iglak

i like anime primarily because of the in-depth drama in the story. american TV/movies can have drama in them, but it's usually kind of pointless: just there to add some flare to the whole thing. (good) anime, on the other hand, has drama that simply exists because that's how the characters react to the situations. because of this, animes tend to have amazing backstories for characters, and often deal with motivation and various emotions and human qualities in detail. for an example, take Naruto. it's a very popular anime that has been out for a few years, and is not even half finished (the dubbed version is also one of the worst i have ever heard). the main concepts are: - loneliness is the worst kind of pain. - pain makes people stronger (due to the determination it gives them to escape that pain). - evil is better than nothing. - true strength comes from trying to protect someone you care about. civilized society is comfortable, but it's not interresting. subjects like this, and related things like depression or murder or determination are frowned upon for conversation. most often, the reaction i encounter is "i don't care, i just want to be happy!" or "stop thinking about it and just do it." so anime becomes the only source i have available to give me any realistic sort of knowledge of motivation and emotions. sure, i could learn it all by myself, but animes give a good base and point me in the right direction to learn more. this is especially important as a teenager, when the emotional and motivational parts of my mind are growing the most.

i find meditation, especially in an attempt to control your mental focus, to work quite well. and martial arts helps with that immensely. also, browsing youtube; especially the anime music videos (AMVs), or anything that's funny. also, watching anime or a good TV show, because i tend to get sucked into those. also, video games. basically, anything that you can put 100% of your focus into. overload your senses somehow.

http://www.switch2hydrogen.com/ basically, this group has created a system that converts your combustion engine (and computer systems) to burn hydrogen. 4 long-range tanks, which are comparatively small, and fit well in most trunks, supply about 450 extra miles worth of gas. the system also seamlessly transitions from hydrogen fuel to gasoline fuel (automatically when the hydrogen runs out). the kit also comes with a hydrogen generator and 5 2'x4' solar panels (the minimum Wattage required to run the generator). the only problem is, it takes a week or two to fill the tanks using the solar panels.

one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. when the ALF uses arson to shut down a slaughterhouse, they are sending a message to other slaughterhouses that they will continue committing arson until all slaughterhouses shut down. that is a terrorist message, plain and simple. i, personally, can't say whether they are immoral or not based on my morality, because there are many unknowns as to what they are thinking when they are committing the acts. i would assume, though, that they are dehumanizing the building's owners and workers in order to commit the acts. now, as to whether the potential immorality of arson is worth it for stopping the potential immorality of the slaughterhouse, i don't know. there are far too many unknowns for me to think about that.

1) the point i am trying to make is that there is no such thing as a process or action that is dehumanizing. it is all about emotions and mentalities. the secondary point i am trying to make involves the difference in potential emotions and mentalities between species (in a potential persons way). let me rephrase something about my potential persons-esque argument: actions and logical thoughts are not a part of the definitions i am using for 'potential', 'desire', 'fulfill', 'morally', and 'equivalent'. 2) exactly. anything and everything that is dehumanizing is immoral. that is my moral code. but keep in mind that all actions and logical thoughts can be either dehumanizing or not, depending on the emotions and mentalities involved. therefore, all actions and logical thoughts are immune from my morality. that's all i'm going to respond to, because everything else is a misunderstanding based on poor communication (on your part or mine, or both)

Experiment #137 it works like that (really awesome video)

1) empathy is the ability to feel someone else's emotions, pleasures, and pains. parents tend to heavily empathize with their offspring. 2) i was referring to "child" in response to your question about children who are mentally or physically 100% incapable of influencing culture, now or in the future. your argument is invalid. 3) emphasis is prioritized on the target's desires to fulfill their potential. emphasis is prioritized as second to that on empathy with the target in that respect. 4) sympathize is different from empathize. i have no emphasis on pain. pain and death are not related to my morality. inflicting pain and death when motivated by purely mechanical or logical means is also unrelatede to my morality. thus, things that are unrelated: machines killing. sociopaths killing. killing sociopaths who hurt or kill. 99.99999% of animals killing. killing plants or anything from any other kingdom. empathy of physical pain. 5) i never said (paraphrasing) "everyone should get abortions" that's actually quite the opposite of what i said. i said (paraphrasing) "be aware, then make the choice" 6) no, just places emphasis on logic and mechanics being unrelated to morality, while emotions and potentials are related. 7) "because children are oftentimes naive about their potential" hence why they can't make important decisions like that. "and so now your original comment that killing infants because they are potential adults doesnt make any sense at all." i never said that. i said "killing infants becuse they desire to fulfill their potential to grow (on a very basic level)" "but how is that infants are moral equals to adults when they dont even have the mental capacity to fathom adulthood or even see themselves over time?" they're not moral equals to adults. i never said they were. i said they were morally equal to their growth potential. when i say "growth potential" (specifically growth, not anything else) i'm thinking approximately the derivative of the curve of growth over time at that point in time. 8) "Infants have no capacity to desire abstract things like influencing culture, so they dont fall under the scope of your potential person argument, and they are actually excluded from a claim of moral value precisely by your potential person argument." that's because i don't HAVE a potential persons argument. you're attributing my potential argument to mean an equal potential between all living beings, and that's just wrong. the potential changes over time, and even changes subjects over time. 9) "it seems rational to treat the people with precisely the characteristics they actually have than the ones they only desire and have yet to obtain." that's why i said that people should be responded to in "the now", yet morally treated as their desire to fulfill their potential. and because morals are unrelated to mechanical and logical responses like the ones you mentioned, all of these arguments are unrelated to my morality and invalid. also, those aren't exactly desires to fulfill potentials. because when i say that, i am also not talking about mechanical and logical things, i am talking about emotional and... the level above that which doesn't have a good word for it. 10) no problem. it gives me the opporotunity to clarify my morals, and see if i can actually communicate them in words. ""X is a potential Y, therefore X is morally equal to Y" when you originally made your comment, but then you shifted your goalposts around when it became clear that "X is a potential Y..." isnt a valid moral principle... you made a mostly ad hoc redefinition of your original claim to hold on to your point." i never specified one or the other until my last post. what i did in my last post was clarify my position to hopefully not allow for the same misunderstandings. i assure you, i have not changed moral positions, i have only clarified my wording. "However, based on your comments so far --- and please dont take this as rude --- I really dont think you understand your beliefs or have thought them out very much." i underestand my beliefs perefectly, but the problem is that they are contained within a higher system than words can define. when i respond, evereything i say makes perfect sense to me, but that's because i'm aware of my emotions, context, and subtle definitions of words. every word that is not specifically referring to mechanical motions has a gradient in which every pereson applies a slightly different meaning. the words i am using make perfect sense to me, but i can't communicate my emotions, context, or subtle meanings through them. words can only communicate mechanical and logical processes clearly. because my morality is unrelated to mechanical and logical processes, and insteaed uses the 2 levels above that, i have to try to use words to create a 2d picture of a 4d scene where the 2 dimentions that are visible are unimportant. it's extremely hard, because everyone interperets the 3d words slightly differently. 11) i don't think i can state what a higher desire is. masturbating, however, is a mechanical desiree, and thus unrelated. here is the context in which i created the definition of my moral code: the 7 deadly sins are literally painful to me, both when i use them and when others use them. through a LOT of thinking, i descovered that the sole connecting force between all of them is that they dehumanize the target. in contrast, the 7 heavenly virtues humanize the target. as a side note, the 7 deadly sins have counterparts that do not dehumanize, but instead provide motivation for the user. from my experience, every instance i have seen where someone is dehumanized, it results in them feeling depressed one way or another. depression, as i have experienced myself, leads to a feeling of a complete loss of individuality, or the ability to make choices. or as i describe it: death of mentality (the forth dimention in this context). but i also thought a lot about mechanical processes and reasoning in relation to morality. i realized that the only reason we think of killing or torturing as immoral is because we think about it a lot, and we ascribe emotions and mentalities to it. so what is it that seperates immoral murder from self-defence or hunting? the conclusion i came to is that it is dehumanization of the target. hunting does not dehumanize, it is instead completely unrelated to humanizing or dehumanizing (proper hunting, not those sadistic ones). sociopaths logically kill or hurt, unless they have no recognition of utilitarianism either, in which case they kill indescriminately; can we really call them immoral if they have no recognition of morality? they are killing purely mechanically and logically. additionally, because they have no recognition of emotions or mentalities, they can't be dehumanized, and are thus also immune to morality. so the actions themselves are unrelated to morality, it is simply what we ascribe to them which makes them moral or immoral. so the grand answer to 'what is immoral?' by me is: dehumanization. but what about animals? they can't be dehumanized because they aren't humans. so how do i allow for animals too? i know! "thinking of a life as less than it's potential". that allows for animals to be immorally treated too, but not as easily as humans. but then the question that i didn't relize is: how do we define 'potential'? well, i don't know if i can, because i'm thinking of a specific use of the word, one that isn't exactly common, and the definition of that use requires the use of words similar to potential, which will have different definitions for different people.

1) that's why i said 'potential' to influence culture. i believe almost everyone has the ability to be who they want to be, and more than that, want to be something fulfilling for themselves. exceptions include: mental illnesses that would prevent that, and humans being bred for experimentation. people who have absolutely no willpower to be aware of their existence in relation to the world, and whom i do not have an ability to 'save', exist in a no-man's land type of place in relation to my morals. where i will not do anything immoral to them directly, but i won't help them if they get into trouble, maybe even if it's indirectly caused by me. 2) when talking about babies or children, one must take into account the parents as well. killing and torturing the child would be morally equivalent to killing and torturing and the parents (because they tend to be connected on such a level). in the instances where the child is completely unwanted and unloved, then i support killing and torturing them. however, there's a third aspect to this that hasn't been mentioned. when a life empathizes with another life, causing pain to one life will hurt the other. since children are extremely eaesy to empathize with, doctors and experementors would be less inclined to expereiment on them. and not just because they themselves could empathize and be hurt, but also because it would likely get public attention, and most of the public would empathize. so torturing the doomed child is equivalent to hurting all of the people that empathize with it. 3) that's why my emphasis is on 'potential'. potential does not mean right now. persons are to be reacted to in response to the current situation, but are to be thought of as their potential. a child's potential is actually different from an adult's potential. a child's potential is to learn, and an adult's potential is to succeed with their dreams. "children can potentially consent to sex". no, children potentially learn and ask 'why?' and expect an answer, but consent deals with the 'right now'. children can potentially learn to consent to sex, but they can't consent to sex because they are still learning, and easier to take advantage of. "you are a potential corpse, so it wouldnt be wrong to bury you." "less than my potential" means anything less than the best possible scenario. death is the fourth worst scenario. mental death is the third worst scenario. emotional death is the second worst scenario. motivation death is the worst scenario. combinations exist. 4) i do not advocate "X is a potential Y, therefore X is morally equivalent to Y" i instead advocate "X desires to fulfill X's potential of Y, therefore X is morally equivalent to Y". again, and for clarity, i state that i believe every person desires their potential, 'less they are motivationally dead (as is common in today's society). i also believe that everyone can be motivationally revived. however, if i am not able to revive them, and i am not able to find someone who is able to revive them, then they have no desires, and are morally thought of as useless (though not physically dead). children desire to learn and experiment. children cannot desire to have sex, because they don't know enough about it until they become teenagers. please keep in mind when i am saying this that i am not saying "teenagers should be told to have sex all the time". i am instead not saying anything in relation to what teenagers are taught and suggested. instead, i am saying thatteenagers should be respected as desiring the potential to make decisions equal to adults, and also desiring the potential to learn everything they can. 5) people bred for experimentation have an invalid desire for potential. they can never achieve it (unless they break free, but that is irrelivent). i support breeding humans for experimentation (although it would be hard to morally start the process, because the first person wouldn't exactly be morally bred). 6) abortion is a touchy subject. many people believe that fetuses are capable of feeling and thinking in the most basic sense (very basic desires). so my stance on abortion is: as long as you are aware that the child is yours and is capalbe of growing into an adult (satisfies the possibility of desiring potential for growth), torture and kill him/her all you want. fetuses are in transition from non-existance to existance. actually, scratch that. i am going to start having a defined stance on abortion as of now: fetuses with a brain stem have the desire (in the most basic sense) to continue growing. stopping the transition from non-existance to existance is exactly that, and morally equivalent to exactly that. it's not murder, but it is not morally negligable. destroying a fetus without a brain stem is almost morally equivalent to other forms of birth control, or masturbating, which have no relation to morality because the potential life has no desires and cannot have any desires at that time. although the fetus is transitioning into having desires, so it has minor moral basis. 7) good thing this doesn't apply to me. my morlity is that "X desires to fulfill X's potential of Y, therefore X is morally equivalent to Y". the characteristic in my morality not found in animals is the 'desire' part. most animals simply desire to live. higher desires should be treated with higher respect. but a desire to simply live and nothing else is low priority.

no, silly. it'll be like stargate

1) my personal definition of morality in an absolute sense is: thinking of a life as less than it's potential is immoral when influencing (directly or indirectly) that life. this allows for torturing an murdering animals as long as they are respected for their potential. and most animals are incapable of influencing human culture. and most to-be tested and slaughtered animals are incapable of influencing any animal culture. this also allows for discrimination in the sense of telling someone that i do not want them to influence or be influenced by me, and wish for them to leave permanently. 2)human infants have potential to grow into human adults, and are thus not the same as other animals. i also approve of abortion, with the knowledge that they could indeed become great influencial people. similarly, i approve of murdering humans if they are heavily destructive towards my or my friends' lives; but only in self-defence, not after the fact or before the destruction is necessarily going to occur. and canibalism of someone who has already died has no relation to my absolute moral values, and i approve of it. 3) you're right. when i think about it that way, it's a very hard question to understand. i believe Dr. Dalek was referring to 'necessity' with the belief that animal experimentation is a necessity to save human lives, with the potential that oneself might also require the result. and i believe 'morality' is referring to the belief that every animal should be treated with equal respect. so let's see, the question is asking: why should survival - which to Dr. Dalek is uninfluenced by moral values, and of a higher priority - be given a moral value weighted less than the moral value of respecting all animals equally; or why should it be given a lower priority, and what are the terms of that priority? or as a summary question, i think: why is survival of myself and my species less important than survival of individuals from another species? but then i guess that kind of brings us back to the beginning of the thread.

as Dave pointed out, comfort is different from happiness. "not caring" is a strange subject. the next step towards happiness is when you can listen to what people say and think about them, but not emotionally attach to anything. thoughtfully care, but not emotionally care. then the next step is when you can control your emotions to the point where you only let them influence you when you want them to. imo, true happiness is when you are able to do what you want without influence. but truer happiness is when you want something fulfilling to you, rather than comforting. and friends and emotions can be quite fun and interresting.

i'm sorry, i meant to imply that it's not an absolute thing by saying "(general)". in the sense that one person does not matter, nor do even 20% of people matter. the point is that the general population sees the government as one of those two things. this is evidenced and enhanced (mostly enhanced) by the medias. also, i consider the government a seperate entity simply because i have no idea what they're doing or why. they keep lying and hiding things. and i don't think it's possible to be a part of something that doesn't communicate except to appease "A coup d'état (pronounced /ku de'ta/), or simply coup, is the sudden overthrow of a government through unconstitutional means by a part of the state establishment, that mostly replaces just the top power figures. It is also an example of political engineering. It may or may not be violent in nature. It is different from a revolution, which is staged by a larger group and radically changes the political system." (Wikipedia) this is a stretch, but could a coup include planting a political figure into presidency, and unconstitutionally bypassing many checks and balances (or psychologically controlling those checks and balances with threats)? meaning: Bush Jr. and conspiracy theories.

that brings up an excellent other question which i was hesitant to post. why should we not discriminate? in general. if you truly believe that the criminals should be experimented on (the murdering and raping ones), then i can't really touch you. however, what's the limit? what if you were accused of a murder or rape you did not commit, and were put in prison? that happens every once in a while. also, what happens when the criminals adamantly refuse? i suppose you could give them a sedative and restrain them. but that wouldn't be the best scenario, because it wouldn't be as much of a real-life situation for the drugs. the drugs may react differently. but also, what about when the criminal is let go? i know the first thing i would do in that situation is kill everyone around me to survive, and i would struggle endlessly to get out of the restraints and kill my experimentors. this would make for a very dangerous job that many experimentors would not want to do. also, what about drugs that are focusing on a certain demographic or peresonality, or a wide range of them? prisons inmates tend to have very similar personalities and demographics. it would be really hard to test appropriately. so i guess i'll try to answer the discrimination in general question. i'll kill you if you try to kill me. but i don't mind if you simply want me to leave. therefore, in the interrest of staying alive, i would rather not intend to kill or seriously hurt anyone.

that's not exactly true for today's US culture. the people are split into two halves (general). one half believes that the government is a foreign harmful entity. the other half believes that the government is an all-powerful entity (like an owner), who's duty is to make life better for everyone (or at least that half). but the thing is, both halves view the government as a foreign body. and for all intents and purposes, it can be called one, because it does not give the people adequate knoledge of it's affairs, and thus little ability to disagree. it is acting as a controlling owner, not as a helpful organ.

Planck time? and pixels are Planck Length?

i'll summarize their questions for you: why should we extend morality to non-humans who we do not easily mentally connect with? why should we not discriminate against non-humans? why should necessity be less important than morality?

there's a slight problem with that. the government isn't worrying about people getting weapons and starting a civil war. the government is worried about people getting the <i>chance</i> to get weapons and start a civil war. muskets and othere gunpowder guns are... very rarely talked about in the context of gun laws, and only given a passing glance if talked about. out of the 350 million, i'd guess that maybe 100 million would be able and willing to buy a gun (the rest are too crippled to shoot straight, or too young to know what they're doing, or are simply against owning guns). of that, i'd guess that maybe 50 million would be willing to buy a musket. of that, i'd guess that maybe 25 million would be willing to learn how to use their musket sufficiently well. but reality will likely be MUCH less than that, due to the idea that muskets can't win against a modern gun. the idea of owning a gun is not only protection against robberies and the like, but also protection againts the government if they ever decide to confiscate guns, or anything related. a musket might work for one shot, if you keep it loaded, but modern guns will always win out due to speed (if not accuracy and power too). think about it though. in a fight against 350 million muskets, what could the government use to win (not that winning would do anything, because everyone would be dead)? tanks, jets and helicopters, machine guns and gatling guns, intelligent tactics, bombs. now let's say that they're going against the more realistic 25 million. let's say there's even a civil war about it. due to one side only carrying muskets (and not being very intelligent due to a lack of being well regulated [as a consequence of today's culture]) at BEST, 1 million government soldiers would be killed, and 25 million "rebels" would be massacred. at worst, 0 goverenment soldiers would be killed, and 25 million rebels would be assimilated into US culture through drugs and the like, or put into concentration camps. why is that worse? because being mentally dead is worse than being dead (even the founding fathers said that [basically]) but that would not happen. because the government is trying to stop it at the very source: by not allowing citizens to gain the mental will and acuity to want and initiate a civil war in the first place. guns are harmless toward the government if they are controlled, or if people think that they are inherently evil. guns are extremely dangerous toward the government, however, if they are respected. because guns, and the intelligence required to respect them, have the power to give people courage to stand up for what they think is right. i also think it's really amazing that nunchuks are illegal (and being confiscated) in some (US)states (New York and California, and maybe others). democracy... are you sure? in what way? voting, sure. but you're forgetting about voting fraud and misdirecting voters. logical fallacies are extremely effective in politics (especially towards the general population). what kind of democracy is seperated into two sides who aren't willing to listen to eachother? furthermore, what kind of democracy is split in many other ways with each side unwilling to listen to the other? even nuclear families are split are split in that way (see: teenage angst). what kind of democracy exists where only the democratic and republican parties are seriously talked about in elections? what kind of democracy exists where we keep worrying about terrorists extremists, and keep pointing fingers? what kind of democracy exists where the media is heavily censored, and the goverenment is close to big brother? what kind of democracy exists where people are HAPPY that airplanes may be given extra security in the form of complex lie detectors in order to determine intent? that's pre-emptive law, making arrests to stop a potential (not necessary) event, based on people's current thoughts. we're getting ever closer to communism (and not in a good way).

i like that one. or MetaThoughtForums.net, simply to parallel ScienceForums

i had a romantic experience in college with a heavy christian. i am heavily a (weak) athiest. there was a LOT of drama surrounding the relationship. specifically: her ex, who she broke up with because of proximity issues, is a priest's son, and turned out to be extremely obsessive. there was also a "rival" of sorts, who lived in the same dorm, who is heavily christian as well. summary of the whole thing: they told me they were raised to believe that athiests are evil, compared to christians. she was more attracted to me at the time, but her religion didn't allow it (there was a specific quote she used, which i later found out to be inconsequential to today's culture, but she believed it anyway). due to my romantic interrest, i became (genuinely) interrested in christianity for a while. she wanted to lure me to christianity by showing me how well she could handle the situation (with the drama with her ex). but she was instead extremely surprised at how well i handled it. before things got serious, i chose to let go, to give up, so that i wouldn't cause her even more discomfort, and so that i wouldn't accidentally control her in some way. i dunno. i actually think it's a good thing that athiests are getting the religious hate. athiests aren't exactly likely to start a war over it. if a war happens to start, most will try to stay out of it anyway. just think of it as.... taking everyone else's sins. forgive them, they're only human YT, what counts as "religious discussion" in the GD forum when the topic is fairly religious? is it anything that questions or debates the validity of one religion/belief over another?

Jim's situation is very reminiscent of the problem that the P&R forums pose. these forums tend to bring in excessive emotion. this tends to result in people getting connected to their opinions, and the forum in general. leave if you want. stay if you want. don't let anyone elsee influence your decisions. things like "we'll miss you" only complicates the emotions, which will be reflected in your posts. or, you could simply take a break, like i tend to do a lot. leave the forum, but keep your account and keep the bookmark. come back in a few months when you think "oh hey, i forgot about that website. i wonder what the newest topics are." or search for new forums. i frequented philosophyforums.com for a while. i would still be there, but i was banned for "pseudophilosophy". i don't know why (no explanation was given beyond that, and my posts were all deleted). as far as i know, i was being completely objective and always had supporting evidence. so i question their validity a bit, but whatever. and remember, as was already stated, P&R is not banned, it is simply now required that it be in proper context, and with proper scientific (which can be heavily philisophical anyway) basis. having a new forum on philosophy and religion will be quite similar to the old P&R forums anyway. and probably better than most forums you could find by searching.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "a well regulated Militia" very simply refers to intelligently armed citizens. meaning that what we have right now - people owning guns to give them some comfort from their fears - is not well regulated in any sense. well regulated is what the responsible gun shop owner does when he sells a revolver to people who are new to guns, telling them to get used to it before buying a modern gun. well regulated is what hunters do. well regulated is what people do at the shooting range. "being necessary to the security of a free state" very simply refers to the ability of a well regulated Militia to secure a free state, and all of the freedoms and states that come with it. Militias don't wrk with the government unless they want to. a Militia can either help the government or fight against it, by definition. a well regulated militia has the ability to fight against injustices in order to secure their free state, whether the injustices be from the government or from an invading force. withough well regulation, a Militia will not easily form in the first place, because the people holding the guns will not have the intelligence to band together to secure their freedoms. exampled by today's culture: theree's simply too much fear to make intelligent decisions. in addition, without well regulation, any Militia that does form will not be inclined to secure their free state, but will instead fight to get rid of anything that they're afraid of. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" "shall not be infringed" these two don't need any explanation. the second amendment gives the people the ability to form a Militia to keep the security of a free state, against anything that wishes to take that free state away. this includes forming a Militia to initiate a civil war, as well as forming a militia to protect a state when the Armies can't. i'd also like to point out that the NRA is actually destructive towards Arm freedoms. the NRA makes compromises. as a result, we now have 50% of our Arm freedoms, as opposed to the 100% we started with. --Quotes-- "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world." "Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate. The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln "If we want freedom, there should be an armed rebellion every 20 years." "what country can perserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people perserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manuer." -Thomas Jefferson "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Fraklin "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president... is morally treasonable to the American public." "We need the iron qualities that go with true manhood. We need the positive virtues of resolution, of courage, of indomitable will, of power to do without shrinking the rough work that must always be done." -Theodore Roosevelt

more human testing and less animal testing means less knowledge of effects before human testing. this means potential for harm is much greater than if animal testing is allowed. by forcing untreatable/reoffending criminals to become test subjects, you subject them to the possibility of death or permanent mental or physical damage. just the possibility of death, no matter how small the chance, should be treated as a guaruntee. the reason being that out of however many criminals you test, some will die, and you have absolutely no idea who; it could be any one of them, or all of them. so my question is: are you saying that we should give all untreatable/reoffending criminals the death penalty? i suggest instead giving them a choice of being tested on to reduce their sentance. you're forgetting that most drugs are never even given clinical trials, because they are too dangerous. think about this, if there are less tests on animals, more drugs can potentially reach the clinical trial stage, with less information. more drugs means more potential for harm, including much more potential for life-threatening harm. less information means that the doctors conducting the clinical trials will have a much harder time saving the patient from damage if a problem occurs. this means much more danger overall. more danger means less volunteers. for something like clinical trials, where volunteers are already very afraid of danger, increasing danger by so much would be detrimental to the process. it would become nearly impossible to convince someone to volunteer. you could certainly force criminals to become involved in clinical trials, but that would be morally the same as enforcing the death penalty on all of them (if not killing them, then you are destroying their humanity, dehumanizing them into nothing (although it's not as if prisons don't already do that)). more animal testing means safer clinical trials. safer clinical trials means more clinical trials. more clinical trials means more drugs will be deteremined unsafe for the general population (and thus not allowed on shelves). humans remain the center of our universe in this regard simply because animals are currently a renewable resource. no animal will ever impact human society the way any human can (besides through animal testing). humans are not a renewable resource, not until we farm and harvest human clones.

i agree with brutally torturing and murdering animals for testing and food if they were born for that purpose, or if they are going to be euthanized anyway (PETA euthanizes more than half of the animals it saves, btw). i agree with brutally torturing and murdering HUMANS, if they are specifically born for the same purpose, or donate their bodies as they are about to die (such as chosing a new experimental medicine over unlikely current medicines). however, i believe it's morally wrong to put someone in a position where they would give birth for testing. artificial wombs growing donated sperm and eggs, however, are acceptable. i also think it's ethically wrong to NOT publish the nazi experiments, simply as a very useful memorial.

only if they identify with the characters, can put themselves in the minds of the characters, and wish there were more half-animal characters. most furries don't have half-animal fetishes (except for cat-girls). most just tend to be fans of the idea of mixing animal and human physical and mental characteristics. then the step beyond furries is yiffies, who fantasize about (and sometimes act out) sexual encounters with half-animals. and that can go farther into whatever fetishes you can find, with or without half-animals. cat girls are awesome, but fetishes are weird... and sometimes creepy.

that's becausee these days it tends to be an admission of defeat. society has brainwashed adults into thinking that children are just children. teenagers with angst is just a phase. depression is just a chemical imbalance. students are still learning, and thus need our help. the problem here is the "need" part. sure, adult help helps, but if an adult thinks that a child needs his/her help, that's age discrimination, it's dehumanizing, and extremely rude to the child. to us, it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, it matters that you don't dehumanize us by lumping us all together as "children". of course, this causes the reverse to be true too. due to this dehumanization of children and teenagers, the children and teenagers tend to react accordingly, by lumping all adults together as "those people that refuse to respect me". thus angst. thust depreession. thus hate. thus more dehumanizing. etc. this is less true with less meaningful relationships. the closer an adult and child are, the more protective the adult tends to be, and not in a good way. for some reason, as people begin to know eachother for a long time, they tend to see eachother as images, as the same people they were a long time ago, which doesn't allow for much growth or change. the problem tends to start with the parents and teachers.