Palin's book...#1 on best seller list..Kennedy at #7

Status
Not open for further replies.
dreama said:
Don't you ever read the news?

A baby is born at 21 weeks of age and the doctor won't look at him.
Peter Singer says it's ok to consider disabled as lesser being. He has his article posted in new york times.
Click to expand...

Peter Singer was an ardent advocate of animal rights and accused us of speciesism. LOL!

Seriously, it's just an academic exercise for him. He couldn't even put his ill parent to death!
 
dreama said:
Don't you ever read the news?

A baby is born at 21 weeks of age and the doctor won't look at him.
Peter Singer says it's ok to consider disabled as lesser being. He has his article posted in new york times.
Moves on both sides of the atlantic are being made to try and legalise Euthanasia.
Parents of disabled kids, kill themselves and the kids with them. The press does not condem them.

It's that sort of thing that scares the living day lights out of me. The fact that some people can consider ageism or ableism as perfectly acceptable.

I'm afraid that people like me might be considered next for the chopper.
Click to expand...

I read news all the time. Some stories are missed. Who is Pete Singer? Some guy with an opinion? Seems like there are several out there (Whoopi Goldberg, Ted Nugent) that are jockeying for the most bizarre quote of the month. Why should his opinion matter?

Euthanasia is an entirely different topic. I have no qualms with a terminal patient that opts to skip over the agonizing death for a more peaceful method. If you consider the suffering that some people endure, why should everyone follow the same doctrine? Not all people have the same issues with this. Why should they suffer because somebody else thinks so?

Where I come from, parents that kill themselves and their family are chastized and condemned. Happens much too often for my liking. Nowhere is this crime condoned.

I have already tested the water with you on this, but here goes again; which matters more: the freedom of lab mice, or a cure for Alzheimer's disease? Choose carefully, because someday it might happen to you.
 
kokonut said:
Obviously, she left to make a lot of money, get herself positioned as a recognized spokesperson for the conservative movement, and who knows exactly what her political ambitions are over the next few years now.
Click to expand...

A spokesperson for the lunatic fringe, perhaps. The RNC doesn't want anything to do with her. She has already proven herself to be a huge liability. Just because she has an ambition does not mean it well be seen to fruition. She had the ambition to be VP, and managed to do untold damage to McCain's campaign and her own reputation in her attempt to follow through on that ambition. She had the ambition to be govenor, but couldn't stand the heat and had to abandon the kitchen.
 
dreama said:
That's fine as far as it goes.
Only one fact that you have forgotten to mention. All governments also authoritize killing animals. I challange you to name a country that doesn't?
Not only that but all countries exept Ireland and maybe a few others that I am not aware of, also authoritize the killing of people. Which Sarah Palin is against. Which is what I like about her.
Click to expand...

You are going to have to support that "authorize the killing of people" with some fact.

How can you say that Palin is against the killing of people when she is such a vocal supporter of war? She isn't against killing people at all. She is just in favor of telling lies that she thinks will rile people up.
 
The fact a select few are trying to justify Palin's actions by saying other people do it is sickening... or keep deferring to examples from irrelevant topics...

TWO WRONGS DOES NOT MAKE A RIGHT!
 
souggy said:
The fact a select few are trying to justify Palin's actions by saying other people do it is sickening... or keep deferring to examples from irrelevant topics...

TWO WRONGS DOES NOT MAKE A RIGHT!
Click to expand...

And it is a very childish and ineffective way to counterpoint. Makes the weakness of the argument oh, so obvious.
 
jillio said:
A spokesperson for the lunatic fringe, perhaps. The RNC doesn't want anything to do with her. She has already proven herself to be a huge liability. Just because she has an ambition does not mean it well be seen to fruition. She had the ambition to be VP, and managed to do untold damage to McCain's campaign and her own reputation in her attempt to follow through on that ambition. She had the ambition to be govenor, but couldn't stand the heat and had to abandon the kitchen.
Click to expand...

I've always thought that Ann Coulter was on the lunatic fringe. She makes Palin look normal.
 
saywhatkid said:

I have already tested the water with you on this, but here goes again; which matters more: the freedom of lab mice, or a cure for Alzheimer's disease? Choose carefully, because someday it might happen to you.
Click to expand...

The freedom of mice, rats, primates, and other animals is enterly dependant on a cure for Alzimers. While they mess about with monkeys no cure will EVER be found.
We need to move on to more advanced methods of research before a cure can even be hoped for.
 
dreama said:
The freedom of mice, rats, primates, and other animals is enterly dependant on a cure for Alzimers. While they mess about with monkeys no cure will EVER be found.
We need to move on to more advanced methods of research before a cure can even be hoped for.
Click to expand...

Can you cite more advanced metholds that exist please?
 
Last edited:
dreama said:
Computer based modelling is a lot more advanced then animal testing.

You will find more in this thread. I created it last january the last time I was being attacked on this issue.

http://www.alldeaf.com/topic-debates/59097-alternatives-animal-testing.html
Click to expand...

So... you're suggesting we should go back to testing on disabled children in mental institutes like they did in the '10s, '20s and '30s? Be careful here... Remember back then, you would have underwent the same fate as well.
 
:topic:

Please make a thread on animal testing elsewhere.
 
kokonut said:
:topic:

Please make a thread on animal testing elsewhere.
Click to expand...

why? this is about Palin's stance on that issue. Afraid that these people will know the dark side of Palin? :hmm:
 
dreama said:
Computer based modelling is a lot more advanced then animal testing.

You will find more in this thread. I created it last january the last time I was being attacked on this issue.

http://www.alldeaf.com/topic-debates/59097-alternatives-animal-testing.html
Click to expand...

Okay... sneaky. Didn't notice you edited your own post to modify it completely. Way to go to change it from human testing to computer testing right before I replied. It's one thing to add onto your own post, but it's another thing to omit something.
 
jillio said:
And it is a very childish and ineffective way to counterpoint. Makes the weakness of the argument oh, so obvious.
Click to expand...

Right. And what people fail to realize there are different branches:

Conservation-- advocating that widlife should be preserved
Animal cruelty-- advocating that they deserve fair treatment and humane testing (or humane death) [addendum: this group call it "animal welfare" instead of "rights" to disgunish themselves from the below.]
Animal rights-- meaning they have equal rights to humans (including banning ownership of pets)

All three are completely different topics. (Addendium: It's entirely possible one can be against animal cruelty, but doesn't support conservation... and vice versa. One can be for animal rights, but could care less about the environment.)

Palin was under the scope of conservation and animal rights activists, two completely different groups; one does not agree with the other. Animal cruelty is irrelevant in Palin's case. Now... if you go to the Pacific Northwest, you will find most people are in favour of conservation, but not actual animal rights. Why? Wildlife and captivity are distinct topics in our minds. So to compare examples as such when one doesn't understand the values of Pacific Northwesterners... feels wrong.

We are surrounded by the wild, and we want to keep it. We are reminded that everyday every time we go down to the beach or take a stroll, or go hiking and observe these animals in the wild. We don't want farmed fish because it means taking the jobs away from the fishermen, and also it would means that we won't see Pacific salmons any more if Atlantic salmon farms are allowed to operate on the coast. So we have a very different agenda, yet for some reason people expect us to be in the same group as the PETA-type.

So, Palin isn't well-favoured for those that want to see the wilderness preserved. Even Alaskans are not happy with her taking these course of actions such as not putting polar bears on the endangered list, approving mining or approving aerial gunning-- despite the fact Alaskans voted against these measures.
 
Last edited:
dreama said:
I won't bother since you don't consider fetuses as people wheras I do.
Click to expand...

Typical. Make outrageous statements, and then fail to support them with fact. Doesn't do much for your credibility.:cool2: Since you can't support it with fact, it will simply be taken for what it is...a bunch of bunk.
 
souggy said:
Right. And what people fail to realize there are different branches:

Conservation-- advocating that widlife should be preserved
Animal cruelty-- advocating that they deserve fair treatment and humane testing (or humane death) [addendum: this group call it "animal welfare" instead of "rights" to disgunish themselves from the below.]
Animal rights-- meaning they have equal rights to humans (including banning ownership of pets)

All three are completely different topics. (Addendium: It's entirely possible one can be against animal cruelty, but doesn't support conservation... and vice versa. One can be for animal rights, but could care less about the environment.)

Palin was under the scope of conservation and animal rights activists, two completely different groups; one does not agree with the other. Animal cruelty is irrelevant in Palin's case. Now... if you go to the Pacific Northwest, you will find most people are in favour of conservation, but not actual animal rights. Why? Wildlife and captivity are distinct topics in our minds. So to compare examples as such when one doesn't understand the values of Pacific Northwesterners... feels wrong.

We are surrounded by the wild, and we want to keep it. We are reminded that everyday every time we go down to the beach or take a stroll, or go hiking and observe these animals in the wild. We don't want farmed fish because it means taking the jobs away from the fishermen, and also it would means that we won't see Pacific salmons any more if Atlantic salmon farms are allowed to operate on the coast. So we have a very different agenda, yet for some reason people expect us to be in the same group as the PETA-type.

So, Palin isn't well-favoured for those that want to see the wilderness preserved. Even Alaskans are not happy with her taking these course of actions such as not putting polar bears on the endangered list, approving mining or approving aerial gunning-- despite the fact Alaskans voted against these measures.
Click to expand...

Yep. So much for representing her constituents.:roll: This is a case of a little power being a dangerous thing. She has neither the intelligence nor the character to handle it responsibly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top