That isn’t an answer to the question:
Why would it be ok to test on non-human animals but not on humans?
Because humans are more valuable. If you had to choose between saving one human, and one hundred rats, which would you choose? We test on rats until we deem it safe and ethical enough to progress to testing on humans.
That doesn’t make the lives of animals worthless. And they are treated as less than worthless.
What is it about humans that makes them more valuable? And valuable in what way?
This is like asking why is some random stranger any more valuable to you than your closest loved one.
I am not going to medically experiment on either, so no, it’s not like that.
You value one over the other and you know it.
You are all over this comment section attempting to slip out of good points but we see you. The good points stand.
Can you answer the question, “If you had to choose between saving one human and one hundred rats,which would you choose?” The answer to your questions is related to this one.
It’s not related because that choice is not what is happening. You don’t have one button that kills/saves rats and one that kills/saves a human.
What is happening is that we have deemed it morall ok to medically experiment on non-human animals but not on humans.
It’s absolutely related. Animal testing has indirectly saved countless lives. I think you’re refusing to answer because it doesn’t help your argument.
What argument? I haven’t made an argument, I want to know your position and what it is about humans that makes them more valuable than non-human animals.
You absolutely have made an argument and you continue to. You’re saying animal testing is morally indefensible despite any outcome it’s ever produced
It’s like he went to the Carlson school of ‘just asking questions’.
What a coward
Even you’re valuable because scientists can study just how small a human brain needs to be to operate solely on self-righteous anger.
Ad hominems are a surefire way to show you have nothing of value to add. Good bye.
