11 by John Donne* Pretentious allusions ftw.
-
I'm pretty well practiced at keeping secrets. Not for other people though, so I don't know how that would work. Depends on how spiteful I was feeling at the time.
-
Oh, I'm sorry that I don't subscribe to whatever puppydog eyed fantasy is playing out in your head, Just because Animal testing continues, doesn't mean it's necessary you idiot, we can test on humans too. Example: Testing of the first polio vaccine. People volunteered, and the vaccine didn't work; they got polio from it. The difference is, the simple fact that they consented to the trial, shows not only that they had grit, but it also liberates everyone from any moral doubts. See what I'm getting at? Your statement "Humans > Animals" shows exactly how retarded you are, especially as this time, you're defining individuals by species rather than religion. I'm pretty sure I'd save the life of any organism on the planet over a Hitler. You see what I'm getting at here? Let me point it out to you: You are a dense motherfucker.
-
No, they do it because, like you, they have some odd will to immortality, regardless of the means.
-
"Little Children" haha...this guy sounds like one of those cheesy conscription posters. "Support animal testing...and save a little child." Animal testing is not the only way to find, or test cures, it's not even remotely essential. What I'm saying is that the nature of your morality is a little dubious, when you detach yourself so completely from the suffering of another living thing. You're saying that animal testing is "the lesser of two evils," when I'm saying that it doesn't need to exist at all. If I get ill, and there is no drug to save my life as a result of Animal testing being outlawed, I wouldn't be happy or sad as a result, I would be content in the knowledge that the sole purpose of another creatures existence was not to delay the inevitable. People die, children die, and so will you.
-
I'm not asking you to agree. I'm just asking you to accept that your opinion is not categorically exempted from being wrong or right. What I am asking you to do, is justify what you say. Unlike Mikey for example; "We don't owe animals anything." Self righteous to the core. We wouldn't survive as the only species on this planet. Funnily enough, though, Animals would get on a whole lot better without us. As the title states, this is supposed to be an "ethical debate." I'm not sure Mikey actually understands the concept of "ethics," and if he does, he just disregards it, or so the evidence seems to suggest.
-
You do realise that opinions can, on oh so many occasions, be plain wrong. You do don't you? Because if you don't, then you're not worth arguing with at all. Why don't we try approaching this in a more Socratic way? Why do you feel the need to say "It's my opinion, so I can't be wrong." It's like, you're trying to be objective in saying that, yes, we should test on animals, and when prompted by way of anything that resembles a proper discussion, you crawl into your shell of subjectivity and proclaim that "it's what you believe." Well, fine, beliefs are personal and all that shit, and if it only affects you, then it's alright, you can believe whatever the fuck you want, but we're talking about living things here, so when you talk about your "opinion," it just shows that this is nothing more than an issue of vanity with you... Exactly my point!
-
That is just utterly wrong. Do you think animals don't feel as you do? They show all the same basic emotions, and you're saying it's alright to kill or seriously maim these creatures because they're less intelligent? Then, I suppose you would say the same about testing on someone with a mental disability like Downs syndrome right? You're saying that, the right to life is correlated to intelligence in some way. A chimp, and a young human child, pretty much the same cognitive abilities, yet you would have no real qualm about killing the chimp, because it's not the same as you, it's different in some way, even though it thinks and feels, although perhaps not to the same degree as you, you don't know. That my friend, is the very sentiment at the heart of the kind of discrimination you all pretend to look down on so much. Haha...oh, I just re read that... "Survival of our race," eh? Yeah, I'm sure that with over 6 billion people, and overpopulation leading to plagues the world over, the very existence of the human race is at stake.
-
You are notorious for being an insensitive c.unt. We owe animals pretty well everything, and what you said is pretty much a colossal testimony to your lack of empathy. Yes, but doesn't the immorality of the means to the end eventually serve to do nothing but pervert the cause?
-
There is no big "ethical debate." We've had this argument before, and my reaction is the same as always: If it's our problem, we should sort it out on our own. Find someone who is willing to be tested on. What is it that gives us jurisdiction over the lives of sentient creatures? I'm not proposing some Auschwitz like ordeal, but the majority of human diseases are there as a result of our own idiocy and lack of foresight, so instead of using war to keep human populations in check, why don't we go right ahead and use drug testing, if it works, great, if it don't, shit happens. I'm only joking. But yeah, Animal testing = epic fail.
-
Are you dying? Also: I am not remotely apologetic for anything I have said, ever. Oh yeah, apart from that time I started talking shit at Villan in an attempt to get banned from this hauge time suck. That's my bad bro
-
The inclusion of those games makes this list redundant. Apart from that, I totally agree with the list, even though, I would move Guilty Gear from 10 to 3, and replace Tekken 3 with Tekken 5.
-
Mate! What the fuck! You play? Oh hell yeah. I shall see you online so I can kick your pansy ass as Akira. Even though I'm crap at it ...get Street Fighter Anniversary. I can kick anyones ass at that o_0
-
Have my babies.
-
It's his unflinching reliance on his objectivity, and his insistence that belief in god is a "meme" as he so calls it. Well, by that standard, atheism could be the same, and he is just as bad for being so vehement in his insistence towards being right. Beliefs are a personal thing, they are not to be dictated by someone else. Of all your "beliefs" or morals, that you believe to be "right" can you truly prove any of them to be so? As such, I believe that Hawkins should fuck right off and rethink his argument, and perhaps appeal to the subjective side of the people he is aiming to convert. People can never rely on bland rationality alone, and anyone who does is too dull to care about. As for debating, my old school, Manchester Grammar, we're actually 2nd in the country the year that I left . Bah Also, I hate god, the sadistic bastard.
-
Dickhead is a very very mild way of putting it. I would have no hesitations about doing vile things, that probably violate the Geneva convention to that guy. Sweet dancing Jehovah. I am anger.
-
Dawkins is has a habit of making the pathological seem ordinary, he's a manipulative bastard, and almost all of his arguments are flawed to the core. There are many reasons why one would loathe the idea of god, but he seems oblivious to all of them. McGrath, on the other hand, is the opposite, but equally as bad, he kept talking about "empirical fit" the idea that the thing that is easiest to believe is right...the guy is a christian....and in a funny twist of irony, I felt compelled to tell him that the simplest possible solution usually relies on the fewest possible presumptions... I'm way to drunk to argue, but I also did debating. I stand undefeated
-
You know Regina Spektor? Well...I'm pretty weirded out by that. Being constantly subjected to their trite, lyrically meaningless crap all day thru a bar jukebox probably had something to do with it.
-
After today, anyone who likes Razorlight; I hope you choke to death on some meaty, hairy mans penis.
-
I went to some bullshit talk by Alister Mcgrath about "the dawkins delusion," the guy wouldn't stop talking shit. But then again, I've seen Dawkins talk, and he's no better. I am also pretty fuckin drunk at the moment, and depressed, because I don't have enough self respect to let a good thing last.
-
Jesus, lads, lay off the downers. Why would you say you're not gonna get a gf till uni? You realise, there's gonna be some chick out there that's thinking the same thing about getting a bf. And I'm with Anil on this one, sexy kisses are epic win.
-
I might see you at Warrwick next year if you go there
-
Cool. And that sucks, like huge.
.thumb.jpg.63a7c435a99254f9a8496f1bf4e199f3.jpg)