planetgreen.discovery.com— European researchers have planned an experiment in which 29 live pigs are to be buried under snow, and where they will essentially be observed dying.
Jan 15, 2010View in Crawl 4
Yes, I have a pet, that I love very much. But if the choice came down to his survival or mine, there is no hesitation. He is worth more than mere possessions, but is not worth more than my life or the life of other people I know.
Our brutal nature compels us to kill other human beings whenever we feel like it, and yet we have laws against that. Why? People who fall back on the "it's just natural" excuse tend to pick and choose which natural behaviors we should continue doing (treating animals as mere instruments) and which natural behaviors we should stop doing because it's uncivilized (rape, murder). Their criteria seem to be founded in emotion and convenience moreso than reason. Becoming ethical is often a rebellion against nature. A lot of terrible things have been done in the past in the name of "naturalness" that we now condemn. People use the phrase "it's just natural" as a way to get out of having to think about something, but clearly natural is not always better.
What does your not having kids have to do with the context in which you brought your kids up. Try to follow along.When you can make a logical point I'll address it. Your grammar got s**t on only as your constant harping about mine, as a pathetic means to exert your perceived superiority, invited me to do so. What do you mean by my "original" posts, were they replaced? Were I to type like a retarded monkey, you should have no problem at all understanding me.You've not brought up a single valid point thus far. Being human is exactly about exceeding our base genetic programming, as much as possible, thusly we all stop killing and preying upon ourselves. We've failed miserably at that so far. Being human is about pushing the envelope of our boundaries and overcomming the smallness of ourselves. It is about saying "do we really have to kill those f**king useless pigs, or is there another way we can get the information we think we need here".Carl Sagan said being human is a means for the universe to look back at itself, to know itself. Then there's you, still in awe of your opposable thumbs, and all they can pull for you.This you bring me as a f**king logical "point":"A human being is a bipedal homo-sapien". Laziest circular fallacy I've yet seen, and then you moan about my ignoring your little points.Do you really believe we "evolved to take advantage of tool use, language, society, and abstract thinking", as if they always existed, waiting for us? Or perhaps do you suppose we advanced those in tandem with our own evolution, you know, intrinsically.Our taking advantage of society as you put it, equates to preying upon ourselves, which we do by nature, thanks to assh**es such as yourself who easily quantify the value of all other life as lesser than their own. Because of that everything we interact with suffers, and that's what we use science for. Do you see how you revel in your own s**t, pig? Funny you should mention abstract thought when clearly you're altogether incapable of it."I think it's you that need the english lesson more then me, friend." sicI think you meant, "more than me".If you were fodder, my canons would starve son. Look, I really didn't want to have to spell the ultra obvious out for you because it seems like the greatest insult I could make but, it seems now to be born of necessity.Your original premise in this joyous debate was that "if it saves human lives", then it is worthwhile killing these pigs.Your "if" rings immediately false. A science experiment starts with a hypothesis, the experiment is then designed in a way that isolates the required variables to test the theory, data is collected and later analyzed to prove or disprove the theory, forming a repeatable conclusion, and potentionally leading to a new hypothesis.The only possible thing here which could have remotely resembled a hypothesis was "how air pockets help us survive". We already know the f**king answer is that we require oxygene, obviating any need for such a stupid experiment.Further, said sorry excuse for an experiment had no way of isolating any variables, which coudl better be tested in a lab. Throwing the pigs under snow doesn't realistically account the variance in humidity/water content of the snow, ambient temperature, weight, depth, distance, or other natural factors. What they could never begin to isolate are things like shock, terror, panic, fear, injury, or natural health factors. Where a pig fails completely is because they don't know "swim to get close to the surface", or do dig their way out, or to have a f**king beacon locator and a buddy system to rescue them... alll long established practices that are known to work.Despite any of that we've enough human dumbasses each and every year to gather our own data based off them. This was in no way a legitimate experiment, but the knobs around here wouldn't know that because they seem to think science begins and ends at mythbusters.The proof that I'm right is obviously that they are no longer carrying out this farce of an experiment.You see, not every scientist does a degree make, and there's plenty of pretenders. Like you, these self serving SOBs will do anything for grant money to get their spawn Ipods to cement their social status in a bulls**t society fueld by willing delusions.You justified this needless death on an "if" basis, even lacking the f**king ability to think about it in its most basic scientific and relevant form, gave yourself a pat on the back for being human, and defended the unthought decision like a f**king base programmed zombie. The only point you've got resides on the top of your head.
I did not say that pigs killed for food were killed humanely or instantly, I said they were killed in a quick manner, sometimes things go wrong but it is still less suffering than freezing to death. And yes, I have had first hand experience with such matters as I partially grew up in farm country.Btw, good luck keeping the world population alive with high protein plants. The logistics of such a thing are complex, not to mention the controversy of whether or not humans can thrive at 100% health on plants alone.
Nah, you're continuing because you're too dense to admit defeat. Stay the course cap'n, argumentum ad nauseam, it's all you can do now, but you still look like a dumbass for it.
asrrin29Jan 17, 2010
Yes, I have a pet, that I love very much. But if the choice came down to his survival or mine, there is no hesitation. He is worth more than mere possessions, but is not worth more than my life or the life of other people I know.
carbonetcJan 17, 2010
Our brutal nature compels us to kill other human beings whenever we feel like it, and yet we have laws against that. Why? People who fall back on the "it's just natural" excuse tend to pick and choose which natural behaviors we should continue doing (treating animals as mere instruments) and which natural behaviors we should stop doing because it's uncivilized (rape, murder). Their criteria seem to be founded in emotion and convenience moreso than reason. Becoming ethical is often a rebellion against nature. A lot of terrible things have been done in the past in the name of "naturalness" that we now condemn. People use the phrase "it's just natural" as a way to get out of having to think about something, but clearly natural is not always better.
misterjanglesJan 17, 2010
i had to wikipedia that one, great term!
w1cked1Jan 19, 2010
What does your not having kids have to do with the context in which you brought your kids up. Try to follow along.When you can make a logical point I'll address it. Your grammar got s**t on only as your constant harping about mine, as a pathetic means to exert your perceived superiority, invited me to do so. What do you mean by my "original" posts, were they replaced? Were I to type like a retarded monkey, you should have no problem at all understanding me.You've not brought up a single valid point thus far. Being human is exactly about exceeding our base genetic programming, as much as possible, thusly we all stop killing and preying upon ourselves. We've failed miserably at that so far. Being human is about pushing the envelope of our boundaries and overcomming the smallness of ourselves. It is about saying "do we really have to kill those f**king useless pigs, or is there another way we can get the information we think we need here".Carl Sagan said being human is a means for the universe to look back at itself, to know itself. Then there's you, still in awe of your opposable thumbs, and all they can pull for you.This you bring me as a f**king logical "point":"A human being is a bipedal homo-sapien". Laziest circular fallacy I've yet seen, and then you moan about my ignoring your little points.Do you really believe we "evolved to take advantage of tool use, language, society, and abstract thinking", as if they always existed, waiting for us? Or perhaps do you suppose we advanced those in tandem with our own evolution, you know, intrinsically.Our taking advantage of society as you put it, equates to preying upon ourselves, which we do by nature, thanks to assh**es such as yourself who easily quantify the value of all other life as lesser than their own. Because of that everything we interact with suffers, and that's what we use science for. Do you see how you revel in your own s**t, pig? Funny you should mention abstract thought when clearly you're altogether incapable of it."I think it's you that need the english lesson more then me, friend." sicI think you meant, "more than me".If you were fodder, my canons would starve son. Look, I really didn't want to have to spell the ultra obvious out for you because it seems like the greatest insult I could make but, it seems now to be born of necessity.Your original premise in this joyous debate was that "if it saves human lives", then it is worthwhile killing these pigs.Your "if" rings immediately false. A science experiment starts with a hypothesis, the experiment is then designed in a way that isolates the required variables to test the theory, data is collected and later analyzed to prove or disprove the theory, forming a repeatable conclusion, and potentionally leading to a new hypothesis.The only possible thing here which could have remotely resembled a hypothesis was "how air pockets help us survive". We already know the f**king answer is that we require oxygene, obviating any need for such a stupid experiment.Further, said sorry excuse for an experiment had no way of isolating any variables, which coudl better be tested in a lab. Throwing the pigs under snow doesn't realistically account the variance in humidity/water content of the snow, ambient temperature, weight, depth, distance, or other natural factors. What they could never begin to isolate are things like shock, terror, panic, fear, injury, or natural health factors. Where a pig fails completely is because they don't know "swim to get close to the surface", or do dig their way out, or to have a f**king beacon locator and a buddy system to rescue them... alll long established practices that are known to work.Despite any of that we've enough human dumbasses each and every year to gather our own data based off them. This was in no way a legitimate experiment, but the knobs around here wouldn't know that because they seem to think science begins and ends at mythbusters.The proof that I'm right is obviously that they are no longer carrying out this farce of an experiment.You see, not every scientist does a degree make, and there's plenty of pretenders. Like you, these self serving SOBs will do anything for grant money to get their spawn Ipods to cement their social status in a bulls**t society fueld by willing delusions.You justified this needless death on an "if" basis, even lacking the f**king ability to think about it in its most basic scientific and relevant form, gave yourself a pat on the back for being human, and defended the unthought decision like a f**king base programmed zombie. The only point you've got resides on the top of your head.
hurricaneJan 19, 2010
I did not say that pigs killed for food were killed humanely or instantly, I said they were killed in a quick manner, sometimes things go wrong but it is still less suffering than freezing to death. And yes, I have had first hand experience with such matters as I partially grew up in farm country.Btw, good luck keeping the world population alive with high protein plants. The logistics of such a thing are complex, not to mention the controversy of whether or not humans can thrive at 100% health on plants alone.
w1cked1Jan 19, 2010
Nah, you're continuing because you're too dense to admit defeat. Stay the course cap'n, argumentum ad nauseam, it's all you can do now, but you still look like a dumbass for it.
asrrin29Jan 19, 2010
I love the sound of a proven point in the morning. Thanks for that.