Ryan, about a week ago you wrote:So is it reasonable to use animals in tests, is it reasonable to slash and burn the rainforests in South America? Lets talk about that.
Let's do.
I'm glad (ecstatic actually) that you bothered to arrive at the realisation that I was talking about animal testing. I did not think or state that it was a sagacious decision regarding the fate of living creatures and masses. My whole point was that when considering if it is morally suitable one should not rely on the image the media creates with furless bunny rabbits, and purple monkies. It is a well known fact that television compromises 99% of our learning sensory organs, and thus makes a powerful weapon in reaching the emotional being within us all (however small it is). To base a decision on what one feels within him/herself is a crude way to arrive at any judgement. Not all animal testing is 'bad,' but that is what the media and greens would have us think.
When considering if animal testing is reasonable (as you put it), one should consider the pros and cons encaged in the situations that have become problematic. Sure, one could reason that the poor mousy is sad, but how could this judgement possibly present a viable option to the case? By deliberating with experts on the matter, from both sides of the debate, a reasonable and logical solution to any problem can be found; and more than often it is a workable resolution, not just hypothetical (as opposed to setting the animals free into the wild).
As for your South American native fauna, why not apply the same process. I will not be placed into the position of anti-nature, even though there is a better way to live. I am not green, will never be, but that doesn't mean I will oppose any green solution that is also a logical solution. It's commonsense. I will not support what I don't think is right, and some green propositions, I belive, are not right for this country, or this world.
None.
