|
Bwee posted:This is related: what do y'all think about this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/04/21/401219719/n-y-judge-grants-legal-rights-to-2-research-chimps ? tbf chimps kill each other for stupid reasons and can use tools so they're already essentially human.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:what's this I never heard about anything like that just simply that the more of your mass that is brain means you're higher up on the smart animal food chain, but it quickly turns out it doesn't work that way at all and an animal could be 1/3rd brain and still retarded
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #82 posted:Yeah I think researching on animals is fine and necessary, but if we can ever figure out how to do that research using a computer and produce the same results we should do that instead! Ditto for eating cloned meat someday I guess, but I am a bit of a hypocrite and won't eat clone meat if it doesn't taste as delicious as dead meat. yo as a scientist i would do lots of stuff in computers instead of the lab even without dumbshits protesting outside my doors or passing braindead laws if i could because i have a computer anyway and grant money is not infinite too bad that we currently can't even model a single cell properly yet so don't hold your breath for the next fifty years or so Beef Turret posted:It's wrong to torture animals for any reason actually tell that to chimps and dolphins since according to animal rights idiots they are persons or something (the obsession with extending animal rights to anything down to and including a loving sponge is a disease of civilisation, go live on an actual pre modern farm and experience the ~pure~ ~closer-to-nature~ life of killing vermin and slaughtering cattle to actually get a healthy diet ca. any time before canned food) suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:37
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:yo as a scientist i would do lots of stuff in computers instead of the lab even without dumbshits protesting outside my doors or passing braindead laws if i could because i have a computer anyway and grant money is not infinite how many puppies you torturing currently
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:how many puppies you torturing currently none (they just died because i forgot to turn off the vivisection laser while shitposting)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Researching which animal taste the best is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Applewhite posted:^^^ check out guy who's never heard of an IQ test, lol. IQ tests are almost completely meaningless among humans and completely meaningless when discussing intelligence among other species
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Pick posted:IQ tests are almost completely meaningless among humans and completely meaningless when discussing intelligence among other species mirror test
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Pick posted:IQ tests are almost completely meaningless among humans and completely meaningless when discussing intelligence among other species we gotta do what we gotta do, there is no other way to get that kind of progress. try not to think about it, wash your hands of it. we can make more, and it's like it never happened, just chill. enjoy the science.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
I think Chimpanzees have human-level intelligence (maybe equivalent to a 6 year old), we just can't communicate with them in their own way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
lets gently caress up all the animals
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
blowfish posted:mirror test okay, an animal can recognize itself in a mirror. that's a specific skill set, it doesn't speak generally. you can't use this to test a cave shrimp. you can't even use this test on a blind human.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Chimps like ripping the genitals and faces off of other chimps. They make dolphins look nice. gently caress chimps.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
I feel bad about chimps, but I also don't want to die of cancer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Pick posted:okay, an animal can recognize itself in a mirror. that's a specific skill set, it doesn't speak generally. you can't use this to test a cave shrimp. you can't even use this test on a blind human. maybe blind people are just too dumb to see check your assumptions, let's be objective here
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Kind of one of those topics where an absolute isn't the correct answer. Animal abuse is bad, obviously. However, medical research without animals = welcome to 1700. For real. So there has to be a middle ground somewhere. That said there's no reason to test cosmetics and poo poo on humans imo, that's just lazy and morally questionable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Enfys posted:Chimps like ripping the genitals and faces off of other chimps. They make dolphins look nice. gently caress chimps. I don't like chimpanzees either but they definitely feel stuff. I'm not unilaterally against animal research, I just believe it's important that the research is legitimate. Lots of animals die in labs for poorly thought-out studies that result in no publishable results.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
I think we should not put makeup on pigs but I think it's acceptable to murder monkeys to try and cure cancer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
if you're rubbing something that might give you cancer or melt your skin off on your face i think it's only fair that you don't do that by injecting it into something else's eyesockets to make sure it's safe first, you're the one who wanted weird crap on your face and isn't happy with the thousands of existing options for weird crap to rub on your face
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Pick posted:I don't like chimpanzees either but they definitely feel stuff. poorly thought out is a bad thing but not having publishable results doesn't mean the study wasn't worth doing. it just means that nobody will publish negative results even though they're valuable imo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Skinny King Pimp posted:poorly thought out is a bad thing but not having publishable results doesn't mean the study wasn't worth doing. it just means that nobody will publish negative results even though they're valuable imo. If you don't publish your results then they are useless scientifically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Skinny King Pimp posted:poorly thought out is a bad thing but not having publishable results doesn't mean the study wasn't worth doing. it just means that nobody will publish negative results even though they're valuable imo. [insert 50 page rant on stupid publishing culture and the need for a database for negative results] Pick posted:I don't like chimpanzees either but they definitely feel stuff. also animal experiments in basic research, and rewrite/get rid off boneheaded rules that actually result in more animal suffering (e.g. "yo ecologists, you have a license for sampling tissue, but not for animal experiments" = "you officially need to kill everything to sample 1mm˛ of skin instead of catching it and throwing it back in the pond after clipping 1mm˛ of skin") in addition keep in mind that lots of so called animal experiment deaths are just for maintaining lab stocks of stuff that dies even without actually having been experimented on, and animal dissections are a very useful tool for teaching biologists to appreciate how organisms function (you can use leftover dead rats from other work for some of that, but i am seriously pissed about e.g. development practicals on frog embryos being cut because of more animal experiment regulations making that hard)
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:If you don't publish your results then they are useless scientifically. to other people, yes, which is why we need somewhere to publish negative results because they are, in fact, scientifically useful and important
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
I've killed thousands of mice in the name of science
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
blowfish posted:yo as a scientist i would do lots of stuff in computers instead of the lab even without dumbshits protesting outside my doors or passing braindead laws if i could because i have a computer anyway and grant money is not infinite I worked in a neuroscience lab and the view was it would be nice to be able to do our research on a computer because dealing w/ animals is a pain in the rear end. problem is if we could model our research on a computer it would be pointless because we would already know what we wanted to know. also most scientists still have a sense of empathy and try to limit suffering. when we would kill a rat, we would put it to sleep first and then decapitate it. it was p humane since it just went to sleep and then died w/ no pain
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Skinny King Pimp posted:poorly thought out is a bad thing but not having publishable results doesn't mean the study wasn't worth doing. it just means that nobody will publish negative results even though they're valuable imo. I'm not talking about negative results being unpublishable, which is broadly true but its own problem. You're naive if you think a lot of just really half-cocked science isn't being done. I've been on such teams before, though never as someone important enough to change anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
As long as I don't have to conduct the research myself, sure. They are only animals, gently caress 'em.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Happy Hedonist posted:They are only animals, gently caress 'em. Beastiality testing continues. No centaurs so far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
We do horrible poo poo to animals everyday to make the production of food simpler, for entertainment, leather and fur, we melt down their corpses and put them in fertilises, turn them into polishes and oils. Most of us here know this and the vast majority of us willingly consume these products anyway and will keep on with it until we die. It doesn't feel great to think about but thats how life works, it exploits other life to survive and with humans in particular causes suffering for the sake of decadence. Like motherfuckers are willing to use a computer made from materials salvaged in a toxic pit by a 12 year old and assembled by another person who works a 16 hours shift for pennies a day and eat the mass produced abortions of caged birds but try giving a monkey a brain tumor in order to save lives and you'll have some hypocrite project the shame of their own parasitic existence onto to you so they can pretend they're not the same as every other organism on this planet. Animal testing when it's for the sake of curing a disease, or to study the effects of other important non makeup related things is noble compared to the rest of the everyday cruelty this existence is built on and if you're against it you're a bit of an rear end in a top hat. I would have mad respect for a person living in a forest off of nuts and sunlight and who devoted themselves to causing the least amount of pain possible to other living things, but thats not me and thats not you. Digital Fingers fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Pick posted:I'm not talking about negative results being unpublishable, which is broadly true but its own problem. You're naive if you think a lot of just really half-cocked science isn't being done. I've been on such teams before, though never as someone important enough to change anything. all I was saying is that being unpublishable isn't always because the science itself is bad. I've certainly seen my fair share of bullshit published with bullshit protocols and bullshit cherry picked results justified by bullshit statistics. just lots of bullshit really, so be sure you get yourself connected with some big name and then you too can publish whatever you want and get jobs and grant money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
if I were to apply for a large scale study to actually get robust results (instead of doing Yet Another Underpowered Experiment: did you know that
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
loving lol @ all the people who are like "UGH ITS BARBARIC TO TEST COSMETICS ON ANIMALS" when the 500 lb gorilla in the room (or makeup testing lab) is medical testing and you're a loving retard if you think we need to hold back cancer, parkinsons or alzheimer's treatments because of the feelings of lab rats
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
ANIME IS BLOOD posted:loving lol @ all the people who are like "UGH ITS BARBARIC TO TEST COSMETICS ON ANIMALS" when the 500 lb gorilla in the room (or makeup testing lab) is medical testing do they do medical testing on gorillas
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
ANIME IS BLOOD posted:loving lol @ all the people who are like "UGH ITS BARBARIC TO TEST COSMETICS ON ANIMALS" when the 500 lb gorilla in the room (or makeup testing lab) is medical testing i'm sorry your 500lb gorilla just got killed by people eating tasty animals
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Insects, except for bees, are okay. Mammals are not. Unless it's chiwawa and shampoo. That's hilarious to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
mazzi Chart Czar posted:Insects, except for bees, and butterflies, and dragonflies, and anything else that is larger than your thumbnail and has pretty colours are okay. fixed that for you (seriously go swing a butterfly net while suburban/small town/whatever-it's-called-in-your-cuntry trash are in sight)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Bwee posted:do they do medical testing on gorillas I know there's estimated 1,000+ chimps in labs in the USA, but that's not really a lot relative to how much important research relies on great apes, and the intense amount of paperwork required to get approval to use them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
blowfish posted:fixed that for you (seriously go swing a butterfly net while suburban/small town/whatever-it's-called-in-your-cuntry trash are in sight) I am a horrible and wretched man, and I for one enjoy the tiny tortured screams of butter flies and dragon flies and chiwawas
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
can we all agree that killing animals to make your dick bigger is stupid at least
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
I'm uncomfortably ok with medical research on animals because we haven't gotten to a point where computers are powerful enough to simulate potential cures for 1000 years in order to find out the effects, though that day is coming closer which is a nice thought. Am not at all ok with cosmetic experiments on animals, it's hosed we hurt other creatures in the name of vanity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 00:31
|
|