Larian Studios Forums General Chat Thinly veiled political statement in BD?

In my point of view, humanity is a disease on the face of the earth. But all being said I am a part of the disease. Humanity is evil, but people are nice, humanity is self destructive and seems single minded in its self destruction. The world, animals, never asked for chemical warfare, toxic polution and neuclear generators. Disaster after disaster humanity doesnt seem to learn. We teach our children its ok to cut up living frogs in science class, millions of living frogs across the world day after day. Animals were on this world long before humans, yet because we can "think" we deem ourselves superior. We all die, human, animal, vegetable, but what dignity do we have while we are alive? What quality of life do we have? Do we humans as the superior life form have the right to remove all quality of life from the animals we breed for our own use? The difference between humans and animals is that we have a choice, we are aware of this yet instead of seeing this as a responsibility, we use it to make us feel justified in the tortures that we condone on lower life forms. Animal testing may be a necessity but repeating the same tests hundreds of times all over the world year after year when we know the result is depraved. People see animals as objects, possessions rather than creatures that live and feel.

Ive seen the dark side of humans, the sick depraved abuse of innocent children by parents for self gratification, Ive seen self destructive behavior ending in insanity and death. Ive had to face the degradation of my own childhood, loss of innocence, Iv'e seen the dark part of my own soul and nearly ended my life in despair.

Yet everyday you see signs of hope, people organising to reduce, even stop the suffering of animals, slowing down the destruction we as a race produce. I volunteer for the Cat Haven, I take in unwanted and dumped cats and kittens and hold them until the Haven picks them up and cares for them, try to find them a new home. Many animals are surrendered to me because the animal doesnt fit into their lifestyle anymore. A female cat with kittens are brought to me because people thought that allowing the cat to have them was a growing experience for the children, and it would make the cat a better cat. Thirteen thousand cats go through the Cat Haven every year in West Australia, thats not counting the ones dumped in the bush, surrendered to other animal welfare organisations and veterinarians. A lot of despair when you are witness to it, yet I see people who barely have enough money to live, spend hundreds on their pets medical fees, spend money on strays, feed them and have them sterilized. I know a pensioner who for years has taken in small old dogs, loves them, feeds, them and gives them veterinarian care, only for them to die a few months down the track of old age.

But getting back to the subject matter, computer games are fun, we can kill, maim and destroy without hurting anything, we can be evil or good and it doesnt affect anyone. Yet computer games (same as books/movies) must have a semblance of the real world, give us something to relate to. So it must be inevitable that many contovesial subjects are brought up and dealt with in the environs of the computer world, its what keeps them intersting. As a consumer we should take these subjects as part of the whole, a piece of fiction. We can deal with the issues however we like, after all the whole subject I believe, wether its anti-animal testing, the right of a self destructive life style, or animal rights or moral sublimal messages in CRPG's is the fact of choice. It's what we as individuals do with that choice is what matters.

Actor Larry Hagman had a lung transplant, being an alcoholic he continued drinking and destoyed the new lung, now dying he has said that if he was offered another lung he would refuse, he had chosen to live his life the way he has, had a second chance and thrown that away, it wouldnt be right to take another lung. Others might not agree with him, but it is his choice.

We all have been taught right from wrong, we have a choice to act on our moral values, if we see an injustice we can choose to act on it, animal testing is one of these subjects, if we wish to change something, us as individuals can act as a group and change things, it's called progress and doesnt always have to be bad. At least animal testing can be addressed, many social human injustices are not so easily dealt with. Someoneonce once said "you can judge a society by how they treat their animals" and with that I dont want to look any deeper at how we treat each other. Sorry if this became a soapbox subject, but I've been following this thread for a while.

Awesome post Foxy. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />

Basically we all have the choice to be good or bad in this world. Your move everyone......

Thank you very much for your passionate credo, Fox <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> - it fills me with courage and strengthens my belief about what life is - as it is similar to yours.
Kiya

Thanks for the positive response, as a matter of fact I was expecting some negative feedback for my post, speaking from experience; many people object to my saying humanity is a disease. (but it has never stopped me from saying it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />) I've never been a popular person due to the fact I speak my mind and am a crusader for the underdog and a stickler for "doing the right thing". Once you've been the underdog I think you become more tolerant with a lot of things and you become more aware of other peoples lack of tolerance. (I can tolerate anything:except intolerance <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/silly.gif" alt="" /> {maybe I should add that to my signature}) Also I suffer from permanent foot in mouth disease and am prone to pointing out peoples weak excuses for not doing the right thing. It generally evens out though as Im being constantly reminded I'm a softy and my own worst enemy. (I am unable to "Work", and create my own poverty because I take in strays and injured wild animals and care for them, I spent $7000 AU on my dogs vet bill when she broke her leg and encountered complications)

I'm much for animal rights, they cant speak up for themselves and have to suffer becuse of our intelectual superiority, all animals whether bread by mankind or wild should be able to live a quality of life equal to their wild untainted ancestors. Making animals suffer because we humans have destroyed the world and unknowingly caused the creation of diseases (ie:cancer) that we humans and animals are plagued with, (animal testing) is morally wrong. And yes, animals do kill others, but they don't have the choice of growing crops instead, it's their nature to kill, and we humans are not restricted to that. But I'm on my soapbox again, I just wanted to say thanks, it's nice to encounter people with similar views to my own. Gotta go, my latest stray cat is harrassing my Alaskan Malamute who is sulking because he got bopped on the nose when all he wanted to do is sniff the cat and the cat is Lording it over him.

ps: I encountered a note in the Imp village that speaks of the effects of mushrooms on different races. I honestly dont think Larian meant any suggestion to animal testing in connection to the dead Imp and the note besides him.

Very nice post indeed <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Er, Foxy. Maybe you're not aware but cancer is NOT a man-made disease in any way. Man uses many carcinogenic chemicals to initiate it but it is caused by random genetic mutation and can occur in any animal. (oddly enough not plants, probably because they lack oncogenes) Sorry, but you're just wrong there.

Previous post was fine. Mankind is more like a virus in behaviour though. (See the matrix <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />)

Animals are never really cruelly abused in the labs I've seen either. Most tests don't cause them to much discomfort. They are mostly first-pass metabolic determinations. Most of the animal scientists I've talked to dislike the job to some degree but see it as very necessary. Which it is.

Cancer may not be man-made but we sure as hell helped it along, I've seen and euthenised pet mice with cancerous growths larger than the mouses head, I'm sure many cancers werent even heard off before "civilisation" came along, damaging the ozone and pumping the earth full of chemicals and destroying forests. I'm sure lung cancer wasnt an everyday word before humans decided to do odd things with tobbacco leaves and skin cancer before we F#$*ed with the environment. Who knows what chemicals trigger cancers, we encounter a great deal of them in our everyday activities in varying amounts without even realising, (comparatively only a small amout would have occured naturally without human intervention) life has become a russian roulette and we dont have any idea whats going to pull the trigger. I dont mean to paint all researchers as evil torturers, the majority are only people doing their job with the best intentions. There are a great deal of experiments done on animals that are unessesary and with our technology and ingenuety we should be able to find alternatives. Besides animal testing the next or maybe worse (looking at world wide scale numbers) animal cruelty is the conditions of animals bred for our food, pigs and battery hens for example have no semblance of a normal life. Strangely enough most people will become outraged over vivisection, animal testing and endangered species yet not utter a word when it comes to cruelty of domestic animals. A pig and a chook may not be as cute as a chimp or a baby harp seal but they feel pain and fear just the same. Anyway I feel Im dominating this thread and pushing it on the lee side, lets get back to the thinly veiled political statements in BD, if we look hard enough we can see a lot more Im sure <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Well, I started reading this message the other day as there are many thoughts that I had to wade through. Some of it I understand, some of it I think is a bit idealistic and a lot of it is simply opinion so there isn't much I can say about that. So, here are my thoughts.



I guess I don't understand what distinguishes 'humanity' from 'people'. Could you please elaborate on what you perceive differs humanity from people? Seems I'm the only one in this forum who doesn't quite understand all of your post, so bear with me. LOL




I don't think many people asked for chemical warfare or toxic pollution, either. In fact, most of the people I associate with are against both. However, since both are man-made (it certainly wasn't conceived of by a giraffe), does not make the whole of mankind evil. As for nuclear generators, they have their postive uses and negative. So does fire. I think what's important is how nuclear energy is used.



In what way does humanity remain ignorant? Is it because we still make mistakes? Because we still make errors in logic and technology that sometimes lead to death and destruction? News flash: Life is fatal. There are no guarantees and tomorrow is promised to no one.

It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback (a term we use in the United States to point out the errors that players and coaches made during the previous' days ballgame). We [humankind] may never get this thing we called 'life' right. But does that make us, as a species, unlearned? What about all those people who strive to make life a better place for the generations to come after us? And part of making life better for our children will involve making choices that perhaps we will look back on 50 years from now and say, "well, perhaps we didn't think this idea all the way through, but we did the best we could at the time with the information we had."






Not all of us teach our children that it's okay to cut up living animals. I believe many children are taught (at least in the US) that they have a choice of whether they participate in dissecting frogs, cats, etc. or not to.



I don't know where it is you live or what kind of culture you're exposed to but the majority of people where I live do not go out of their way to make lives miserable for animals. We're too busy working, raising our families, making our communities better and safe for residents. Many of us are too exhausted at the end of the day to purposely abuse or harm animals.

City planners and real estate developers work under the eyes of many watch-dog agencies. Because of EPA regluations and vast public awareness, they must take the community's ecosystem into account before any construction or destruction takes place. Things aren't done 'willy nilly' the way you make it sound. There may have been a time when no thought was given to the flora and fauna of a development area, but these days, you have to have a permit or license (I'm not kidding - at least this is true in my town) to put a post in the ground, chop down a tree, or, in some cases, even dig a hole.



You're absolutely correct about the difference between humans and animals. We have the ability to reason. But I don't think all animal testing is performed because of our feeling 'superior'. It's done because it's practical and necessary. You would not be here today were it not for animal testing. Look at the many diseases, plagues and illnesses that come from animals. Bubonic plague ring the bell for anyone? Okay, that's an old one. Let's take a newer one: Lyme's disease. In Pennsylvania PETA protested so vociferously against making it illegal to hunt deer in one particular area. A few seasons passed and mother nature did her thing and the deer population grew and grew and grew and as it grew, so did the deer ticks. When the ticks came, the kids playing in the woods got sick. Hikers came down with bad cases of Lyme's disease (so did those kids). Where was PETA then? Okay, so this has nothing to do with animal testing (or does it?). I think my point is where on the food chain do we stop? What size does the 'lower animal' form have to be before it is considered permissible to 'test' or is considered a non-animal? What purpose does it have/not have to serve before it is labeled 'protected'. I'm talking about germs, bacteria, fleas, fruit flies, etc. (Hey, they are living organisms).



You're not alone in seeing the dark side of humanity. The dark side is part of our nature and it will always be part of our nature. But this doesn't have anything to do with animal testing. And, on a personal note, I'm sorry to hear about the degradation and abuse you suffered as a child. That's unconscionable. But yet, you were able to overcome it and become an intelligent, caring individual. That is to be commended.



That's also an awesome contribution you provide to your community and to those cats. However, I think we've (society) come a long way in laboratory testing of animals. Public awareness has made a huge impact on how animals are euthanized. Years ago they were shot, drowned, gutted..., horrible, horrible ways to die. Today, it's much different. Chickens are bred specifically for the purpose of eating, as are bovine and some fish. Rats and mice are bred for the specific purpose of testing. I'll admit, I wish there was another way, but I'm a realist. For now it's a necessary step in the evolution of society.



You can't be saying that people who take in strays are morally superior to those who work in laboratories trying to cure diseases (I'm talking about labs that perform animal testing). What about those men and women who fervently believe that the cure for cancer, diabetes, arthritis [fill-in-the blank] lies just around the corner and that cure can be found in animal testing. Those men and women are just as important and no less vital than the elderly pensioner who dedicated his last days taking care of animals.



Well said and that's a point I agree with. It's all about choice.



Larry Hagman had a lung transplant due to cigarette smoke - not alcoholism. And as far as I know, he does not smoke any longer. He's done a lot of public service announcements here in the US against smoking. I didn't know he needed a 2nd lung transplant.




This is not necessarily true. And not everyone holds the same moral values. Not everyone or every culture's ethics are the same. That's called diversity and as humans we have every right to be as different from one another because it is our inherent nature to be so. There are many neighborhoods here in the US where kids are not taught 'right from wrong'. They fall into bad situations out of ignorance [and I don't mean 'ignorance' in the derogatory sense. I mean that they literally do not know that another choice exists]. Not everyone has had a quality upbringing or even had a decent education that others have had.



And here is where the quagmire gets even murkier. Moral values differ from individual to individual. I don't think animal testing is morally wrong. I think it's morally indifferent. It's a laboratory test.

It was Mahatma Ghandi who said "You can judge a society by how it treats its animals." When asked his opinion on Western Civilization he also said, "I think it's a good idea." Ghandi was a profound leader. A man whom I admire. But I don't think that western or modern culture is quite as barbaric as you make it out to be. Yes, there is room for improvement. But on the whole, I think people are inherently good.


Faralas <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mage.gif" alt="" /> (steps off her soap box)

It is man-made actually. Or made in any creature who develops it. Its a classic example of uncontrolled mitosis. There are more carcinogens in the world today sure. There are also more anti-cancer drugs. We didn't realise the carcinogenic properties of these chenmicals when we made them but anti-cancer science as a whole is making a very strong effort to repair that. A hell of a lot of carcinogens have been banned now too.

As to the growing of tumours on mice. Its necessary to estimate drug penetration and distribution in tumours. Also they are rarely painful and rarely metastatic. The mouse is euthanised before it spreads usually. Doing experiments on animals with fully malignant tumours is usually innacurate unfortunately.

Many cancers were not DISCOVERED before 'civilisation' came along, get your facts right. Also most people didn't live long enough to develop enough gene mutations for cancerous growths to begin. Its a disease of the old. Check the statistics.

As allways I agree with you on the fact that a lot of animal research is unnessasary. Until companies are forced to change they will do what is cheapest. Fact of life. Same with battery farming. Do you honestly think I want to eat a burger from a cow farmed in that way? Its too hard to tell unfortunately. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/disagree.gif" alt="" />

People are allways more outraged over someone eating a dog or a cat instead of a pig because they are cute. This makes me think of the hillarious dialogue between Samuel L. Jackson and John Travolta in the diner at the end of pulp fiction.

"That would have to be one charming motherf#cking pig!" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

Faralas, I was brought up overseas, so I saw quite a few cultures dealing with their animals - I don't think, it's copyright of Western culture to illtreat and abuse animals. And what I saw as a child has made me to the animal protecting adult - in fact wanting to protect the weaker (regardless of legs and race)

Could you agree, not all animal testing is necessary? And it would be better, if scientist worldwide would cooperate, so the amount of suffering lab animals is reduced? Or, even better, taking cells to experiment whenever possible? And leaving out experiments, which only satisfy scientific ego curiosity? I miss ethics in natural sciences - and this was the main cause, why I made my biology teacher unhappy and refused to take up a scientific career.

Could you agree, "economic" animal breeding is torture - and in the end causing mankind to suffer? BSE or the human equivalent Jacob-Kreutzfeld-Syndrome is manmade, because vegetarians were forcibly turned into carnivorous. Look what SCARS is doing now, coming from Asia - look at the conditions on these farms. Do you know under which conditions living animals are transported? When I was in a hostel in South Africa, we had to pass a certain slaughter house on our way to church (forced to pray and hear death cries <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/suspicion.gif" alt="" /> )

BTW, I saw Fox's "humanity" as a synonym for my word "inhumankind". There's more to say about this species I belong to and am ashamed of very often. It's not only the way we treat creation/nature - no, it's even the way we treat our own race <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/puppyeyes.gif" alt="" /> . Sometimes I wish our life span was very very long (200-300 yrs) and our fertility would be reduced dramatically, why? So we would experience the outcomes of short-thought economic greed, egoism and brutality.
Kiya <errhm, how much place does a soap box give? Getting a bit crowdy>

I've seen reports from Scientists interpreting malformed bones (or parts of them) as a kind of cancer - in Dinosaurs !

It is quite old, in fact ...

While I share and/or respect a lot of the views stated before, there is one thought I feel compelled to add:

This planet is about 5 Billion years old, and what we call "humanity" more or less 5 Million - 1/1000th of the time, a glimpse, less than that. The ecological system on this planet we call nature, whatever our individual beliefs, and indisputably (I think), we are a part of nature.

Nature has no ethics, no morals, no belief, no conscience, no scruples - a concept? Maybe - laws (of nature) it follows? Yes!? And it has time! With no end???

Zillions of species developped and died, new ones develop even in our times, and humans are just one of a kind. What will nature be after a second/1000th (another 5 Million years)? Will humanity be a part? Will nature care or perish, if not???

Our views, whether radical, moralistic, idealistic, depressive or optimistic, are all egocentrical, and to some extent arrogant (as a species, not individually) - who says Humanity is the only "reasonable" species, only because we have not (yet?) found a way to communicate with another species on this planet (I am not considering the universe for the purpose of this discussion)?

Humanity is young, as a species; and diverse, in appearance, in character, in consciousness - our theoretical ethical conscience is less than 5.000 years old, and our practical ethical conscience? At a stage of early bacteria.
Why? Because we individuals, spread over half the planet, are sitting here, well fed, using an electrically powered device to discuss philosophical issues - while 80% of our own kind is also living on this planet, and fail to understand what we're discussing, because they are not well fed and don't know the "benefits" of civilization. Is spending a small fortune on an injured animal house companion a honourable and ethical thing to do? Yes! Was it worth it? For her, who did it, obviously! Is it more ethical to argue that the same amount could have saved 100 human lives in, say, Africa?

Does nature care about these questions? No - each individual makes its own decisions (conscious or instinctive), based on its own values - and the development of a species is the result of the sum of all individual decisions.

Not all of us teach our children that it's okay to cut up living animals. I believe many children are taught (at least in the US) that they have a choice of whether they participate in dissecting frogs, cats, etc. or not to.
----

I told the teacher I didn't want to. I still had to.

same here, lews. i had to do it too when i was in school.

all in all, we will do what we have/want to do. what we can control is the moment that we are in as well as the situation at hand, not everything. everyone has a niche. or creates his/her own. beyond that, i don't think i have any right to tell anyone that he/she is wrong & i'm right just because. do forgive me if i've done such a thing in the past to anyone here.

I wasnt going to post anymore on this subject..... but....
Humanity as a race, all humans combined, people as individuals.

The Larry Hagman story.... could have been his heart, but the point is still the same.

Disaster after disaster, look around, read the paper, watch the news, we are still cutting down rain forests even though we know that trees are the major saviour of our atmosphere, and create oxygen.

People who care for cats arent saviors, but it shows we have the capacity to care beyond our species.

Thirteen thousand unwanted cats per year, we breed them and then dump them, a part of our throw away society, Humans need to accept were dumping (not only cats, but polution) on our world and its gotta end one way or another.

Humanity creates what it sees fit, what it wants and not what it needs or what is best.

Humanity may not be evil, but our actions and lack of actions can be interpreted as evil.

Banning deer hunting, we have a similar story here in Australia. When the white man first settled in this country he introduced many animals , rabbits and foxes for hunting, having no natural enemy here they bred profusely. Recently it was decided to drop poison baits to reduce the fox population, within weeks the nearby town had a mouse infestation, native marsupial mice which are a protected species, they got into crops, food stores, got into the wiring in homes and created havoc. Over time foxes have worked themselves into the food chain and nature had settled things, we can send a man to the moon yet we cant keep our environment balanced and healthy.

Money is the root of all evil, we have alternative power sources but a great deal of money is made by drilling oil, too many people are rich because of the stuff and they are the ones with the power to make changes, but why should they want to when it means losing money and power of control.
Let me break it down, we have a smoke problem in our area, from wood fire heaters, natural gas pipelines run past every door, natural gas is a cheap and environmentally friendly alternative, the main cost is in the initial installation. But people cant be bothered, it's easier to drive five minutes (in their fuel guzzling vehicles) down the road into our natural wild bushland where they use their chainsaws to cut down mature native trees for firewood, they dont care they are robbing native animals of their habitat, nor do they care that in a couple of years there will be no trees left in the area, theyll just drive a little further, and a little further. In their mind its cheaper, because they arent paying anything for the wood, but they forget to count the price of fuel for the car and the chainsaw. So in one small act they rob and polute the environment without looking at the consequences. In their eyes they are saving money and thats all that matters. No matter where in the world, thats the way people work, its how we think.

And of course its always easier to do nothing. We wont change anything until our own lives are threatend, as individuals, it may not be that serious, but as a race.....

Indifference to animal testing is a disssassociation from a feeling living creature, if anyone had a pet they loved they could not condone such an act. Compassion is a human trait, animals feel physical and emotional pain, why should compassion be restricted to only humans.


People are inheritantly good but humanity as a whole is not. Humanity is worse than a disease, humanity has choices, we can decide to make changes, a disease cant. Its because we choose not to that makes me wish I wasnt a part of humanity.

I've read the tread (or the most of it I could) And for one as apealing it is to see humanity as virus or bacteria, if feel more for the idea of a tun of little individuals trying to do what they think is right and needed. In Australia a women can cherish cats and give them food out of love but unwillingly unleash them in an area that had no predators. A biologist wants to protect an marine area and thus needs to studie it to prove it's worth, in doing so he sacrifices 100 000 little sea animals... People have started wars and killed because they taught they were doing the right thing. Alsmost every one i met being bad or good had a feelt like he/she tried to do what was right in her or his belief.


As a species i find that humans are the worlds best eradicators. In past times there were always one or other species that dominated the earth, we are just the most effective one of them. Just hope that in the near future men wil realize it pays of to think ahead. But i have hope. And as a lasrt thing I realy hope mankind will stop thinking in this way:" well it works for now but might give some problems in the future but we'll find a solution than, were smart enough" see nuclear energie(we'll find a solution to the waste.

The people thaat use animals probably thing they need to and make themselves belief it is needed. I've seen tests on rats where they drill electrodes in their brain this in order to cure epilepsi in humans. They believe the'll help men... but do they respect life? If larian realy put it there as a statement i don't think so it was i guess a joke inspired on the crazy way people think. It's a game made by people who believe they do the right thing, we walk in a place they created with the beliefs they have. So i don't think it's ment te be a statement, it's just how they thinnk.

xd

I have a pet( <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/kitty.gif" alt="" />). I would gladly sacrafice him to save a human life if necessary. I would also protect him with my life. Weird huh?

Kiya,

First off let me clarify something. In no place on this board have I ever advocated for the mistreatment of animals. All I'm trying to point out is there are some benefits to animal testing in medical research. Secondly, I do not support anything that's an 'across the board', blanket solution to any given problem. Animal testing is much deeper and too complicated to be an either or option and it's not a black and white issue. I think the solution is somewhere in the grey area. There are groups in this world who wish to eradicate all animal testing no matter how significant the research. Even if it's to prolong the lives of other animals or to save endangered species. I think that kind of advocacy doesn't take into account the larger picture and instead only focuses on a misguided (and probably well intended) solution.





Depending on which scientific or medical journal you subscribe to, BSE has yet to be proven 100% to be manmade. First off, humans cannot get madcows disease UNLESS they eat the raw brain matter of an infected cow. Otherwise, it's simply not scientifically possible. BSE was not a foreseen byproduct in the grain fed to cows. Therefore, those scientists who developed that specific grain (or whatever it is that cows eat) did not intend to set out to create a disease that would infect cows. In fact, it all started in England. There are some interesting articles on the web on how scientists believe the first cow came to be infected. So, no, I can't agree with 100% of the things you say. However, on the whole, Kiya, I agree with the heart and care that's given in coming to your point of view.





Well, I certainly don't wish to live 200-300 years. The thought of paying bills that long nauseates me. (lol) I just want it known that I'm not a person who blindly jumps on any bandwagon, no matter how moral or just it sounds. I investigate, ask questions and scrutenize until I'm satisfied that it rings true for *me*. If that makes me a part of the 'problem' and not the solution in some peoples eyes, so be it. There is nothing I can do to change *who I am*. It took me too long to become this fantastic! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />


Faralas <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mage.gif" alt="" />

Lews,

Well, sorry you still had to dissect a living thing. But my point is if you live in the US, you do not have to participate in animal dissection in schools. Will you fail the class because you refuse to do something against your conscience? Maybe. But you will have stuck by your convictions. So, you still had the choice. And that's what life is all about. What was the worst possible thing that could have happened if you said, "no"? They can't suspend you from school indefinitely. That's against the law (and ludicrous, not to mention). Best thing to do is if you feel that strongly against animal dissection, go to the local newspaper - get the media involved. Draw attention to your side of the issue. That's how change begins.


Faralas <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mage.gif" alt="" />

I'm sure the frogs are dead before ya slice 'em. I never got to do dissection unfortunatley. Our biology teacher just did one at the front of the class. I was the only one who found it facinating I think.

All of modern medicine would not be possible without some freak cutting up dead bodies to find out what was where. Think about that. It may turn your stomach but its very necessary. Anyone whos been under the knife will appreciate that. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/think.gif" alt="" />