Animal Cruelty

[Mindfields]

I do agree with Tass though, and I wrote a huge big paper on this for a bunch of ethics/philosophy/english courses: the quality of a person's life (or an animal's) is more important than the quantity of it. I am all for human euthanasia, especially if the person actually asks to go quietly or to NOT live as a demented/vegetable-like/really sick person. In this one way, we're an awful lot nicer to our sick dogs and cats than we are to our sick grandparents, aren't we?

My God, did you NOT read Flowers for Algernon in school?

[Tasselfoot]

What does Charlie have to do with this?

[QreepyBORIS]

I read that in seventh grade.

LOL HE'S RETARDED :O!:O !:O!:O!:O!

[Tasselfoot]

Qreepy, this is CT. Post that crap in the gbin.

[TheTypist]

Why, Charlie has everything to do with this. It came to a point where they were testing on both the animal and the human, only for a while the animal was doing things like the maze faster than the human. So, who was more cruel to test on? And were they taking advantage of Charlie's retardedness so that he could agree for them to test on him like an animal without him really knowing the risks?

I guess that kind of moves off topic a bit, though.

[Tps222]

Though, if they tested the rats more, and waited on Charlie, he would have lived. He was happy though, as it says, and was glad he was smart for a while, thus, proving quality of life> quantity.

Personaly, I don't like animals. They are smelly, needy and annoying. You have to spend your hard earned money on food and excretory measeure for them, and for what, appreciation, I could care less.
Sacrifices must be made for the greater good. There are plenty of aniamls left after were done testing them.

On a side note, I think a flock of geese in a gander.