Animal Testing - Let it carry on? [Closes 06/03/07]

[---MAD---]

Do you think animal testing should carry on? It is a major factor it a lot of experiments that lead to big successes that help humans in lots of areas in science.

What do you think?

[:Hazel]

It may help humans but IMO its wrong & cruel to test products on living creatures of this world.

[Rich.Boy]

I think it is wrong for testing things like hairsprays/cosmetic stuff etc.

HOWEVER... I think it is perfectly acceptable to test regarding cures to diseases such as cancer and also to use animals to grow human body parts such as ears etc.

[DJ-Vimto]

I think it is wrong for testing things like hairsprays/cosmetic stuff etc.

HOWEVER... I think it is perfectly acceptable to test regarding cures to diseases such as cancer and also to use animals to grow human body parts such as ears etc.


i agree with that,

in my opinion, it is unacceptable to test cosmetics on animals, as its not them that will be using the final product - its us!

human testing should be used for cosmetics testing, afterall, animals do not show the same allergic reactions to humans, so a product that had no effect on animals could well end up with humans having an allergic reaction to it.

as for animal testing in medical science, to some extent this is reasonably safe, because the animals being tested on can be genetically modified to give them maybe human genes, meaning that the results of animal and human testing ought to be similar, as long as theres no lasting harm done to the animals during the tests, then i do not have a problem with testing new drugs/medicines on animals

[:Hazel]

as long as theres no lasting harm done to the animals during the tests, then i do not have a problem with testing new drugs/medicines on animals

Yes but alot of the time there is harm done to them which i find wrong.

[DiscoPat]

I think its bad, but is better than using humans, adding to that they should test it on peadophiles n stuff (sp).

[Titch]

the poeple who like animal testing i think should get tested on themeselves and see how they like it

[OMGitsaROSS]

for drugs, it should
for cosmetics. no.

Also

DJ they do it on animals that have been bred inside these labs so they can be used on them. Ar you volunteering to get drugged?

Remember what happened to those men a few months ago?

they almost DIED. You nub.

[-Undiscovered]

How is it right, animals are being killed for you make- up, there is areas like shoe box sized, min food and water, should be doing exercises, the argument of, the medicines thing, n oway, if we cared that much we wouldnt abuse them, people dont care so no one gives a dam, the majority of you say they dissage but I bet they dont actually LOOK at what there buying to see if it non animal tested, well I do, and also, if you CARE about animals so much, Im sure your a vegy? If yes then thats ok, but if not, your just a hippocrit, as they die in the same way.

[hyperlink]

i think its totally ok. if we did not carry out tests on animals we would have not discovered how to cure illnesses. As for make up i think thats on 2. its only an animal get over it. think how many youve eaten away in the past.

[DCeption]

i think its totally ok. if we did not carry out tests on animals we would have not discovered how to cure illnesses. As for make up i think thats on 2. its only an animal get over it. think how many youve eaten away in the past.

1) Animals do not have the same gene structure as us, so a drug that doesnt harm them may harm us.

2) We are only animals.

3) There is other ways of finding cures and if so much wasnt spent on cosemtic crap then we may be able to find cures using differnt methods.

So yeah im agaisnt animal testing. In my opinion we should test them on chavs and criminals

[DiscoPat]

i think its totally ok. if we did not carry out tests on animals we would have not discovered how to cure illnesses. As for make up i think thats on 2. its only an animal get over it. think how many youve eaten away in the past.
I disagree, what about animal rights?

[jake4568]

if theres nothing wrong with an animal y **** it up with medican, were all =, humans and animals are 1 of the same just bcs of are intelagance that will bring the end of us makes us better? its crap they were here before us now were destroying them, if there were alians, and obvisely they would be x100 of are intelagance how would we feal to be tested on? idk i think its crap if ur solving cancer use a cancer patiant...

[holo-jonny]

I think it could be a benefit to us but it isnt a very good idea I mean its very cruel to other animals and instead of testing other animals why not test our own species I know that certainly wouldn't be approved but IMO it would be better than testing other animals.
Another thing is if we test animals for some things it might not work out properly as other animals are different to humans.

So anyway yeah it should stop and shouldn't of even started.

[-Undiscovered]

The way there treated, makes me feel sick.

[DJ-Vimto]

if the world was created as it says it was in the Bible, animals were put on this planet for adam and eve to eat, so whats becoming a veggie got to do with it :l

[DCeption]

if the world was created as it says it was in the Bible, animals were put on this planet for adam and eve to eat, so whats becoming a veggie got to do with it :l

It also says animals were put into our care, and killing them for our own benifit and make up isnt careing for them ;)

[micky.blue.eyes]

People who test stuff on animals should be tortured. They should spray something burning in their eyes, put something itchy and iritating on their skin, put something nasty on their tongues, they should be hummiliated in public and shot after.


for drugs, it should
for cosmetics. no.

Also

DJ they do it on animals that have been bred inside these labs so they can be used on them. Ar you volunteering to get drugged?

Remember what happened to those men a few months ago?

they almost DIED. You nub.
So? I don't care if those animals are bred inside those labs, they deserve freedom, they're living beings.



if the world was created as it says it was in the Bible, animals were put on this planet for adam and eve to eat, so whats becoming a veggie got to do with it :l

Adam and Eve didn't excist, it's impossible.
But you're right about 1 thing, animals are made to be eaten, so are we, I dissagree with the way we killed the animals though.

Animal testing shouldn't be allowed in any case, even if it benefits humans. Those animals didn't ask to be kidnapped and tested on, even if scientists say it doesn't harm them, because it does. If they inject them, they hurt them.
If they don't, they still harm them by scaring them, those animals don't know what happens to them, they're in a strange environment and it'll cause a lot of stress.

Do tests on humans, on serial killers and those kinds of people. (Not on pedo's, they can't help it.

[Ramones]

i think its totally ok. if we did not carry out tests on animals we would have not discovered how to cure illnesses. As for make up i think thats on 2. its only an animal get over it. think how many youve eaten away in the past.

i agree! if i cared about animals, i wouldn't eat them. I wouldn't do it myself but i'm not going to chain myself to a fence protesting against it either. I think it's either Animals die or Humans die and seen as humans are the dominant species i choose animals. :)

[Ashhizzle]

i dunno much about it, so i'll say:

Do they get an animal and put make-up on it? and spike up its hair?

:S

[dog-egg]

Without human beings on this planet, animals would be getting on with their lives, eating what they need to survive and no more, and certainly not ruining the earth through greed and experimentation - we're so pompous as a species that we think that just because something doesn't speak our language it's somehow inferior, and it doesn't matter if it get's destroyed for our own good. I say, if you want to use products or keep youself alive beyond your natural time for dying then be prepared to put yourself forward for testing - one horror story gets in the news and suddenly everyone thinks human testing is terrible - imagine the number of animals who die lonely and painful deaths in labs around the world with no way of complaining about it. I'd like to see less people sitting around watching tv and getting obese, and more going out and trying to recreate some of the environments that we've trashed in our quest for science and progress - remember it's only a few hundred years since we thought the earth was flat, so how can we imagine that we know enough about animals to justify the torture inflicted? it makes me cry

[micky.blue.eyes]

i dunno much about it, so i'll say:

Do they get an animal and put make-up on it? and spike up its hair?

:S

Yes they do. They put make up on them, use shampoo and other cosmetic products to test if it doesn't sting when you get it in your eye, if you don't get allergic reactions when you use it and other stuff.


Also, people/scientists say it's bad when there are too many of one specie, it messes up the food chain. Guess what! There are too many humans and we messed it up big time.
Humans are looked upon as the best species, the dominant ones, the smartest ones (one of the smartest ones anyway), but we aren't. Most humans can't catch their own food, build their own houses, protect themselves without using weapons. I personally think humans are the weakest specie.
But I'm going way off topic now.

Why should humans be allowed to test on animals to cure human disseases? Animals aren't testing on us or other animals to cure their disseases. In the wild you get eaten when you're sick and/or old, humans should have the same destiny.

[X:RiX:X]

Animal's in labs are not treated badly, I watched a program on channel four which showed how well they are treated, some people just refuse to belive them =l The way the scientists are treated is terrible! the amount of crap they go through to do what they wanna do in life is stupid. If the animal protesters would just sit down and chat instead of rampaging the streets of london, then this mess with animal protesting will be eradicated. Of course i'm talking about medicine-wise, without animals we would still lack even the basics. Cosmetics is another topic, if they are gunna test them, test them on humans, why slap up a pig in make-up just to see if it will affect nothing, why make a monkey smoke even though the effects are clearly known. Cosmetic testing is wrong but for medical science is right. Before saying animal testing is sick, research the topic and think if animal testing has saved someone in your family from an illness.

[Neil]

I don't really see the point in testing on animals because they may react differently than humans do, they could of found a cure for cancer, tried it on a rabbit and it turns out bad because the rabbit reacted badly, a human might not react like that so testing on animals isn't really 100% effective, testing make-up and stuff on animals is dumb because make-up is just as pointless as cigarettes are, drugs should be tested on criminals that are sentenced to death, not animals or just random people

[GommeInc]

This is a really tricky subject. I am ok with it, I tend to not think about it day in, day out so I just tend to ignore the fact it is happening and let them do what they want. After all, animals are different to humans, we tend to forget that an animal isn't as aware as us and they don't act the same as we do in situations.

[BobX]

Animal testing has been around for a very long time, just like the animal protesters that try to stop it.

Good Points

It will show if some products are unsafe and potentially saving human lives.
It will save the company from a law suit about harming human beings.
It will sort out the harmful products from the non-harmful products.Bad Points

The product may not react the same on animals as it does on humans, therefore showing that the product is safe on animals and not on humans when they try to release the product onto the market.
The animals themselves could be hurt or injured for life, even killed.
The animals will get upset and will gradually die.My View

I am opposed to animal testing because i think it is wrong to harm any other living thing on the planet intentinally for human vanity. They only test on animals so they don't harm any of the humans who want to wear make-up and other products for pure vanity.

[Ramones]

I don't really see the point in testing on animals because they may react differently than humans do, they could of found a cure for cancer, tried it on a rabbit and it turns out bad because the rabbit reacted badly, a human might not react like that so testing on animals isn't really 100% effective, testing make-up and stuff on animals is dumb because make-up is just as pointless as cigarettes are, drugs should be tested on criminals that are sentenced to death, not animals or just random people

i like your idea of putting make up on criminals. i think it would make them look very pretty

[-:Undertaker:-]

It should be allowed, imagine how many lives we can save by killing a few rats.

There isn't really much to debate about this subject, if your gran could be saved by a rat dieing then what would you pick?

[DCeption]

Animal's in labs are not treated badly, I watched a program on channel four which showed how well they are treated, some people just refuse to belive them =l The way the scientists are treated is terrible! the amount of crap they go through to do what they wanna do in life is stupid. If the animal protesters would just sit down and chat instead of rampaging the streets of london, then this mess with animal protesting will be eradicated. Of course i'm talking about medicine-wise, without animals we would still lack even the basics. Cosmetics is another topic, if they are gunna test them, test them on humans, why slap up a pig in make-up just to see if it will affect nothing, why make a monkey smoke even though the effects are clearly known. Cosmetic testing is wrong but for medical science is right. Before saying animal testing is sick, research the topic and think if animal testing has saved someone in your family from an illness.

Ok let me rub crap that stings like hell in your eye, and then tell me how that isnt treating you badly :) ;o not to mention the death of the animal in many cases, but i guess that isnt miss-treating them either?

[BobX]

It should be allowed, imagine how many lives we can save by killing a few rats.

There isn't really much to debate about this subject, if your gran could be saved by a rat dieing then what would you pick?

Rat's don't get used as much as chimps and other primates because they are closer relatives to humans. Also the genes and other things that have evolved inside us humans may re-act different to animals then what it does us as I posted. If they found a product worked on "Rats" and then released it into the market and it killed someone then they will be sued all over the place.. maybe even taking more then 1 [the animals] unnessicary life..[the humans]

At the end of the day, it's all about human consumption and Vanity. If the world wasn't so materialistic then we wouldn't have to test on animals and the world wouldn't be all heaty uppy n stoof. :l

[velvet]

Well, I have mixed veiws.
But I think people are forgetting that animals are not sentient beings like humans.
They experience and react to 'pain' differently to us. I try my best not to buy products that have not been tested on animals, and i'm also vegan, but in some cases animal testing is the only way.
I'm sure half the people in this thread still buy products that have been tested on animals, or used antibiotics, which have been tested on animals also.
It's a part of life.
However, for cosmetic testing I think it's wrong, since there is a skin substitute that could be used instead of testing it on animals, but using animals is cheaper, so people continue to do that.

[GommeInc]

I take penicillen, which might of been tested on animals. It's very harmless unless you have a properly working immune system which rejects help. Animals, I believe, have a different immune system, so they should hopefully react in a positive way.

[RedStratocas]

Depends on what it is. Makeup and making them do something thats unessesary even for humans? No. Drugs to save lives? Yes

[:Hazel]

the drugs might react differently with animals than on humans. i don't think should be done either.

[dog-egg]

Well, I have mixed veiws.
But I think people are forgetting that animals are not sentient beings like humans.
They experience and react to 'pain' differently to us. I try my best not to buy products that have not been tested on animals, and i'm also vegan, but in some cases animal testing is the only way.
I'm sure half the people in this thread still buy products that have been tested on animals, or used antibiotics, which have been tested on animals also.
It's a part of life.
However, for cosmetic testing I think it's wrong, since there is a skin substitute that could be used instead of testing it on animals, but using animals is cheaper, so people continue to do that.

not sentient? - sentient is the ability to feel - maybe you mean sapient, because i'm pretty sure that when i stepped on my dog's tail by mistake, it yelped ;)

experience and react to 'pain' differently? - how exactly do you KNOW that it isn't actually worse for them? after all, a human crying in reponse to pain could just be viewed as a reflex action if that's the direction you want to head in, but personally i wouldn't

It's a part of life. - well so is racism unfortunately, but we're trying to sort that one out, so why don't we all make more effort?

i'm not highlighting your words to make you feel bad Romance, it's just these are the same beliefs as a large percentage of people, and it worries me that when an animal doesn't exhibit the same perceived symptoms of suffering as humans then people think that testing must be ok

i think the most pertinent question in this debate is the one about choosing between an animal's life and the life of a relative - the answer (i believe) would always be in favour of the relative (unless you really don't like your brother lol) but that decision is a symptom of our general lack of respect for anything that we don't know. we know the relative, so they become important to us. we don't know the animal and aren't clever enough to communicate with it, so we call it less 'sentient' and condemn it to die

there are comparisons that can be drawn between:
a) the vision of humans as a kind of 'super animal' having the right to treat 'lesser' species with contempt, and
b) the dubious thinking employed by some of the world's fascist dictators

and as for using the advancement of medical science as a justification for animal testing - think about this... somebody contracts a disease, so we pump them full of drugs, and they survive - maybe have children - and resistance to diseases may well be genetically passed down, so our children and our childrens' children may get weaker and weaker and require more and more drugs to survive... i'm not saying we should get rid of medicine, but maybe we ought to try drinking a few extra glasses of water before reaching for the headache tablets?

omg i need to shut up now lol - i went on a bit didn't i?

[velvet]

I ment sentient as they are not sentient in the way humans are. :]
As animals feel pain so that they can respond to danger, and get away.
I think for medical reasons animal testing will never stop, but that doesn't mean that I agree with it.
& +rep for a good argument.

[Oni]

I am a strong vegetarian so you would imagine id be against this however I am not.

Like most people here I am against it for cosmetics but not for disease testing. We would have so many more diseases if it werent for animal testing and millions more people would die. Oh and also they dont just go down the shop and buy the animals they are bred for this and they have to apply for a certain amount and they are either accepted or rejected.

Some of the animal protesters are like terrorists they blow up peoples cars, garages etc its crazy. In oxford they smashed the science lab and then threw stones at the builders who were sent in to fix it.

[dog-egg]

Hi romance!! thanks for the rep too :)
are you sure that humans don't feel pain so that they can respond to danger and run away?
lol sorry for still arguing!

[Mentor]

the poeple who like animal testing i think should get tested on themeselves and see how they like it
That makes no sence, those people arnt stupid hence are happy to let it continue, since testing on animals, which arnt self aware, doesnt create the same ethical problems as testing on a human subject. If you dont want animal testing, you should be the one volentearing to be tested on...


How is it right, animals are being killed for you make- up, there is areas like shoe box sized, min food and water, should be doing exercises, the argument of, the medicines thing, n oway, if we cared that much we wouldnt abuse them, people dont care so no one gives a dam, the majority of you say they dissage but I bet they dont actually LOOK at what there buying to see if it non animal tested, well I do, and also, if you CARE about animals so much, Im sure your a vegy? If yes then thats ok, but if not, your just a hippocrit, as they die in the same way.
1) i dont ware makeup
2) no there not.
3) animal tested = safe. Hence why products are all animal tested at some stadge, its actualy a legal requirment, those that say otherwize are lieing, in the same way that people often claim to be vegitarn yet still eat fish.
4) im no vegitrain and im no hypocrit.


1) Animals do not have the same gene structure as us, so a drug that doesnt harm them may harm us.

2) We are only animals.

3) There is other ways of finding cures and if so much wasnt spent on cosemtic crap then we may be able to find cures using differnt methods.

So yeah im agaisnt animal testing. In my opinion we should test them on chavs and criminals

1) point one and two contradict each other. Animals are completely differnt to us, but we are animals... Make up your mind...
2) Animals and us a very similar, so yes the testing works.
3) yes we are also animals, hence why the testing works
4) No there arnt other ways to test for cures, not any that actually work.
5) criminals/chavs... well maybe crimals at least, are self aware, centaint beings, they can comprihend pain and suffering. animals can not. Its the same reason its wrong to throw a baby out of a window, but not to do the same to a toaster.


I disagree, what about animal rights?
They only exist for human benifit, people like anthromophising animals, but the animals in question dont actualy change from how they started due to the human perception of them.


if theres nothing wrong with an animal y **** it up with medican, were all =, humans and animals are 1 of the same just bcs of are intelagance that will bring the end of us makes us better? its crap they were here before us now were destroying them, if there were alians, and obvisely they would be x100 of are intelagance how would we feal to be tested on? idk i think its crap if ur solving cancer use a cancer patiant...
Animals also get ill. You cant test a cure on an animal thats not infected with the desease your trying to cure.

And i would like to say " yes, are intelligence DOES make us better than other animals."

Not all animals were here before us, we've been around a while.

Aliens 100* smarter would know what level of inteligence = self aware hence would not test on us, dispite the fact since the entire evolution are seperate, we would be to diffent to be of any use.

Cancer paitens are real humans, humans dont like dieing. Animals, aint self aware, they dont care ether way.


I think it could be a benefit to us but it isnt a very good idea I mean its very cruel to other animals and instead of testing other animals why not test our own species I know that certainly wouldn't be approved but IMO it would be better than testing other animals.
Another thing is if we test animals for some things it might not work out properly as other animals are different to humans.

So anyway yeah it should stop and shouldn't of even started.
We do test on humans. I think people need to actualy have a clue of what animal testing is to be involved in this debate. Animal testing occurs very late in the deveopment of a product, at a stage it is almost definatly safe. Once animal testings done, to make sure there are no nasty suprises, then we have human testing, after that, then we actualy get a finished product.

Plus all other animals do it, why not us?



People who test stuff on animals should be tortured. They should spray something burning in their eyes, put something itchy and iritating on their skin, put something nasty on their tongues, they should be hummiliated in public and shot after.
People who have no understanding of reality should seek phyeatric help and yes i do mean you. Reality does not equal proerganda.


So? I don't care if those animals are bred inside those labs, they deserve freedom, they're living beings. Not quite, there liveing at least though.


But you're right about 1 thing, animals are made to be eaten, so are we, I dissagree with the way we killed the animals though.
You mean the fact we give then a quick painless death as opposed to the slow painful one they get in the whild?


Animal testing shouldn't be allowed in any case, even if it benefits humans. Those animals didn't ask to be kidnapped and tested on, even if scientists say it doesn't harm them, because it does. If they inject them, they hurt them.
Animals dont even have a concept of asking, your entire agrument is flawed. you cant kidnap an animal, and why do you think you know better than a scientist who is obviosly substantaly better informed than you, me or anyone else here?

If they don't, they still harm them by scaring them, those animals don't know what happens to them, they're in a strange environment and it'll cause a lot of stress.

Do tests on humans, on serial killers and those kinds of people. (Not on pedo's, they can't help it.)
Humans = self aware
animals = none ware.

Humans = self aware
Toaster = none aware.


Without human beings on this planet, animals would be getting on with their lives, eating what they need to survive and no more, and certainly not ruining the earth through greed and experimentation - we're so pompous as a species that we think that just because something doesn't speak our language it's somehow inferior, and it doesn't matter if it get's destroyed for our own good.
1) Humans ARE animals
2) Humans are also part of the enviroment.
3) most hunting animals kill alot more prey than they plan on eating
4) most animals cause alot more sufferint to there prey than we do.
5) humans are also animals, so also have prey
6) If i actuly though you understood the princables of true language aquistion i would bring up the debate, but i dont think you even know exsactly what lanuage is judgeing by your claim here?


I say, if you want to use products or keep youself alive beyond your natural time for dying then be prepared to put yourself forward for testing - one horror story gets in the news and suddenly everyone thinks human testing is terrible
Human testing happens, its the next step from animal testing, although its refered to as clinical trials more often.


imagine the number of animals who die lonely and painful deaths in labs around the world with no way of complaining about it.
Aniamls have no concept of lonelyness, pain or compaining.... in the same way your car doesnt.


I'd like to see less people sitting around watching tv and getting obese, and more going out and trying to recreate some of the environments that we've trashed in our quest for science and progress
Enviroments change, it would be more natrual to keep whipeing them out, and let evolution take over, as opposed to attempting to maintain them, which simply wont work for ever.


- remember it's only a few hundred years since we thought the earth was flat, so how can we imagine that we know enough about animals to justify the torture inflicted? it makes me cry
We've come along way, plus a few 1000, the west was just somewhat behind as religious zelots were burning anyone who suggested something not in there bible.


Yes they do. They put make up on them, use shampoo and other cosmetic products to test if it doesn't sting when you get it in your eye, if you don't get allergic reactions when you use it and other stuff.
Youve been watching to much simpsons o.0


Also, people/scientists say it's bad when there are too many of one specie, it messes up the food chain. Guess what! There are too many humans and we messed it up big time.No the dont, thats you saying it. If theres to many of one species, its food becomes scarese, they all die off but to sustainable amounts, or there prediort grows in number, kills em all of down to sustainable amounts. Thats how nature works. Where just part of it.


Humans are looked upon as the best species, the dominant ones, the smartest ones (one of the smartest ones anyway), but we aren't.
Yes we are.
Best? - being a human, i would obviously say yes, bit ****** up to think otehrwize
Domiant - Obviouslty, look around you
Smartest - by a long long way.

Most humans can't catch their own food, build their own houses, protect themselves without using weapons. I personally think humans are the weakest specie.
Yes, as when the first humans came in to the world, we alreayd had houses, running water and all of todays conveniances... Are inteliegence is what makes us the most dangerous animal on the planet.


Why should humans be allowed to test on animals to cure human disseases? Animals aren't testing on us or other animals to cure their disseases. In the wild you get eaten when you're sick and/or old, humans should have the same destiny.
A) Where above them in the food chain, like every other animal we use the animals below to survive, that includes testing and eating.
b) animals also benifit from cures
c) humans being socal animals, look after there olders more, hence the exstened family unit, tribes etc. other animals dont, which is why the old and sick tend to die.


I don't really see the point in testing on animals because they may react differently than humans do, they could of found a cure for cancer, tried it on a rabbit and it turns out bad because the rabbit reacted badly, a human might not react like that so testing on animals isn't really 100% effective, testing make-up and stuff on animals is dumb because make-up is just as pointless as cigarettes are, drugs should be tested on criminals that are sentenced to death, not animals or just random people
Same decises work the same in differnt animals, most animals are really very simlar, hence we do get useful results.
Animals being non centaint, dont have the problems with suffering, you get if you use humans.



Good Points

* It will show if some products are unsafe and potentially saving human lives.
* It will save the company from a law suit about harming human beings.
* It will sort out the harmful products from the non-harmful products.

Bad Points

* The product may not react the same on animals as it does on humans, therefore showing that the product is safe on animals and not on humans when they try to release the product onto the market.
* The animals themselves could be hurt or injured for life, even killed.
* The animals will get upset and will gradually die.

My View

I am opposed to animal testing because i think it is wrong to harm any other living thing on the planet intentinally for human vanity. They only test on animals so they don't harm any of the humans who want to wear make-up and other products for pure vanity.

They have human testing, after the animal testing to make sure products are safe.
The animal doesnt care, its not self aware, stop anthromophising em.
Animals cant get upset...

I dont really use cosemetics, and i talk more in terms of medical application.


Ok let me rub crap that stings like hell in your eye, and then tell me how that isnt treating you badly ;o not to mention the death of the animal in many cases, but i guess that isnt miss-treating them either?
Real life is not like your fantiscy world.. sorry.


the drugs might react differently with animals than on humans. i don't think should be done either.
The mignt, but they dont, the sun may not rise tommrow. chances are its till will.


not sentient? - sentient is the ability to feel - maybe you mean sapient, because i'm pretty sure that when i stepped on my dog's tail by mistake, it yelped
I can make my computer bleed when you touch a button the they keybored? It it now sentient as well?


experience and react to 'pain' differently? - how exactly do you KNOW that it isn't actually worse for them? after all, a human crying in reponse to pain could just be viewed as a reflex action if that's the direction you want to head in, but personally i wouldn't
Crying is a reflex action, it releaces endorphins with nulife phiscal pain. Animals other than us, dont have a frontal lobe, there not self aware, hence arnt aware of pain, or anything else, the entire mental world is lost to them, they are little more in reality than complex biological machines, they do not have "Mind" as we do.


It's a part of life. - well so is racism unfortunately, but we're trying to sort that one out, so why don't we all make more effort?
Im now sceptical youve been reading the right debate?


i'm not highlighting your words to make you feel bad Romance, it's just these are the same beliefs as a large percentage of people, and it worries me that when an animal doesn't exhibit the same perceived symptoms of suffering as humans then people think that testing must be ok
No one is talking about perceived symptoms, where talking about the brain states assoiated with and the concepts of pain and suffering. Your simply anthromorphising animals, which doesnt really help.


i think the most pertinent question in this debate is the one about choosing between an animal's life and the life of a relative - the answer (i believe) would always be in favour of the relative (unless you really don't like your brother lol) but that decision is a symptom of our general lack of respect for anything that we don't know. we know the relative, so they become important to us. we don't know the animal and aren't clever enough to communicate with it, so we call it less 'sentient' and condemn it to die
1) we choose family becuse we like family more than a misolunus rat.
2) Family = people. People = self aware. Rat <> self aware. Hence people more important
3) The rat would choose another rat over a person, all animals choose there species over another.
4) we do know animals arent clever, and we know there not capable of communication. So back to the real world please.


there are comparisons that can be drawn between:
a) the vision of humans as a kind of 'super animal' having the right to treat 'lesser' species with contempt, and
b) the dubious thinking employed by some of the world's fascist dictators
Not really. Humans dominace over animals is the same as any other animals domincae over ones lower than it. Is a lion like hitler becuse it has dominace over a gazell?


and as for using the advancement of medical science as a justification for animal testing - think about this... somebody contracts a disease, so we pump them full of drugs, and they survive - maybe have children - and resistance to diseases may well be genetically passed down, so our children and our childrens' children may get weaker and weaker and require more and more drugs to survive... i'm not saying we should get rid of medicine, but maybe we ought to try drinking a few extra glasses of water before reaching for the headache tablets?
I dont take pain killers or any drugs i dont specificaly need to stay alive. Although your analogy is flawed. Being immune to a desise, means that desease wont kill us, deseases evolve, so another one will come about will need a medicalion to cure as well, and so on. People arnt getting weaker, the only difference is there just not dead so fast...


In summery. im pro animal testing. Anti animal testing comes from ignorance of the subject and peoples need to anthromorphise animals.

[dog-egg]

"Without human beings on this planet, animals would be getting on with their lives, eating what they need to survive and no more, and certainly not ruining the earth through greed and experimentation - we're so pompous as a species that we think that just because something doesn't speak our language it's somehow inferior, and it doesn't matter if it get's destroyed for our own good.
1) Humans ARE animals
2) Humans are also part of the enviroment.
3) most hunting animals kill alot more prey than they plan on eating
4) most animals cause alot more sufferint to there prey than we do.
5) humans are also animals, so also have prey
6) If i actuly though you understood the princables of true language aquistion i would bring up the debate, but i dont think you even know exsactly what lanuage is judgeing by your claim here?"

hahahahaha ok here we go - I'd happily sit here for some time and pull the rather obvious loose threads of most of your arguments, but I think I'll just concentrate on your response to the things that I wrote...

1) I KNOW humans are animals - if I'd said 'without tigers on this planet...' would it have meant I was saying tigers aren't animals? doh
2) Yes they are part of the environment - taking it over, ruining it, propagating with an alarming lack of control for such a superior self-aware animal ;P
3) 'Most' is untrue - which animals are you basing this on? If you're thinking about creatures like foxes killing chickens then you should maybe study them a bit more closely because you'll find that they take any chickens that they can't eat and bury them so that they can survive the winter... that sounds like a plan to eat it to me - how about you, or did your eyes and ears seize up at birth? ;)
4) When was the last time you were out measuring suffering? Come to think of it, what prey have you dealt with recently? - not a lot unless you actually go out and catch your own food which btw I think is an excellent idea. So keeping domesticated animals in tiny spaces and feeding them reconstituted ****** for their lifespan causes less suffering than a relatively short kill by a predator?
5) This one's pretty much covered by the above...
6) I think this one is my favourite :D
So what you're saying is that you doubt that I understand what language is, and therefore you deem me incapable of communicating on your level in a debate on how it's acquired? Hmmmm - you wouldn't by any chance be feeling superior there would you? Maybe you're thinking (assuming actually) that a lack of knowledge of a subject matter on my part would mean that I would be unable to offer any rational or valid thoughts?

Maybe you could try it, and then we'll see :)

Oh, and isn't language something like a bunch of sonic or visual gestures used to represent concepts and to communicate? Maybe something that has developed as part of the social interaction of a species through the generations, being passed down and evolving over time? Ever notice that scientists have discovered that some other animals even have senses that humans don't have? Ever wonder if they might communicate through means that we have yet to find? Ever wonder if your entire belief system might be based on the useless meanderings of the collective human conciousness, as mine may well be? I would presume that you haven't else you might demonstrate the ability to debate with an open mind... the best debates are not about point-scoring at the expense of individuals - they explore the concepts and pave the way for new and informed thought... I accept the possibility that I could be wrong

[dog-egg]

omg - can't believe I missed this gem!

"4) we do know animals arent clever, and we know there not capable of communication. So back to the real world please."

i must have been in cloud cuckoo land when my dog picked up her lead and dropped it at my feet after I mentioned the word 'walk' in a conversation
maybe the police are fooling themselves by using sniffer dogs to seek out narcotics? maybe the scientists (whom you seem to place in such high esteem) are just lying about the discovery of complex and intelligent cetacean communication etc

yeah - I don't live on planet earth - I'm off in space with a bunch of super-intelligent aliens who think that humans are the best thing since er... since...er... what was that amazing invention again?

in one breath you say that animals are nothing more than walking toasters and then in the next you make a point that humans are animals?

are we all toasters? are we all appliances that are to be used and discarded at a whim? or do you reserve that treatment for living creatures that might have difficulty inventing atom bombs?

I'm truly scared by some of your conclusions

[Mentor]

1) I KNOW humans are animals - if I'd said 'without tigers on this planet...' would it have meant I was saying tigers aren't animals? doh
2) Yes they are part of the environment - taking it over, ruining it, propagating with an alarming lack of control for such a superior self-aware animal ;P
Ok, so you dont understand how an environment works i take it? at least not above a primary school level?
Do you understand food chains? Aka food pyramids?

We have basic environment, animals move in, and will slowly adapt to best suit it, by the normal food chain normalition process's no animal can truely dominate another. If there are less rabbits, fox's wont be able to find food. they die. if there are more rabbits, fox population growns, they get eaten down to a lower level, again fox's have no food, die off. This always happens.

Humans as i said, and you agreed are animals, we fit in to the same food chains, where at the top, are intelligence is an asset, it is an evolutionary adaption which allows us to have that top spot, although the actual phiscal capability's of humans do tend to be highly underestimated. If humans dont have enough food, we die. We use are intellegence to make sure we do have enough food, thats why it evolved in us the first time. Animals then adapt to this, they have, we teraform are envirment, animals again adapt, as they have to all other changes in the enviroment, and its false that other animals dont terraform in some way, building a burrow is the same thing, simply on a lesser scale. So my point is, destroying an enviroment is really a bit of a contradction in terms, you can only change it, We can nuke and irrade every squre inch, we still wont destroy it, animals will surive, cocroaches as the common exsample, eveolve adapt. Its how the worlds worked since life first began.

So no, where not irrisoponible, where simply doing what every other animal does, surviveing by the means made avaible to us. Which is what my comment about humans being animals ment, that we are not exstenral to this process, simply another part.


3) 'Most' is untrue - which animals are you basing this on? If you're thinking about creatures like foxes killing chickens then you should maybe study them a bit more closely because you'll find that they take any chickens that they can't eat and bury them so that they can survive the winter... that sounds like a plan to eat it to me - how about you, or did your eyes and ears seize up at birth? ;)
Lets sea, all types of shark, orca's like to kill animals, cats like to kill animals, you can watch them playing with a mouse, often they wont eat it, its just the natraul instincts to home there skills, the animal suffers* alot, not the quick painless death they get otherwise.
Now, humans dont kill unessary, we are quite conservate, we kill what we need to surive, (unless your a serial killer at least). Surival, is in terms of food, and testing on animals, by treateing desise we exsent are life spans, again the aim of all life, and a vertue of our intellegnce. When we kill aditional animals, population control, that is again for our surival, if animals over populate, there will be more desase, if there to scarse we cant get the food, we need. If theres to many fox's, they eat the food WE need. Its survival.

*Suffering in animals is also up for debate, ill cover in next part.


4) When was the last time you were out measuring suffering? Come to think of it, what prey have you dealt with recently? - not a lot unless you actually go out and catch your own food which btw I think is an excellent idea. So keeping domesticated animals in tiny spaces and feeding them reconstituted ****** for their lifespan causes less suffering than a relatively short kill by a predator?
1) stop watching propergander, go to a real farm and get a clue on this one.

2) a cat will play with a mouse for hours, slowly killing it, letting it bleed to death.
a cow, will be killed in under a second, a bolt to the brain, quick painless.

You see the differnce here?


6) I think this one is my favourite :D
So what you're saying is that you doubt that I understand what language is, and therefore you deem me incapable of communicating on your level in a debate on how it's acquired?
Well yes and no. By your anwer youve proven you dont know what i was talking about, which is the yes. And also the no is the fact, that your responce has nothing to do with what true language aquisiotion actualy is.

Hence meaning i was right in avioding going to this debate aria. If you do want to engadge in the debate, i would suggest reading up on a texts about theory of mind, if you dont have a clue what substance duleism, functionism etc, you cant really engadge in this aria. It would be just as pointless as someone entering in to a debate on the finer points of music with me, since i for one know **** all on the subject.


Hmmmm - you wouldn't by any chance be feeling superior there would you? Maybe you're thinking (assuming actually) that a lack of knowledge of a subject matter on my part would mean that I would be unable to offer any rational or valid thoughts?
no, it would mean id have to do one hell of alot of explaing, i cant be arsed to do, in order to actualy give you the understanding needed to have a clue what i go on about, in the correct contexts.


Oh, and isn't language something like a bunch of sonic or visual gestures used to represent concepts and to communicate? Maybe something that has developed as part of the social interaction of a species through the generations, being passed down and evolving over time?
The issue is in language aquistion, not with its existance.


Ever notice that scientists have discovered that some other animals even have senses that humans don't have? Ever wonder if they might communicate through means that we have yet to find?
yes, no.
We know other animals have exstended sensory ranges to us, its irrelivent. We know what sences they do have, so no there is not one where yet to find.

How you communicate is irrelivent, if modifed a dogs vocal cords to allow it to perform all arias of human speach, it still count comprihend, interpite and use language.


Ever wonder if your entire belief system might be based on the useless meanderings of the collective human conciousness, as mine may well be? I would presume that you haven't else you might demonstrate the ability to debate with an open mind... the best debates are not about point-scoring at the expense of individuals - they explore the concepts and pave the way for new and informed thought... I accept the possibility that I could be wrong
I accept the possiblty i could be wrong, but i also aknolage its only a possiblty, im agruieng for the belifes i hold on the subject, and backing that up with the information i used to form these belifes. If evedance is put forward that proves my belife wrong, i will look at it, and form a new belife, which will be closer to the correct answer.

How do you debate an issue, if you dont have a side to argue from? I will stick with my belife until someone shows me its wrong. you so far have failed to do so, hence i maintain my current belifes on the issue.


omg - can't believe I missed this gem!

"4) we do know animals arent clever, and we know there not capable of communication. So back to the real world please."

i must have been in cloud cuckoo land when my dog picked up her lead and dropped it at my feet after I mentioned the word 'walk' in a conversation
maybe the police are fooling themselves by using sniffer dogs to seek out narcotics? maybe the scientists (whom you seem to place in such high esteem) are just lying about the discovery of complex and intelligent cetacean communication etc
Like i said erlier, you dont know what true language useage is, hence you dont seen to get what is ment by communitcation, hence why you make this claim based on an anadotal point of evdance thats completely irrelivent to my claim? Thats like saying my car isnt red becuse i thing tuna tastes nice. There no connction between the issues.
Also much of my reasoning comes from a philosphical backdrop as opposed to a simply scientific one.


yeah - I don't live on planet earth - I'm off in space with a bunch of super-intelligent aliens who think that humans are the best thing since er... since...er... what was that amazing invention again?
Good for you o.0


in one breath you say that animals are nothing more than walking toasters and then in the next you make a point that humans are animals?
Animals refering to animals which we are not. We are the only ones whom are self aware, which is what puts as above the level of toaster, although my exsample was more for effect than direct truth, since animals tend to be one hell of alot more complex than your avergae toaster. But that alown doesnt make it self aware of sentaint.


are we all toasters? are we all appliances that are to be used and discarded at a whim? or do you reserve that treatment for living creatures that might have difficulty inventing atom bombs?
Interesting you say that since, personly my own views on mind are strongly towards the functionist ideas, so in some ways i would agree, we are all "toasters". the differnce is we are sentiant, self aware toasters, which is what gives us in my opinion superiorty.
That an the fact, an ant is more protive of another ant than of another life form. All animals value there speciese, above another. I serosly think theres something very wrong with someone who values a differnt species beoned there own. If an alaien massivly smarter than us comes down starts zapping people, i will still side with my humans, regudless of if we are inferior to this hypothetical alien.

[dog-egg]

lol - ok, ok - i realise i'm dealing with someone who doesn't recognise sarcasm (the bit about being an alien was in response to some of your arguments)

food chains? environments? ecosytems? ooh - i musta missed em all during my A-level biology and all the documentaries that i've watched since (with an open mind to the fact that they might not be entirely accurate)

anyway, enough with the primitive verbal mud throwing, (and yes, my uncle has a farm in cumbria, and yes it's done organically unlike the majority of em)

ahem

"We know what sences they do have, so no there is not one where yet to find."

that kinda sums it up - there's no need to have a postmortem on your other arguments

that statement shows how closed your mind is to new possibilities - you can ignore that you wrote what you wrote and pick on something trivial from this post, but the sentence remains for all to see

what you're saying is that because we currently (in your opinion) know everything about animal's senses, there can't be any new ones to discover?

am i right in thinking that you don't believe in the existence of things beyond our perception? because that's gotta be the conclusion of your statement

so...

in the red corner we have the assumption that we already know everything, animals other than humans are fair game to torture, maim and abuse because they're not as clever as humans - completely disregarding any form of compassion for species other than our own...

and in the blue corner we have a world filled with amazing creatures that we are still only beginning to understand, so perhaps we should learn about them in more 'humane' ways than injecting them full of drugs to see if they die or not

i will always be rooting for the underdog, and that means non-human animals

black people were regarded as sub-human animals in the last century and scientists carried out tests to attempt to prove it - back then, who's side would you have been on? how different does something/someone need to be before you start keeping them in a cage?

don't bother replying to this post as i shall not be posting any more in this discussion, so you'd be wasting your time if you were doing it for my benefit; but by all means fill another page with quotes and contradictory arguments for other people to read as it will only serve to further strengthen my argument

i thank you, and goodnight :)

[Mentor]

lol - ok, ok - i realise i'm dealing with someone who doesn't recognise sarcasm (the bit about being an alien was in response to some of your arguments)

food chains? environments? ecosytems? ooh - i musta missed em all during my A-level biology and all the documentaries that i've watched since (with an open mind to the fact that they might not be entirely accurate)

anyway, enough with the primitive verbal mud throwing, (and yes, my uncle has a farm in cumbria, and yes it's done organically unlike the majority of em)

ahem

"We know what sences they do have, so no there is not one where yet to find."

that kinda sums it up - there's no need to have a postmortem on your other arguments

that statement shows how closed your mind is to new possibilities - you can ignore that you wrote what you wrote and pick on something trivial from this post, but the sentence remains for all to see

what you're saying is that because we currently (in your opinion) know everything about animal's senses, there can't be any new ones to discover?

am i right in thinking that you don't believe in the existence of things beyond our perception? because that's gotta be the conclusion of your statement
Im not entirely sure how saying we know what senses an animal has equates to saying animals dont have senses beoned are perception.

Now, if you really have an A level in biology, its somewhat strange to me, you dont appear to understand what the word sence actualy means, Our sences and the sences of other animals are by definition "physiological methods of perception."

So somthing beoned perception cannot be a sence, since are perseption own covers the physical.

I can not see in to the infared specturm, other animals can, that means they have a sensory range beoned my own. But, we still know they have this sence, in the way we know they also dont have any other magical sences.

The only idea i can really get that your implying is some metaphisical knolage based, which by definition is not a sence as i said. And no, im an aithiest, so i dont belive in god, ghoast and all the other crap, since quite frankly theres no basis for it.


in the red corner we have the assumption that we already know everything, animals other than humans are fair game to torture, maim and abuse because they're not as clever as humans - completely disregarding any form of compassion for species other than our own...
o.0 well, personaly id suggest reading what i actualy wrote, not what you think i wrote, but aside from that, my argument we as the link higher in the food chain, have the evoultionary right to use the animals below us in the food chain to fasiliate are own survival. I also say, i value human life more than animal life. I also pointed out animals being none self aware, dont care, there not capable of it. Thats got nothing to do with intellegence, a computer may be smarter than a human(or in realilty, dumb very fast), but that doesnt make it a self aware being now does it?


and in the blue corner we have a world filled with amazing creatures that we are still only beginning to understand, so perhaps we should learn about them in more 'humane' ways than injecting them full of drugs to see if they die or not
Back now from fairly land to the realm of reality, how amazing you think a creature is, is completly irrelivent to the topic, the death of a 1000 rats = the survival of a million humans (and if you wanted a million rats)... call me a utilitarian but i dont see that as a bad thing.


i will always be rooting for the underdog, and that means non-human animals
You keep doing that...


black people were regarded as sub-human animals in the last century and scientists carried out tests to attempt to prove it - back then, who's side would you have been on? how different does something/someone need to be before you start keeping them in a cage?
Well, your flaw is in your deduction that scientists were doing this, sciance is based on the facts, the black v whites problem was based on predetermined assumptions, not the actual data avaible to them. Hence was flawed from the start.
Seconly, a human is a huamn with the same capasitys regardless of skin colour. A chicken doesnt have the same capasitys, and still isnt human regardless of how many bad anadotes you throw at it.


don't bother replying to this post as i shall not be posting any more in this discussion, so you'd be wasting your time if you were doing it for my benefit; but by all means fill another page with quotes and contradictory arguments for other people to read as it will only serve to further strengthen my argument
I do it for the benifit of anyone whom wants to get some idea of the facts of the debate, i do it in an attempt to correct the misinformation you presnted in your ad homen attacks and poorly thought out logic.
If you dont wish to continue the debate, thats your choice.

[dog-egg]

lmao - of course i know what a sense is (this was too tempting to leave it alone)

we have 5 right? and maybe a possible 6th? so you're pompous enough to think that just because a human isn't capable of perceiving an extra sense that we don't posess or indeed have the current capacity to create a machine to detect, that it therefore can't exist? omg

lol - blinkered, luddite, non-sensical, illogical

if you actually took the time to study other animals instead of spouting unjustified and unqualified trash then you might realise just how much we have yet to learn

i can't be bobba'd to quote the garbled sentence about scientists, but it's fact! yes, FACT!!!! they tried to prove it! SCIENTISTS (read that again if you're having trouble) attempted to prove it to justify the white population's atrocious treatment of other members of their own species! Look it up! Go on! Search it on the web! Read! Learn! Say the word 'fact' when you know some!

You are in a position where you're posting on a forum read by a large number of people - if you truly believe that animal testing is justifiable then do them a favour and justify it! read back through my posts - did I at ANY point try to anthropomorphise non-human animals? No!! Especially not chickens lmao

it's garbage, man - give up!!

to be honest fella, if it came down to it, and you were dangling off a cliff and my dog was in the same predicament a few feet further on, the question of who i'd save wouldn't turn out too favourably for you - even if it was purely for the reason that my dog would be more likely to be capable of rational and logical debate

yes, i've studied biology - fact, get over it

you mentioned sharks earlier as an example of animals that would kill more than they would eat - big mistake fella :) i'm a huge fan of sharks - been studying them for years - they don't do that - NONE of them - they don't play with their prey, don't kill more than they need to survive - t..h..e..y d...o..n..'t
tell me what you witnessed to back up your statement - i have around 30 VHS tapes to justify mine - but you won't will you? Because you're wrong and you know it, so you'll ignore that bit

your views on non-human animals would appear to be shaped by a garbled pseudo-intellectual rationale based on a personal philosophy that shows such a lack of empathy towards other planetary life as to merit serious questions around your morality

now, if you pay attention to anything in this post, pay attention to the next bit: (please, if you are an innocent bystander and are personally affected by tales of extreme cruelty then stop reading now)

in my home town a few years ago, a man was discovered to have taken his recently acquired puppy into his garage, and nailed it's paws into the concrete, purely to watch it suffer - he kept it there to starve it to death and then threw the body into a bin bag and disposed of it with the rest of the rubbish

that man is in PRISON
and why? because it was cruel - because when the public saw his evil grinning face in the paper demonstrating his complete lack of remorse for such a horrendous thing, they demanded justice
that man decided at some point that it was ok to torture the puppy for a purpose (to satisfy his own perverted needs) - he had justified it in his head

the puppy was his to abuse, to make use of to his own ends

please don't tell me that you would condone this kind of behaviour because the puppy isn't self-aware

no, really - please!! because the total lack of empathy for the suffering of small creatures and their subsequent torture is recorded as being a common trait amongst serial killers, and i would hate to think that you would be heading that way

cite some proof - right now! not a quote of my post with some misinterpretation of words presented as a statement of perceived and misguided fact - some actual proof - proof that non-human animals are not self aware - proof that there is no possibility that we don't know enough about them to irrefutably justify animal testing on any basis!

you can't
neither could i, even if i was pro-testing

non-human animal testing occurs because we CAN
simple as that
if only a species would arise that was capable of sticking you full of drugs, because you didn't fit the bill of what they reckoned was intelligent life - i'd actually like to see the look on your face as you realised what a monster you'd been until i'd inevitably feel sorry for you and rescue you because I'm able to empathise

i really wanted to leave this topic alone, but i couldn't let such in-humane values go unchallenged - i have shown your posts to several friends, who all concluded (before i gave them my opinions) that your arguments have no cohesion, and when questioned on specific opinions that are shown to be illogical, you attempt to alter what you said, or ignore it

so... can you present the proof, showing that the animals don't suffer? - don't quote my post - just type your proof

lol - actually, you were unable to do it last time, so why should i expect any different today? i live in hope, but...

no, seriously, give it a go if you can!

[Mentor]

Firstly i admire your conviction... "don't bother replying to this post as i shall not be posting any more in this discussion,"

Wow. you lasted a whole one posts...


lmao - of course i know what a sense is (this was too tempting to leave it alone)

we have 5 right? and maybe a possible 6th? so you're pompous enough to think that just because a human isn't capable of perceiving an extra sense that we don't posess or indeed have the current capacity to create a machine to detect, that it therefore can't exist? omg
We have 6, balance is technically classified as a sense. Although your the one with the A level in biology are you not? so i shouldn't be telling you this.

Your argument is suggestion, a deaf person couldnt tell other people could hear. Amasingly people deaf from birth do know people can hear, Why, Becuse its ******* obvious. Becuse you lack a sence, it does not then mean we can not still understand a sence, many animals are far more sencetive to eltromagnetic activity, hence why they often manage to get out the way of natrual desasters. This is a sence we dont have... We still know many animals do in fact have it.
A sence has to be something phiscal. We can already measure the phyiscal. If empircal evidenace cannot be used, it cant be phyiscal, hence isnt a sence...


lol - blinkered, luddite, non-sensical, illogicalAs a summery of your last clame, very true.


if you actually took the time to study other animals instead of spouting unjustified and unqualified trash then you might realise just how much we have yet to learn
And your A level obviously makes you an expert in zoology i take it? and i suppose you also have the magic power which tells you exsactly what i know and what i dont know.



i can't be bobba'd to quote the garbled sentence about scientists, but it's fact! yes, FACT!!!! they tried to prove it! SCIENTISTS (read that again if you're having trouble) attempted to prove it to justify the white population's atrocious treatment of other members of their own species! Look it up! Go on! Search it on the web! Read! Learn! Say the word 'fact' when you know some!
Bobba is a word used on habbo, it isnt part of habboxs filter... And again, you misread. I can call myself a sceintist? does that make me one? No, it doesnt. Are the cristan "scientists" who claim to have proved gravity doesnt exist, its actualy just got pushing us down, really scientists. Also no.

To be a scentist, you have to use the scentific method and be an exspert within a key feild. If your hypothisis is not based on empircal observation, but in fact on a preestablished belife, as with Intelgent design, or the white dominance ideology. They are not useing the scientifc method, hence are not scientists.


You are in a position where you're posting on a forum read by a large number of people - if you truly believe that animal testing is justifiable then do them a favour and justify it! read back through my posts - did I at ANY point try to anthropomorphise non-human animals? No!! Especially not chickens lmao
Actually, your last post didnt even mention an animal, so no you didnt, your original post though, and the claims you make are still based upon that principle.

Also i already put forward two justifcations. One the evolutionary right, we being higher in the food chain, gives us an evolutionary right to use the animals below in order to facilite are survival.

My second was animals being non self aware, cannot suffer in the terms a human can, without the abilty to introspect, life death pain suffering, all these concepts are irreliveant. Appling them to an animal is simply a case on anthromophising it. Becuse of this i dont have a moral objection to useing them as the subjects for medical testing.


it's garbage, man - give up!!
You keep makeing these claims, without actualy even comeing close to attacking my arguments, most the time you miss the point and attack an agrument i didnt even suggest?


to be honest fella, if it came down to it, and you were dangling off a cliff and my dog was in the same predicament a few feet further on, the question of who i'd save wouldn't turn out too favourably for you - even if it was purely for the reason that my dog would be more likely to be capable of rational and logical debate
Its nice to know how much of a well adjusted, mentally stable human being you are :)
Although, again your motive was purely derived from the selfish notion of your own emotional bond towards your dog, the bond is purly one way, and your action is an irrational one, but hey, most humans arnt that rational. Personly given the same reversed predicament, id rescue you, since dispite your obvious ignorance, you at least hold a concept of what that is and an unstanding of the action. The dog does not, it insted would simply be an indugance in my own selfish pleasures.


yes, i've studied biology - fact, get over itWeird, most people who study biology tend to have at least some understanding of the subject, i guess you just dossed the course.


you mentioned sharks earlier as an example of animals that would kill more than they would eat - big mistake fella :) i'm a huge fan of sharks - been studying them for years - they don't do that - NONE of them - they don't play with their prey, don't kill more than they need to survive - t..h..e..y d...o..n..'t
A Great white, will on many occasions, give chase to a seal it has no intention of eating, now, as chuffed with your A level as you may be, I tend to have more faith in what an established exspert in the field has to say, you dont even need to look further a feild that popular bbc programing, such as planet earth, to have this information readily aviaible to you, even directly shown.


tell me what you witnessed to back up your statement - i have around 30 VHS tapes to justify mine - but you won't will you? Because you're wrong and you know it, so you'll ignore that bit
Well i refranced an easy to find example already, so id stop trying to make witty comebacks, since they dont work. Also video tapes dont make you an exspert, granted by knowlage comes from that of authority, its an authorty i have far more faith in than you.


your views on non-human animals would appear to be shaped by a garbled pseudo-intellectual rationale based on a personal philosophy that shows such a lack of empathy towards other planetary life as to merit serious questions around your morality
Actually its far more likenable, to ideas of substance dualism, despite the fact, personally i take a more functionalist view of things, im not a believe in the metaphysical as ive said before, although since my philosophy is based on whats quite a mainstream one, i wouldn't really consider it a solely personal one.

Also considering youve already stated youd be happy to let me die, given the chance, i dont really see how you can be in any stead to challenge my own morality?


now, if you pay attention to anything in this post, pay attention to the next bit: (please, if you are an innocent bystander and are personally affected by tales of extreme cruelty then stop reading now)

in my home town a few years ago, a man was discovered to have taken his recently acquired puppy into his garage, and nailed it's paws into the concrete, purely to watch it suffer - he kept it there to starve it to death and then threw the body into a bin bag and disposed of it with the rest of the rubbish

that man is in PRISON
and why? because it was cruel - because when the public saw his evil grinning face in the paper demonstrating his complete lack of remorse for such a horrendous thing, they demanded justice
that man decided at some point that it was ok to torture the puppy for a purpose (to satisfy his own perverted needs) - he had justified it in his head

the puppy was his to abuse, to make use of to his own ends

please don't tell me that you would condone this kind of behaviour because the puppy isn't self-aware
Were you expecting me to? Since you truly have not understood the central points of my argument if you do. Someone who would do such a thing is seirosly, wrong in the head, animal abusers often become serial killers. Why? not becuse they understand the differnce between animals and humans in the awarness and abilty to comprihend reality, but simply in the lack of there own abilty to empherise, a central componet of human intelligence.
The "because i can" argument doesn't cut it. I dont believe in unnecessary death, i dont belive in causing suffering. Ignorance being the main cause of this, i also do not take refuge in it. Im a realist, i accept the world for what it is, not for what i want it to be. I personaly dont even swat flys, but that doesnt mean, if for means of survival, i had to kill a cow, for food i would not do it. The cases are differnt, one, death is unessary. two, death is necessary. i dont delude myself with fantisy visions. Death is nessary, its unavaidable, in the second case, it would ether be the death of a cow, or the death of me. Im not suidal, i have a very strong drive to live, so i choose that.
Its the same concept with animal testing, So a 1000 rats die, a million humans can live. Do you think its moraly justifable killing a million humans to save a 1000 rats? as that is what your argument is for, if you truely understand what going against animal testing is.

Then again, do you even know what that is? They dont slosh some chemicals together and slap it on the first animal the find. Medicans are almost complete by the time of animal testing, tested in computer simulations, on tissue samples, the theory behind them tested, confirmed, peer reviewed. Then when we have the pretty much safe product, then its tested on animals, then if there some nastly side effect missed, we dont end up with dead people, people with emotional bonds to others. It should be noted that most animal reaserches have a very close bond with the animals they experiment on, there treated pretty well. After animal testing, we test on humans for the same reason. Eventaly we then have the finished product. But i suppose the peta fatiscy world is more entertaing, and fits better with your sideing than reality does on the issue.


no, really - please!! because the total lack of empathy for the suffering of small creatures and their subsequent torture is recorded as being a common trait amongst serial killers, and i would hate to think that you would be heading that way
Again, you seriosly havent followed.


cite some proof - right now! not a quote of my post with some misinterpretation of words presented as a statement of perceived and misguided fact - some actual proof - proof that non-human animals are not self aware - proof that there is no possibility that we don't know enough about them to irrefutably justify animal testing on any basis!

Well if we apply the true language aqisiotion principles, Descartes test for intelgence as it happened, no animal, bar human can pass it.
We then have the fact, that are knowlage of the brain, although far from complete would indicate animals cannot have it, they dont even have the frontal lobe.
We then take in to account the human brain is massivly more advanced than that of any other animal out there, not a proof in itself, but a noteable point.
Do you think a mouse sits down and ponders the meaning of life in its free time? Since if you dont, why have you even suggested self awarness in animals, if you dont belive it yourself.

Infact, go read some chomsky, the true language application princible is the easiest to use from a non strictly biological outlook on the subject.


you can't
neither could i, even if i was pro-testing
i just did?


non-human animal testing occurs because we CAN
simple as that
if only a species would arise that was capable of sticking you full of drugs, because you didn't fit the bill of what they reckoned was intelligent life - i'd actually like to see the look on your face as you realised what a monster you'd been until i'd inevitably feel sorry for you and rescue you because I'm able to empathise
You kinda seem to have neglected to take in to account, you get to enjoy the same fate, and then missed the major flaw in the analogy. If your takeing a lifeform more intelgent than a human, somthing to which a human is massivly inferior to. The being is going to be very smart, so smart in fact, even if we are makeing a mistake, a being far smarter wouldnt make the same one... if it did, it wouldnt be far smarter, at best it would be even.

Then again, the whole agrument is based on the fact you have no idea what animal testing actualy is...


i really wanted to leave this topic alone, but i couldn't let such in-humane values go unchallenged - i have shown your posts to several friends, who all concluded (before i gave them my opinions) that your arguments have no cohesion, and when questioned on specific opinions that are shown to be illogical, you attempt to alter what you said, or ignore it
yet i have done nether, i simply reliterate what i say, and clarifie it futher, your inabilty to understand it, is your own problem... and that of your friends i suppose to, especaly if even as a group you couldnt work it out...


so... can you present the proof, showing that the animals don't suffer? - don't quote my post - just type your proof
You said this once, i did.


lol - actually, you were unable to do it last time, so why should i expect any different today? i live in hope, but...
You really need to stop makeing these assumed come backs, its really starting to make you look stupid.


no, seriously, give it a go if you can!
o.0 you see what i mean?

[luke-p]

It should carry on - If your Mum / Dad / Relative or yourself got some unknown life threatening disease and they needed to test the treatment on animals I really don't think you would care about the animals, You'd just want whoever had the disease to get better.

They test life saving drugs on animals, I'd rather humans live than many humans dieing because some nuts think its Oh-so-wrong-and-terribly-cruel to test on animals.

[dog-egg]

firstly, a quick apology if i have actually missed some pearls of wisdom in what you're saying - it's often difficult to follow what you're trying to say as it looks like you typed with a spade

"Firstly i admire your conviction... "don't bother replying to this post as i shall not be posting any more in this discussion,"

well, you replied lol :P

"We have 6, balance is technically classified as a sense. Although your the one with the A level in biology are you not? so i shouldn't be telling you this."

erm - 'possible' 6th? 'technically classified'? i still said there's 6, i just said 'possible' cos i don't really think of balance as a sense

"Your argument is suggestion, a deaf person couldnt tell other people could hear. Amasingly people deaf from birth do know people can hear, Why, Becuse its ******* obvious. Becuse you lack a sence, it does not then mean we can not still understand a sence, many animals are far more sencetive to eltromagnetic activity, hence why they often manage to get out the way of natrual desasters. This is a sence we dont have... We still know many animals do in fact have it.
A sence has to be something phiscal. We can already measure the phyiscal. If empircal evidenace cannot be used, it cant be phyiscal, hence isnt a sence..."

you're missing my point - all i'm saying is that there may be some entirely physical senses out there that we have yet to discover - you presume that we've found them all which i find to be rather odd

"As a summery of your last clame, very true."

erm... didn't i say that there were 5 and a possible sixth? doesn't that make 6? or are you referring to me calling you a luddite?

"And your A level obviously makes you an expert in zoology i take it? and i suppose you also have the magic power which tells you exsactly what i know and what i dont know."

i have never claimed to be an expert, i only informed you of it because you said i seemed to be educated to primary school level - you're the one who keeps bringing it up! and no i don't have a magic power, obviously, just the ability to read your dubious arguments which couldn't possibly be based on a great deal of non-human animal study

"Bobba is a word used on habbo, it isnt part of habboxs filter... And again, you misread. I can call myself a sceintist? does that make me one? No, it doesnt. Are the cristan "scientists" who claim to have proved gravity doesnt exist, its actualy just got pushing us down, really scientists. Also no.

To be a scentist, you have to use the scentific method and be an exspert within a key feild. If your hypothisis is not based on empircal observation, but in fact on a preestablished belife, as with Intelgent design, or the white dominance ideology. They are not useing the scientifc method, hence are not scientists."

would you like a sweetie for pointy out that i typed 'bobba' - it was a jk, but maybe your 'sense' of humour is yet to be discovered :)

ok - 'scientists' - what i actually said was they tried to prove it - they were experts in their fields BUT they chose tests that were innappropriate and biased because they were racist

i'd like to know where you got your definition of a scientist from - try the one on wikipedia - seems to suggest you're wrong about the hypothesis business - look for the word 'hunch' on the page

"Actually, your last post didnt even mention an animal, so no you didnt, your original post though, and the claims you make are still based upon that principle."

lol - no they're not based on any kind of anthropomorphic principle
you're the one who's so desperate to disprove that they're anything like us because then you might have to feel guilty - would i be anthropomorphising if i said that gorillas exhibit many human-like actions, emotions and social structure/behaviour, so maybe sticking electrodes on them without any kind of choice might be a little unfair? even if animals DO experience pain differently, does it give us the right to cause it to them? NO

"Also i already put forward two justifcations. One the evolutionary right, we being higher in the food chain, gives us an evolutionary right to use the animals below in order to facilite are survival."

firstly, how about you go stand naked in the middle of an african plain at night and see who's at the top of the food chain... maybe the evolutionary right to EAT them, but not the moral right to 'use' them...
by your reckoning, if a country full of cannibals with higher IQs than yours and better weapons decided to test radiation on you, then you'd agree

"My second was animals being non self aware, cannot suffer in the terms a human can, without the abilty to introspect, life death pain suffering, all these concepts are irreliveant. Appling them to an animal is simply a case on anthromophising it. Becuse of this i dont have a moral objection to useing them as the subjects for medical testing."

ah - no moral objection... i'll deal with that one after the puppy story comments...

"You keep makeing these claims, without actualy even comeing close to attacking my arguments, most the time you miss the point and attack an agrument i didnt even suggest?"

lmao - you're gonna say that or we wouldn't be arguing, would we? doh

"Its nice to know how much of a well adjusted, mentally stable human being you are :)
Although, again your motive was purely derived from the selfish notion of your own emotional bond towards your dog, the bond is purly one way, and your action is an irrational one, but hey, most humans arnt that rational. Personly given the same reversed predicament, id rescue you, since dispite your obvious ignorance, you at least hold a concept of what that is and an unstanding of the action. The dog does not, it insted would simply be an indugance in my own selfish pleasures."

lol - so there are no cases of people being saved by animals? you trying to tell me that when my dog used to put her head on my knee if i was depressed and wag her tail slowly (the only time she ever exhibited that kind of behaviour) was some sort of automated response? if it was two people there, one of which you knew, you'd indulgence your selfishness there wouldn't you? so where would your rational brain be then?

"Weird, most people who study biology tend to have at least some understanding of the subject, i guess you just dossed the course."

you really do like bringing it up don't you? i got a B, because i couldn't care less about some of the biochemistry part, so that bit i dossed...
so according to you, i have NO understanding of biology, yet passed with a high grade - u now saying that it's possible to have no understanding of a complex subject yet pass an exam in it? ooh - that insult was razor sharp wasn't it?

"A Great white, will on many occasions, give chase to a seal it has no intention of eating, now, as chuffed with your A level as you may be, I tend to have more faith in what an established exspert in the field has to say, you dont even need to look further a feild that popular bbc programing, such as planet earth, to have this information readily aviaible to you, even directly shown."

my god, can u stop banging on about my education? or is that now the basis for your argument? ok - planet earth - are you sure you aren't mixing them up with orcas? i've had a good search on the net and found no new evidence that great whites play with their prey - post a link to some video proof and i'll believe it - still would be no justification for animal testing tho would it? it's just a minor point, but surely you shouldn't be believing anything unless it's been empirically tested, being so fond of that as you are? so what if it DOES turn out to be true - as you said, cats play with their prey - it's not a licence for humans to do the same is it?

"Well i refranced an easy to find example already, so id stop trying to make witty comebacks, since they dont work. Also video tapes dont make you an exspert, granted by knowlage comes from that of authority, its an authorty i have far more faith in than you."

aint found a summary of that episode - send me a link - i asked for proof remember, not a vague reference to a bbc documentary - plus, how exactly do you know what a great white's intentions are? - and again, why state the obvious - of course you have more faith in your authority - else you wouldn't be arguing doh again


"Actually its far more likenable, to ideas of substance dualism, despite the fact, personally i take a more functionalist view of things, im not a believe in the metaphysical as ive said before, although since my philosophy is based on whats quite a mainstream one, i wouldn't really consider it a solely personal one."

i'm not asking you to believe in the metaphysical - just the possibility that there are physical things we don't know about yet - everyone thought the atom was the smallest thing not so long ago... it really isn't a big leap to see that we might still have things to discover

"Also considering youve already stated youd be happy to let me die, given the chance, i dont really see how you can be in any stead to challenge my own morality?"

lmao - i didn't say i'd be happy about it :) - in reality, i'd save my dog and then feel guilty and save you which some might think is a questionable decision in terms of morality - true
doesn't mean i can't question your morals though

"Were you expecting me to? Since you truly have not understood the central points of my argument if you do. Someone who would do such a thing is seirosly, wrong in the head, animal abusers often become serial killers. Why? not becuse they understand the differnce between animals and humans in the awarness and abilty to comprihend reality, but simply in the lack of there own abilty to empherise, a central componet of human intelligence.
The "because i can" argument doesn't cut it. I dont believe in unnecessary death, i dont belive in causing suffering. Ignorance being the main cause of this, i also do not take refuge in it. Im a realist, i accept the world for what it is, not for what i want it to be. I personaly dont even swat flys, but that doesnt mean, if for means of survival, i had to kill a cow, for food i would not do it. The cases are differnt, one, death is unessary. two, death is necessary. i dont delude myself with fantisy visions. Death is nessary, its unavaidable, in the second case, it would ether be the death of a cow, or the death of me. Im not suidal, i have a very strong drive to live, so i choose that.
Its the same concept with animal testing, So a 1000 rats die, a million humans can live. Do you think its moraly justifable killing a million humans to save a 1000 rats? as that is what your argument is for, if you truely understand what going against animal testing is."

so what that guy did was cruel? and morally wrong? so you'll admit that!
if he'd eaten it afterwards, would it have made a difference? NO - still horrendous

now, how about if he was carrying out experiments to back up your claims about non-human animals and how they experience pain 'differently' - maybe had 5 different animals, and rigged them up with monitors to check brain activity and stress levels - would it make a difference? NO again - still cruel - he's still nailing them to the floor

ok - so instead of nails, he puts them in cages and gives them electric shocks instead... it ISN'T going to get less morally wrong!

you don't believe in causing suffering - did the puppy in the story suffer? i would say yes - if you say no, then why would it be a sick act? if the puppy did suffer then it has the capacity to suffer, so it would suffer if you tested products on it - so if you believe that animal testing is fine then you also believe in causing suffering - this really is basic logic

if you were actually true to your arguments then you WOULD swat flies as they spread diseases and you're 'not suicidal'

"Then again, do you even know what that is? They dont slosh some chemicals together and slap it on the first animal the find. Medicans are almost complete by the time of animal testing, tested in computer simulations, on tissue samples, the theory behind them tested, confirmed, peer reviewed. Then when we have the pretty much safe product, then its tested on animals, then if there some nastly side effect missed, we dont end up with dead people, people with emotional bonds to others. It should be noted that most animal reaserches have a very close bond with the animals they experiment on, there treated pretty well. After animal testing, we test on humans for the same reason. Eventaly we then have the finished product. But i suppose the peta fatiscy world is more entertaing, and fits better with your sideing than reality does on the issue."

this is just a repeat from one of your earlier posts - i already know the process of testing, and knew it before the debate
you say they're 'treated pretty well' which implies it could be worse, or better - i'm sorry but i thought you said earlier that non-human animals were ours to use any way we see fit because they're lower on the food chain so why bother treating them well at all if you subscribe to that belief, and also think that they don't have the capacity to suffer like humans?

"Again, you seriosly havent followed."

i did and it's a logical progression from your arguments, if a little extreme

"Well if we apply the true language aqisiotion principles, Descartes test for intelgence as it happened, no animal, bar human can pass it.
We then have the fact, that are knowlage of the brain, although far from complete would indicate animals cannot have it, they dont even have the frontal lobe.
We then take in to account the human brain is massivly more advanced than that of any other animal out there, not a proof in itself, but a noteable point.
Do you think a mouse sits down and ponders the meaning of life in its free time? Since if you dont, why have you even suggested self awarness in animals, if you dont belive it yourself."

ah - so you admit it isn't proof, and that we don't know everything about the brain - YAY!! almost a start...
yes, i do think mice may quite possibly do that
some non-human animals obviously dream, so presumably they can imagine, so i would never rule out the possibility of being self-aware

Infact, go read some chomsky, the true language application princible is the easiest to use from a non strictly biological outlook on the subject.

"i just did?"

lmao - you just said it wasn't proof!

"You kinda seem to have neglected to take in to account, you get to enjoy the same fate, and then missed the major flaw in the analogy. If your takeing a lifeform more intelgent than a human, somthing to which a human is massivly inferior to. The being is going to be very smart, so smart in fact, even if we are makeing a mistake, a being far smarter wouldnt make the same one... if it did, it wouldnt be far smarter, at best it would be even."

even if i did share the same fate, it'd still be worth it to see the look on your face! - i deliberately didn't mention that the species was smarter - i just said 'capable' - i still say you'd be a bit narked if they did that to you, whether they were more intelligent or not

"Then again, the whole agrument is based on the fact you have no idea what animal testing actualy is..."

i know exactly what it is - it's the cheapest method of testing products on living tissue, and drug companies won't get sued by animals if an accidental death occurs - what else is there to understand? that they apply a product to an animal to see the results and prove that it's safe enough for human testing? i understand that perfectly well...

"yet i have done nether, i simply reliterate what i say, and clarifie it futher, your inabilty to understand it, is your own problem... and that of your friends i suppose to, especaly if even as a group you couldnt work it out..."

i can understand what you're trying to say well enough - there's a difference between that and seeing any kind of logic to it, or finding things to agree with

"You said this once, i did."

Yes and even though i said it twice in the same post, you still didn't provide any - you tried and then said it wasn't actually proof

"You really need to stop makeing these assumed come backs, its really starting to make you look stupid."

hmmm - let me see... you quoted my post as i predicted, and you failed to provide proof as i predicted and admitted you hadn't... hello everyone!! i'm stupid - no, really, i am! we all are as humans - just look at what we're doing - still having wars, still messing up the world, still making bombs, making most of the same mistakes that we've been making for thousands of years

"o.0 you see what i mean?"

proof?

[dog-egg]

luke - of course nobody would want their relative to die, but the fact is that animal testing isn't necessary - it's just cheaper
surely if we could test drugs without doing it on animals then it would be better?
you'd still get your life-saving drugs, but without the pain caused to animals

[dog-egg]

oh, and gomme - one last thing - just reminding you that you said this:

"4) we do know animals arent clever, and we know there not capable of communication."

:)

still laughing here

Edited by micky.blue.eyes (Super Moderator): Please don't multiple post within the 15 minutes edit limit.

[GommeInc]

luke - of course nobody would want their relative to die, but the fact is that animal testing isn't necessary - it's just cheaper
surely if we could test drugs without doing it on animals then it would be better?
you'd still get your life-saving drugs, but without the pain caused to animals
It is necessary, to see if there is a reaction "/ So you would want someone to die for your relative or friend to live? Do you believe in Human Testing first, public use second? Or do you just want them to hit the market immediately when being made, so hundreds-thousands-millions die on a product that hasn't been tested?

How can you test drugs on something that you cannot test on? The major flaw in your argument, or are you going to say vegetables are a suitable test subject :rolleyes: Humans aren't suitable, they cost more than a rodent or other lower chain animal.

So, my question, what are you suggesting a drug should be tested on? Because an animal is the only cheap way to do it....



oh, and gomme - one last thing - just reminding you that you said this:

"4) we do know animals arent clever, and we know there not capable of communication."



still laughing here
Mentor and me are not the same person, thank you very much ;) I would also like to point out, that you must be very thick if you cannot understand what he is saying e.g. "typed with a spade." You probably do understand him, but you're trying to wriggle out of his perfectly formed arguments by making daft comments about how he is saying them "/

[-:Undertaker:-]

luke - of course nobody would want their relative to die, but the fact is that animal testing isn't necessary - it's just cheaper
surely if we could test drugs without doing it on animals then it would be better?
you'd still get your life-saving drugs, but without the pain caused to animals


Of course it's necessary, I knew that from the age of 9

So you'd like thousands of Humans to be in pain because the poisen cancer drugs that weren't tested on animals were tested on innocent humans?

Animals are the only way to do it, unless you can suggest something else?

I didn't read through all of your posts as they seemed to be very repetitive.

[Wig44.]

Here is what I think is right. It is necessary for the advancement of medical sciences, if we didn't test on animals there wouldn't be certain life saving drugs we have today. Of course, there is the option of testing it on humans, but remember what happened recently? Alot of people died testing a drug and a few who survived were in a critical condition and on the verge of death.

So in that sense, yes - animal testing is good for the development of drugs that save lives and help the quality of peoples lives.

Animal testing is not right when it comes to beauty products and cosmetics, such as make up, shampoo and conditioner, bath/shower gels and foams and the normal superficial products. Animals are treated much worse when they have superficial/beauty products tested on them than when they have break through drugs tested on them.

So, yes to the advancement of medical sciences and no to the tesing of beauty products and cosmetics.

[LikeOmgItsLaila]

God made us stronger than animals for a reason.

I personally, do not care what animals are being killed for as long as my KFC still comes and is on my table, my make up is still there.

I know, How selfish am I? But hell, I don't care - Im alive to enjoy life, and enjoy it I shall.

[dog-egg]

ok - big apology to you Gomme - i'm sorry i made the mistake of saying you typed it when you didn't!! :)

however, i'd like to know how you see "4) we do know animals arent clever, and we know there not capable of communication." as a 'perfectly formed argument' ?

i realise that there have been some long and convoluted posts on here, which are difficult to follow, or just plain boring to do so, but there are some valid points in them

there ARE alternatives to testing on animals, such as tissue samples and voluntary human testing... as Mentor has said, a lot of testing IS done on tissue samples so the product is already pretty safe by the time that stage of testing is complete

i am happy to volunteer for testing as i think that if i want the future benefits then i should ante up and help... human testing has been going on for years and yes there's been one recent case of things going badly wrong, but that's a drop in the ocean of testing

i have no desire to see people dying in tests, just as i have no desire to see non-human animals dying - and cancer patients are crying out to get gene therapy at the moment but american laws on compulsory years of testing mean that thousands are dying needlessly while they wait - now they're going over to china where great results are being seen

the argument for testing is much stronger for life saving drugs, but what about all the 'new and improved' products like headache tablets? they worked fine in the first place, but each new alteration means more and more testing

i guess you'd have quite a low opinion of me if you hadn't read through all the earlier posts and seen how the main argument between Mentor and i got started - i set out to try to keep things impersonal but he began to infer that i was less intelligent than him, whereas i just disagreed with him

i still believe that testing on animals is morally wrong and we should all be doing everything we can to find more alternatives, and in the meantime volunteer for human testing

:)

[dog-egg]

and here are some alternatives for you... (direct quotes)

'So, just what type of alternatives are in use today? The most common type of alternative methods are: in-vitro tests, computer software, databases of tests already done (to avoid duplication), and even human "clinical trial" tests. Use of animal cells, organs, or tissue cultures is also deemed an alternative although, obviously, animal lives are sacrificed for the use of their parts. The specific tests are:

Eytex
Produced by the National Testing Corp. in Palm Springs, California, Eytex is an in-vitro (test-tube) procedure that measures eye irritancy via a protein alteration system. A vegetable protein from the jack bean mimics the reaction of the cornea to an alien substance. This alternative is used by Avon instead of the cruel Draize eye irritancy test.

Skintex
An in-vitro method to assess skin irritancy that uses pumpkin rind to mimic the reaction of a foreign substance on human skin (both Eytex and Skintex can measure 5,000 different materials).

EpiPack
Produced by Clonetics in San Diego, California, the EpiPack uses cloned human tissue to test potentially harmful substances.

Neutral Red Bioassay
Developed at Rockefeller University and promoted by Clonetics, the Neutral Red Bioassay is cultured human cells that are used to compute the absorption of a water-soluble dye to measure relative toxicity.

Testskin
Produced by Organogenesis in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Testskin uses human skin grown in a sterile plastic bag and can be used for measuring irritancy, etc. (this method is used by Avon, Amway, and Estee Lauder).

TOPKAT
Produced by Health Design, Inc. in Rochester, New York, TOPKAT is a computer software program that measures toxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and teratonogenicity (this method is used by the U.S. Army, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration).

Ames Test
Tests for carcinogenicity by mixing a test culture with Salmonella typhimurium and adding activating enzymes. It was able to detect 156 out of 174 (90&#37;) animal carcinogens and 90 out of 100 (88%) non-carcinogenes.

Agarose Diffusion Method
Tests for toxicity of plastic and synthetic devices used in medical devices such as heart valves, artificial joints, and intravenous lines. Human cells and the test material are placed in a flask and are separated by a thin-layer of agarose (a derivative of seaweed agar). If the material tested is an irritant, an area of killed cells appears around the substance.

Today, in-vitro (meaning, literally, "in glass") as opposed to in-vivo (meaning "whole animal") has flourished because of advances in tissue culture techniques and other analytical methods.

The main disadvantages to animal tests, according to John Frazier and Alan Goldberg, of CAAT, are: "Animal discomfort and death, species-extrapolation problems, and excessive time and expense." Animal protection advocates stress that the main disadvantage is the inhumane treatment of animals in tests due, in part, to the fact that anesthesia for the alleviation of pain is often not administered. Scientists allege that using anesthesia will interfere with test results.

Progress toward the widespread use of alternatives to animal testing will continue to gain strength as awareness of, and support for, alternatives is made known. As consumers, we can make a difference in the lives of innocent animals by purchasing only products deemed "cruelty-free" and writing to the companies that still doanimal testing and letting them know why you will not purchase their products.

Mohandas K. Gandhi said it best in his autobiography "The Story of My Experiments": "To my mind the life of the lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of the lamb for the sake of the human body. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man."'

[-:Undertaker:-]

and here are some alternatives for you... (direct quotes)

'So, just what type of alternatives are in use today? The most common type of alternative methods are: in-vitro tests, computer software, databases of tests already done (to avoid duplication), and even human "clinical trial" tests. Use of animal cells, organs, or tissue cultures is also deemed an alternative although, obviously, animal lives are sacrificed for the use of their parts. The specific tests are:

Eytex
Produced by the National Testing Corp. in Palm Springs, California, Eytex is an in-vitro (test-tube) procedure that measures eye irritancy via a protein alteration system. A vegetable protein from the jack bean mimics the reaction of the cornea to an alien substance. This alternative is used by Avon instead of the cruel Draize eye irritancy test.

Skintex
An in-vitro method to assess skin irritancy that uses pumpkin rind to mimic the reaction of a foreign substance on human skin (both Eytex and Skintex can measure 5,000 different materials).

EpiPack
Produced by Clonetics in San Diego, California, the EpiPack uses cloned human tissue to test potentially harmful substances.

Neutral Red Bioassay
Developed at Rockefeller University and promoted by Clonetics, the Neutral Red Bioassay is cultured human cells that are used to compute the absorption of a water-soluble dye to measure relative toxicity.

Testskin
Produced by Organogenesis in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Testskin uses human skin grown in a sterile plastic bag and can be used for measuring irritancy, etc. (this method is used by Avon, Amway, and Estee Lauder).

TOPKAT
Produced by Health Design, Inc. in Rochester, New York, TOPKAT is a computer software program that measures toxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and teratonogenicity (this method is used by the U.S. Army, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration).

Ames Test
Tests for carcinogenicity by mixing a test culture with Salmonella typhimurium and adding activating enzymes. It was able to detect 156 out of 174 (90%) animal carcinogens and 90 out of 100 (88%) non-carcinogenes.

Agarose Diffusion Method
Tests for toxicity of plastic and synthetic devices used in medical devices such as heart valves, artificial joints, and intravenous lines. Human cells and the test material are placed in a flask and are separated by a thin-layer of agarose (a derivative of seaweed agar). If the material tested is an irritant, an area of killed cells appears around the substance.

Today, in-vitro (meaning, literally, "in glass") as opposed to in-vivo (meaning "whole animal") has flourished because of advances in tissue culture techniques and other analytical methods.

The main disadvantages to animal tests, according to John Frazier and Alan Goldberg, of CAAT, are: "Animal discomfort and death, species-extrapolation problems, and excessive time and expense." Animal protection advocates stress that the main disadvantage is the inhumane treatment of animals in tests due, in part, to the fact that anesthesia for the alleviation of pain is often not administered. Scientists allege that using anesthesia will interfere with test results.

Progress toward the widespread use of alternatives to animal testing will continue to gain strength as awareness of, and support for, alternatives is made known. As consumers, we can make a difference in the lives of innocent animals by purchasing only products deemed "cruelty-free" and writing to the companies that still doanimal testing and letting them know why you will not purchase their products.

Mohandas K. Gandhi said it best in his autobiography "The Story of My Experiments": "To my mind the life of the lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of the lamb for the sake of the human body. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man."'


No matter what you use, you can never be sure what will happen to a alive animal until you try it on it.

Using pumpkins won't give you answears.

[dog-egg]

well use epipack then - human skin has gotta be more accurate than a non-human animal's
and using pumpkin skin obviously does give answers else it wouldn't be in use at all - 5000 answers perhaps
and if you want to find out what happens to a subject, then volunteer for testing...

so human tissue is available - you'd rather use non-human animals?

[GommeInc]

I think Mentor made a mistake with his communication argument. Octopus are capable of communication by waving tenticles at each other, ducks quack to each other, in fact, most animals do. Maybe there was something he needed to add...

I think Animal Testing is, perhaps, one of the most accurate forms of testing drugs and life saving cures. It's not a matter of how you feel towards the animal, it how the animal feels. I seem to notice alot lately that people are against animal testing, because they relate the suffering to themselves. If animals were capable of caring about pain, suffering like we do, would they be so inferior to humans? They could fight back or know what is happening when a gun is pointed at them, they seem to not fight back to the extreme of killing a human. They just lay down or die, rather than run away "/

There have been alternatives. Cancer is tested on by extracting cancer cells from deceased bodies or grown seperately, then they inject them with cures or other chemicals to play around with as they please. It's more full body deseases which animal testing falls under. Where the whole body can be affected when a desease enters a blood stream e.g. AIDs. Cutting random cells and organs isn't going to be too useful, mainly because you need a dead animal already, so you might aswell test it on a living animal.

[dog-egg]

you're right Gomme (got your name right this time)!! they do communicate - octopi are quite interesting in how complex their communication is, yet their brain structure is radically different to that of humans

you're also right that animal testing is one of the most accurate forms of testing - my argument is this...

whether you want to call non-human animals inferior or not, we are still learning about them, and do we really know enough yet to justify using them like that?

and the most accurate method of testing would always be on a human, or some kind of incredibly accurate simulation (which is yet to be developed because we don't know enough about humans yet either)

so we have a gulf between what would be the most accurate, and what we can use now, and that is largely filled by non-animal testing

i am not advocating an immediate cessation of non-human animal testing, as the scientific community isn't geared up to do that - it would halt progress...

what i want to see, and indeed it's already happening, is a phasing in of the alternative methods

i'm not the type to go around planting bombs at labs and attacking scientists who test on non-human animals- they're doing a job - the job is wrong not the individual

it's basically exploitation, and not entirely accurate at that

there are plenty of products out there that haven't been tested on non-human animals and the people who use them aren't suffering undiscovered side-effects as a result (or at least as far as i'm aware)

as i said before, life saving drugs are a different matter, but lets face it - if you've got cancer, and there's already a drug that's been shown to help and it's been tested positively using tissue cultures, what have you got to lose? why wait that much longer and get more ill and maybe die while they test it on non-human animals? AIDs is a difficult one, and obviously a huge global concern - is it contractable by non-human animals? (i believe cats have a form of it) - how relevant and indeed dangerous might it be to test it on non-human animals? isn't it a bit like testing the effectiveness of mad cow disease treatments on crocodiles?

your gun argument is a bit odd i thought - the rest was good, but if you point a gun at a human who's never seen one, they wouldn't know what was happening either as was often the case during the colonial period

the pro-testing arguments have a strange ring to them as on the one hand they say "animals aren't like us so it's acceptable to test" and then they say "they are like us" to justify the accuracy

phase out non-human animal testing is what i say - because it really does go against the values that we hold closest - our own humanity

btw - a big thanks for arguing in a non-personal way! we might disagree on things but that's all it is :)

[GommeInc]

you're right Gomme (got your name right this time)!! they do communicate - octopi are quite interesting in how complex their communication is, yet their brain structure is radically different to that of humans
Is there actually a set brain design for certain functions? If there was a life that we've not discovered that has the same intelligence as us, they probably could have a different brain structure. They don't need to be the same, although evolutionary probably plays a bit in this game.


you're also right that animal testing is one of the most accurate forms of testing - my argument is this...

whether you want to call non-human animals inferior or not, we are still learning about them, and do we really know enough yet to justify using them like that?
I think we learn about animals, thus animal psychology, but I also think people disapprove of animal testing because we get emotionally attached to an animal and link it's pain to what we would think.


and the most accurate method of testing would always be on a human, or some kind of incredibly accurate simulation (which is yet to be developed because we don't know enough about humans yet either).
But would we want to test a drug on a human? We are trying to save other humans. Doesn't animal testing also work on saving other animals?


so we have a gulf between what would be the most accurate, and what we can use now, and that is largely filled by non-animal testing
I think it's changed now. I seem to find alot of stuff about lab testing on artificial cells and bacteria. So they seem to test a bit more using them. It still happens though, but they do have a reason for the tests. They're not killing for pleasure.


i am not advocating an immediate cessation of non-human animal testing, as the scientific community isn't geared up to do that - it would halt progress...
If they didn't test on animals, how would scientists notice the effects? Artificial bacteria, diseases are a bit useless when it comes to stuff like this.


what i want to see, and indeed it's already happening, is a phasing in of the alternative methods
Only problem with them, is testing on something living is going to give more positive feedback than something dead, to see the effects. It isn't nice, but that's life. The more dominant and powerful creature is what makes itself survive.



i'm not the type to go around planting bombs at labs and attacking scientists who test on non-human animals- they're doing a job - the job is wrong not the individual
The job may seem wrong, but it is doing something vital to human survival in terms of surviving deadly diseases. I think what some people do, which isn;t bad, but it can be, is sympathize with an animal rather than think what it is doing. Even though we probably relate to the pain it was suffering, we do not fully understand if it will understand it like we do. Even though there is some proof they don't.


there are plenty of products out there that haven't been tested on non-human animals and the people who use them aren't suffering undiscovered side-effects as a result (or at least as far as i'm aware).
It depends what they are. If they've been made using the same minerals and bacteria as an old drug, then they are bound to be safe. It only fails if a new drug has been created and untested, or when two harmless drugs are mixed and are not known to cause problems.


as i said before, life saving drugs are a different matter, but lets face it - if you've got cancer, and there's already a drug that's been shown to help and it's been tested positively using tissue cultures, what have you got to lose? why wait that much longer and get more ill and maybe die while they test it on non-human animals? AIDs is a difficult one, and obviously a huge global concern - is it contractable by non-human animals? (i believe cats have a form of it) - how relevant and indeed dangerous might it be to test it on non-human animals? isn't it a bit like testing the effectiveness of mad cow disease treatments on crocodiles?
Obviously you won't wait for a new drug when there is already one that could help calm the symptoms or gently relieve you of suffering. I think they only test on animals to see what effects a new drug has. They only test using old drugs or slightly modified to see if they modifications have changed anything. You could expose an animal to AIDs (via injection or other way) and test out the new drug. The symptoms might vary, but if they disappear, then the first stage of testing is complete. It could then move to human testing, which is in-advisable, or bacteria/cell testing.


your gun argument is a bit odd i thought - the rest was good, but if you point a gun at a human who's never seen one, they wouldn't know what was happening either as was often the case during the colonial period
Curiosity is something humans are very good at. Of course every animal has some aspect, but humans have a stage beyond curiosity where we can question what it is that thing pointed at us is. Rational thought, what animals don't have alot of.


the pro-testing arguments have a strange ring to them as on the one hand they say "animals aren't like us so it's acceptable to test" and then they say "they are like us" to justify the accuracy.
The way their bodies are formed are like us, but their process of thought isn't. I don't think humans are going to try testing brain disease on an animal anytime soon. We've got a different build of brain.


phase out non-human animal testing is what i say - because it really does go against the values that we hold closest - our own humanity.
Humanity and animals aren't really the same, value wise. Unless we have an emotional bond between them, where pets come in. Loving an animal you've not known isn't much. We just feel an emotional link with ourselves so we have some idea what it is feeling.

That is how I see it anyway :)


btw - a big thanks for arguing in a non-personal way! we might disagree on things but that's all it is :)
I tend to steer away from it. It just gets you more focused on personal attacks than the argument. I also ignore insults, I find them pointless on a forum where something isn't that serious in the short run (if that's a phrase).

[-Dispute]

I like animals yeah, but I dont totally dissagree with it, because I'd be a hippacrit (sp) if I was like ' YEH STOP IT' Because, I buy any products,as do many of you, that have been tested on animals, but I wouldn't mind it stopping, for cosmetics sakes :)

[A4AOwen]

I don't really know, It's ok sometimes but sometimes it's not. If it hurts the animal alot I think thats harsh but if it doesn't hurt them I think it's ok.

[Kymux]

dont stop it.... kill a few animals to maybe save the lives of 1000s of people or even 1000s of animals... depends what theyre testing.... i think its good, but not when the conditions the animals are kept in are appaling....

[Mentor]

however, i'd like to know how you see "4) we do know animals arent clever, and we know there not capable of communication." as a 'perfectly formed argument' ?
Thats not an argument, thats a claim, Arguments are what is used to back the claims up.


i realise that there have been some long and convoluted posts on here, which are difficult to follow, or just plain boring to do so, but there are some valid points in them
On this i solidly agree.


there ARE alternatives to testing on animals, such as tissue samples and voluntary human testing... as Mentor has said, a lot of testing IS done on tissue samples so the product is already pretty safe by the time that stage of testing is complete
That makes no sence? You say there "ARE" alternatives, yet you fail to suggest any. The tissue sample testing is a completely different stage in the testing, it is in now way, shape or form a replacement to animal testing. Its like claiming testing the seatbelt in a can be done instead of crash testing. There not the same thing. Just because a seatbelt works doesn't mean the front of the car will crumple correctly and not crush the occupant anyway.

Animal testing is still a very important stadge.

Anyway the point of my post rather than a response was more to attempt to present my argument in a clear and less confused and rambling way.



My view is: Animal testing is necessary and should continue

This belief is based on a number of other beliefs i hold.

1) Humans have the evolutionary right to use other animals for our own preservation.
The logic:
-We are an animal at the top of the food chain.
-All animals use animals lower in the food chain than them in order to survive, most commonly in terms of food.
> Animal testing is the use of animals in order to help us survive, hence i believe it is justifiable.

2) In the real world something has to die.
The Logic:
In the world something has to die, you cant save everything. Take rabbits and fox's. If you save the rabbits from fox's the fox's will starve to death and die. If you don't save the rabbits from the fox's the rabbits will be eaten and die.
I believe the same apply to animal testing.
If you save animals from being tested on, Humans WILL die and suffer as possible research and information WILL be lost, which would otherwise have been used to develop cures and save human life's (and the life's of other animals to). If you don't save the animals. Animals WILL die and suffer during the testing .

3)I don't believe animals can suffer in the same way as a human can.
A) Humans are the only animal that is self aware, and it is awareness of pain and suffering which is the cause of the great majority of that suffering. Without the awareness, suffering in terms of what we mean by it as humans, is meaningless. (hence why i apply the toaster analogy earlier on, as for a toaster suffering is equally meaningless, although this is a poor analogy as a toaster can not tell if its damaged, your computer on the other hand can, so makes for a better analogy)
B) My belief animals are not self aware stems from two main points.
i. Animals, bar humans, have no frontal lobe. The frontal lobe is what accounts for most higher functions in the brain, without it, we are not conscious.)
ii. Animals are unable to comprehend language**, from empirical observation* an animal is in not capable of comprehending and understanding the meaning of language. In the same way as a computer is not. Although you can type words in a to a computer, it can help you spell them, use them to tell you things, even hold a conversation with them (chat-bots) it still is unable to apply meaning to the words or understand there context. A dog my hear the word walk, and get excited, not because it understands what you mean by the word walk, simply because it associates that word with the walk which usually follows it. If you hold a conversation about walks when your going to take the dog, etc etc, then before every walk say "Potato"***, it will associate the word potato with the walk, hence get excited at that, regardless of you using words correctly the rest of the time. This is because the dogs knowledge comes purely from instinctual associative learning powers not the ability to comprehend language or understand words. This example can be applied to animals in the wild, for example how many social animals will communicate warnings to each other, it is obvious how this evolved, as its essential for survival. Comprehension above that though, is not, at least not in any other species than humans (we required the ability to communicate very complex ideas and concepts to each other due to are technology usage, and requirement for abstract thinking, an evolutionary path we are the only surviving species from.)

* Limitations noted.
** Language in this sense is used to cover all forms of advanced communication, not purely speech.
*** This is from a puppy, and older dog will likely have already learn word associations.

C) Arguments drawn from claims that different brain make up in different animals can also achieve self awareness are self nullifying.
If you believe self awareness can exist in non standard forms, we can bring up the issue of plants. Plants, lack any central nervous system or brain in any convention sense, most vegetarians will avidly argue that this means they cant feel pain, despite then attacking the meat eating community, whom are effect making the same argument, with evidence of the lack of a frontal lobe.
Empirical evidence has shown:
i) plants can count. The venus fly trap as a well known example, will not close unless it senses 3 or more movements, so as to stop it having to waste effort closing, if its just a stray twig, not a fly or something. this suggests intelligence of some degree does it not.
ii) plants can move, although often not noticeable to us, most plants will follow the sun around the sky all day, by night they will point the oppersit way they did the previous morning. Even with an artificial light source, they will follow it, where ever it goes.
iii) they make sounds, again beyond the human hearing range, many plants will "scream*" when cut, or if they don't have enough water.
iv) plants can tell where they are. Plant a see upside down, or side ways, the stem will still grow upwards.

So if plants can exhibit behaviors like these, isnt eating them even worse as there far more defenseless than most animals? And seeing as we do have to eat something, or we will die, as i put forward in the "something has to die" argument. If we want to live, we have to kill them(or animals) self aware or not. nullifying the entire argument against them.

*Scream is a questionable word to use, since it implys intention, but then again, animals screaming, is equaly questionable in reality.


4) Id rather an animal suffered and died, than a human.
The logic:
A) Im a human, my friends and family are humans, i have more attachments to humans. Hence humans to me seem more important.
B) As in Utilitarian philosophy. The greatest happiness for the greatest number. 10 die so a million can live is justifiable.


----------------
This i hope more clearly puts over what im trying to say, plus should make it alot easer to clearly target any of my arguments or beliefs put forward for criticism.
It should be noted, discrediting/disproving one of my claims alown, will not destroy my conclusion which can be reached via any one of the arguments put forward.

If you want to argue against animal testing, please put forward your beliefs, back them up, show the logic behind them, etc. Since you have asked for my belifes a number of times, yet haven't realty ever presented yours.

[brodeo]

For cosmetics, certainly not.

For medicine, yes. It comes down to the question, ten years down the line would you rather your mother/father/sister/brother die of an illness which a vaccine could have been produced for if it was tested on animals?

[dog-egg]

"Thats not an argument, thats a claim, Arguments are what is used to back the claims up."

Fair enough Mentor, but saying that doesn't make your claim any less incorrect - your claims about the language capabilities of non-human animals are quite inaccurate considering chimps can understand and speak sign language, forming their own simple sentences; whale language has been shown to be incredibly complex; bees can inform other bees of locations through body language... the more you look, the more you'll find!

the stuff about us being at the top of the food chain is fair enough - eat other animals by all means, but don't play with your food :D
your info on plants is also true - you only need to watch timelapse to see that they respond quite dramatically to different stimuli - but again, I have no problem with eating plants - testing and eating are separate arguments

if you look at my other posts after the one you referred to, i cited several methods of testing that would ensure that a product could be safe enough to then move onto the voluntary human testing without the non-human animal testing phase

it seems that you maybe missed the point of that scenario i mentioned with the guy nailing a puppy's paws to the ground and letting it starve - i'm pretty sure that nobody would agree that it was an ok thing to do, so why is it suddenly ok if it's in the name of medical research?

you want my beliefs? i think i made them pretty clear, but maybe i didn't:

a) dominance or perceived superiority over another living thing does not give you the moral right to do whatever you want to them - Hitler tried that one and he wasn't too popular...
b) eating non-human animals (and plants) is obviously fine, unless you're making a protest about how they're kept on farms. and in reference to the plant thing, i don't like tidy gardens - i like wild ones, where plants are left to their own devices
c) non-human animal testing is not as accurate as testing on humans, so if you want the products then speed the testing process up and volunteer, and don't be put off by one scare-mongering incident in millions of unreported successful human testing cases
d) support alternative testing methods (see earlier post for a list) as they can do away with many of the tests currently done on non-human animals
e) we should realise that we're still learning what non-human animals can and can't do, so we should be open to the very real possibility that we could be wrong about how much they can suffer
f) the point is, they DO suffer to some degree and it's unnecessary when there are other alternatives
g) a random guy buys a chimp, cuts it's skull open and puts electrodes in it in his living room for no apparent reason is condemned by much of the western world, but if he's a scientist and does it in a lab to test theories on the brain then suddenly it's ok
h) as someone once said, 'sometimes logic only allows us to be wrong with authority' - it all boils down to whether you care about non-human animals or not, and logic from that point can take you to a case on either side: from my perspective, i don't like to see any kind of suffering so i would like to see non-human animal testing phased out for something more accurate and less destructive
i) with reference to your number 4 point above:
"Im a human, my friends and family are humans, i have more attachments to humans. Hence humans to me seem more important."
then presumably you'd rather someone you didn't know in another country died than someone you do know, as most people do: that's one of the reasons WARS break out... surely, all life is precious and until people get that then there will not be an end to killings and suffering amongst us... look at how soldiers make it easier to kill by giving the enemy labels that make them seem less intelligent or sub-human, and take the **** out of their language... then take a look at your arguments about non-human animals and draw some parallels...
don't say 'i'd rather they died than me', say 'i'd rather nobody was dying'
then apply that to non-human animal testing
j) the argument of 'just a few animals dying, to save millions of people' kinda falls down when you look at some of the statistics of how many actually die or suffer each year... search on the net - plenty of quite scary results

Summary: phase it out - it's morally wrong, and volunteer for testing - your drugs will arrive a lot quicker and be more effective... and they won't be at the expense of another life that's incapable (we currently believe) of having a say in what was done to it!

and one last thing for you to ponder Mentor - give someone an apple and he has 1 apple right? give him another and he has 2?
but in reality, the apples aren't identical and they are different sizes, so is a bigger apple still 1? is there an exact size of apple that denotes 1 apple to which all other apples can be compared to? no
mathematics is all about approximations, and taking something as a 'given' in the first place - there is no such thing as an exact science
by simplifying things down into equations, a mathematician ignores a myriad of external factors that would make the equation impossible to solve... beyond maths and logic, there is LIFE where morals play their part:

what may seem like perfect logic can also be terribly wrong

[Mentor]

"Thats not an argument, thats a claim, Arguments are what is used to back the claims up."

Fair enough Mentor, but saying that doesn't make your claim any less incorrect - your claims about the language capabilities of non-human animals are quite inaccurate considering chimps can understand and speak sign language, forming their own simple sentences; whale language has been shown to be incredibly complex; bees can inform other bees of locations through body language... the more you look, the more you'll find!
This is why i didnt want to bring up the ideas of true language acquisition and mentioned there would be little point. You have no idea what the hell im talking about. There is a very big difference in the communication levels being talked about. I can write a program for my computer which will allow it to communicate on a level way above that a chip is capable of. I can even make it so my computer can learn new words, the Alice Chat bots are good examples of this functionality. The computer still lacks anything close to true language aqusition or sentience.


the stuff about us being at the top of the food chain is fair enough - eat other animals by all means, but don't play with your food :D
your info on plants is also true - you only need to watch timelapse to see that they respond quite dramatically to different stimuli - but again, I have no problem with eating plants - testing and eating are separate arguments
Youd move to ban plant testing?
Plus whos playing, animal testing is used to obtain information which we can use to survive. Thats not the same thing as playing.


if you look at my other posts after the one you referred to, i cited several methods of testing that would ensure that a product could be safe enough to then move onto the voluntary human testing without the non-human animal testing phase
I haddnt actually looked at the majority of the argument after my last post up until my next one.
Although, it see it very likley that most if not all these methods are already employed. Hence making it safe enough for Animal testing. Having no concept of volentearing, the who vol entry issue is pretty irrelevant to an animal, making it so is just anthromphiseing under your own values. After animal testing shows somethings safe, then we have the human testing.

Because theres stuff before animal testing, doesn't make animal testings data any less important. In a few 100 years this may not be the case, but currently we simply dont know enough to not use animals, we may think we know somthing, but when we test it the results could be completely differnt. Are knowlage on the subject is finite, which means are abilty to predict the effects without testing on a full lifeform is also finite.


it seems that you maybe missed the point of that scenario i mentioned with the guy nailing a puppy's paws to the ground and letting it starve - i'm pretty sure that nobody would agree that it was an ok thing to do, so why is it suddenly ok if it's in the name of medical research?
A) that sort of thing doesnt happen in animal testing.
B) animal testing is for survival, not for pleasure. Suffering is essental for the first, but not the second, and pleasure from it is a little ****** up IMO, dispite being based more in the anfromophising of the animals in order to gain it.

I dont belive suffering should happen when it is not nessassry. But in the case of animal testing, it is.


a) dominance or perceived superiority over another living thing does not give you the moral right to do whatever you want to them - Hitler tried that one and he wasn't too popular...
Your on a roof with a sniper rifle, hitler is below in the streets, before is reign is in full swing. You have the abilty to kill him, and stop all the suffering and pain that follows and is caused by him? Do you think its right to kill him?

You have an animal, from testing on it you could cure canser, save millions of lifes, animals and humans alike. is it right to test on that animal, possibly kill it in order to stop all that suffering?

The situations are the same. The dominance over an animal doesnt give you a moral right to do what you want with it. BUT weighing up the alternatives does give you moral justifcation.

Save the rabbits, let the fox starve to death, a slow painful death. Let the fox kill the rabbits, rabbits suffer being ripped apart alive. fox doesnt die.

The decision depends really on weather your a fox or a rabbit in the scenerio, somthing has to die, id rather i wasnt that somthing. The same really applys here, since im the human, id rather it was the other thing that died as opposed to myself and other humans.


b) eating non-human animals (and plants) is obviously fine, unless you're making a protest about how they're kept on farms. and in reference to the plant thing, i don't like tidy gardens - i like wild ones, where plants are left to their own devices
In a wild garden your going to have trouble in getting the crops required to feed people. Fields are necessary for that purpose, the same is true of farms, as the human population is far to large to be sustained without us taking control of many of natures variables.


c) non-human animal testing is not as accurate as testing on humans, so if you want the products then speed the testing process up and volunteer, and don't be put off by one scare-mongering incident in millions of unreported successful human testing cases
Humans and other animals are very similar, the data may not be as accurate, but it still has a high degree of success in judging these things, useing a one type of tap, may not provide completely accurate results on what would happen when you use another type. despite this, most of the time there the same. Id much prefer 20 rats die in animal testing due to a problem with a drug, than 20 humans. That may just be me though.
(remember, the drug failures in animals go unreported, the reason nearly all human testing is successful is down to the animal testing happening first)


d) support alternative testing methods (see earlier post for a list) as they can do away with many of the tests currently done on non-human animals
Many of these tests arnt specifically done as they focus on small arias, which any drug devloped should already almost certianly have worked out, or a few people are gona be looseing jobs.
The tests arnt specifcaly done on animals, the rest a result, since you cant test the effects of somthing on an animal without also gathering information such as noteing the toxicity of certain things

Animal testing happens becuse its testing the whole animal. Testing the tyres on a car, the windscreen, the engine, are all important yes. But testing the car as a whole, with all the bits put together, is also an important stadge. Thats what the animal testing is.


e) we should realise that we're still learning what non-human animals can and can't do, so we should be open to the very real possibility that we could be wrong about how much they can suffer
It isnt possible to conculstivly demostrate one way or the other, absoulty to whom is right here, its a matter of opinion based on the limited amount of evidance avaible to us.
What i will say is, even if animals can suffer, just as much as humans, my argument stands uneffected, as its based more on the nessisity, and the fact im a member of the human one.


f) the point is, they DO suffer to some degree and it's unnecessary when there are other alternatives
As ive said, i dont belive any of these alternatives come close to reproduceing the real thing. In the same way a computer simulated car doesnt compare to a real car. And we can simulate cars one hell of alot better than we can come close to, in simulating an animal.


g) a random guy buys a chimp, cuts it's skull open and puts electrodes in it in his living room for no apparent reason is condemned by much of the western world, but if he's a scientist and does it in a lab to test theories on the brain then suddenly it's ok
This is more an outlook question, if in doing this, the guy somehow figures out a cure for deminsia, he'll probably be hearled as a hero.
Its ok when the scientist does it becuse, there doing it for a reason, and the likely hood of success is actualy pretty high. The reaserch is nessary for improveing our own understanding and helping to preserve ourselves as a species.
The random person doing it for a random reason, is not nessary and provides no benifit. Suffering without nesseisty = bad.


h) as someone once said, 'sometimes logic only allows us to be wrong with authority' - it all boils down to whether you care about non-human animals or not, and logic from that point can take you to a case on either side: from my perspective, i don't like to see any kind of suffering so i would like to see non-human animal testing phased out for something more accurate and less destructive
Id like to see the same thing. Unluckly, im a realist. I know and accept, there arnt any real alternatives, scientist dont cause animals to suffer becuse they think its fun, they do it, as they know there isnt another option, if the partical aria of reaserch is to be looked in to.
If we knew enough to perfectly simulate an animal, wed most likly know enough to perfectly simulate a human, so no testing would be needed. The facts how ever that we dont, so we cannot.


then presumably you'd rather someone you didn't know in another country died than someone you do know, as most people do: that's one of the reasons WARS break out... surely, all life is precious and until people get that then there will not be an end to killings and suffering amongst us... look at how soldiers make it easier to kill by giving the enemy labels that make them seem less intelligent or sub-human, and take the **** out of their language... then take a look at your arguments about non-human animals and draw some parallels...
Your right. But i see it as a somewhat pointless question, Would you rather your parents died, or some person youve never heard of. We value those we have connections with, more than those we dont. its human nature and im a human.
Humans by defult dont really like to kill, which is why in war times, they can only do what they do but ignoring the enimys own humanity. despite this reacent stats show, 70% or higher people in WW1 for example aimed to miss. Most people dont really like killing. But the options not always there, sometimes for your own survival, or even that of others killing is necessary. animal testing is also nessary.


I don't say 'i'd rather they died than me', say 'i'd rather nobody was dying'
But, as ive said, we live in the real world, not fanticy land. Im a realist. The option isnt always there.

Fox dies or rabbit dies. Its impossible to save both, weather you want to or not.


j) the argument of 'just a few animals dying, to save millions of people' kinda falls down when you look at some of the statistics of how many actually die or suffer each year... search on the net - plenty of quite scary results
How many what? how many people die? millions every day? or how many animals die in testing, alot less. Animals in the wild. Alot higher.
Its becuse of animal testing we dont see that so much now days, most familys havent got at least half the orignal number dead by one of many decises around now. We reap the benifits already.


Summary: phase it out - it's morally wrong, and volunteer for testing - your drugs will arrive a lot quicker and be more effective... and they won't be at the expense of another life that's incapable (we currently believe) of having a say in what was done to it!
Morally wrong, according to your morallity, not mine.
Alot more humans will die in the testing, without the animal testing first. It will become very unsafe, which will put most the human testees of i exspect.



and one last thing for you to ponder Mentor - give someone an apple and he has 1 apple right? give him another and he has 2?
but in reality, the apples aren't identical and they are different sizes, so is a bigger apple still 1? is there an exact size of apple that denotes 1 apple to which all other apples can be compared to? no
mathematics is all about approximations, and taking something as a 'given' in the first place - there is no such thing as an exact science
by simplifying things down into equations, a mathematician ignores a myriad of external factors that would make the equation impossible to solve... beyond maths and logic, there is LIFE where morals play their part:

what may seem like perfect logic can also be terribly wrong
Actualy.. an apple isnt a mesurement of the subtance apple. its a thing in itself. If you have one small pool and one big pool, you have 2 pools. Since a pool is an item, and the amount of an item has nothing to do with the size or value of those items. So no simplifcation is takeing place, if a mathmatition wasnt asking how many apples you had, much how much apple you had. We would be useing the weight of the apples instead, although thats till two simple, differnt types of apple, have differnt nutrational content, differnt shapes, some may have bad bits, some may be more dence.
This is why in science so many varibles and controls have to be strictly noted and understood, it deals with very low level stuff, and will look at a great deal of it, as the averge is a better refrelction than a one off.

Humans have one life, the worth of those lifes has no effect on that count.

The math you learn in primary school is simplifed, the math you learn in high school is a little less simplifed. The math you learn in A levels is less simplifed still. Undergrad -> post grad. At the top, that simplifcation doesnt exist, its just for those not takeing a job useing math, a massive understanding of it is not requred, so teaching it to such a high level has no use and is a waste. But just becuse we only expernce the simplifed stuff, doesnt mean the real math doesnt exist.

The flaws you point out are only from your limited view point of a subject, and should not be taken to reflect the actuality of the subject. Also your misusing words. 1 apple will always be 1 apple, despite its size or any number of other facters, since the count is other the amount of apples, not of an apples value, worth or any over varible you may wish to apply to them.

[dog-egg]

ok Mentor - you've said a lot of the same things again here, some of which are answered by my earlier posts but i'll respond to a few just for clarity


I can write a program for my computer which will allow it to communicate on a level way above that a chip is capable of. I can even make it so my computer can learn new words, the Alice Chat bots are good examples of this functionality. The computer still lacks anything close to true language aqusition or sentience.

have you acquired bee language yet? didn't think so
other bees seem to pick it up ok, so what's your problem? where's your innate ability to acquire language now? the computer was programmed by you in the first place to learn - it doesn't have a desire to communicate, or know what it's doing...chimps can communicate in a more advanced way than a human baby, so is that an argument to test on babies? nope
it's all still a way to justify testing by saying that non-human animals are inferior and so can be used and abused... it's wrong


Youd move to ban plant testing?

yes, i want to see an end to all testing unless it's on humans and it's voluntary - doesn't have to end right now, but PHASED out as i keep saying


I haddnt actually looked at the majority of the argument after my last post up until my next one.
Although, it see it very likley that most if not all these methods are already employed. Hence making it safe enough for Animal testing. Having no concept of volentearing, the who vol entry issue is pretty irrelevant to an animal, making it so is just anthromphiseing under your own values. After animal testing shows somethings safe, then we have the human testing.

what i'm arguing for is the end to non-human animal testing... i want to see a situation where there isn't a perceived need for it anymore...we are getting closer through alternative methods which wouldn't have arisen in the first place if some scientists didn't realise that non-human animal testing was unnecessary in some cases - indeed as science advances, i'd say that it's inevitable that testing on non-human animals will end, and more voluntary human testing will help to bring us closer to that point


Because theres stuff before animal testing, doesn't make animal testings data any less important. In a few 100 years this may not be the case, but currently we simply dont know enough to not use animals, we may think we know somthing, but when we test it the results could be completely differnt. Are knowlage on the subject is finite, which means are abilty to predict the effects without testing on a full lifeform is also finite.

well, of course - but it doesn't mean we don't strive to develop better techniques... i'd also say we don't know enough to USE animals



A) that sort of thing doesnt happen in animal testing.
B) animal testing is for survival, not for pleasure. Suffering is essental for the first, but not the second, and pleasure from it is a little ****** up IMO, dispite being based more in the anfromophising of the animals in order to gain it.

hmmm - i thought you knew what animal testing was? there have been numerous starvation experiments and some horrific things done to non-human animals which are plain to see in leaked photographs... suffering is only essential to the human goal of prolonging human life beyond the natural lifespan, which isn't essential in my books


I dont belive suffering should happen when it is not nessassry. But in the case of animal testing, it is.

see above...


Your on a roof with a sniper rifle, hitler is below in the streets, before is reign is in full swing. You have the abilty to kill him, and stop all the suffering and pain that follows and is caused by him? Do you think its right to kill him?

You have an animal, from testing on it you could cure canser, save millions of lifes, animals and humans alike. is it right to test on that animal, possibly kill it in order to stop all that suffering?

The situations are the same.

ok - so at what point did the non-human animal cause cancer? the situations are NOT the same... plus, we're dealing with the real world here - we can't go back in time, but we CAN phase out testing and stop trying to justify it by belittling other species


Save the rabbits, let the fox starve to death, a slow painful death. Let the fox kill the rabbits, rabbits suffer being ripped apart alive. fox doesnt die.

The decision depends really on weather your a fox or a rabbit in the scenerio, somthing has to die, id rather i wasnt that somthing. The same really applys here, since im the human, id rather it was the other thing that died as opposed to myself and other humans.

that's a scenario about eating to survive - we're not arguing about vegetarianism here - why would i save the rabbits? i like seeing both species running around, and they achieve a balance


In a wild garden your going to have trouble in getting the crops required to feed people. Fields are necessary for that purpose, the same is true of farms, as the human population is far to large to be sustained without us taking control of many of natures variables.

yes, the population IS far too large, especially now we're prolonging life beyond natural lifespan using an ever-increasing supply of drugs
but do we look at that? no - we keep on inventing and testing because we can't accept death before retirement age


Animal testing happens becuse its testing the whole animal. Testing the tyres on a car, the windscreen, the engine, are all important yes. But testing the car as a whole, with all the bits put together, is also an important stadge. Thats what the animal testing is.

well, of course that's what it is, but taking your analogy further: non-human animal testing is like testing a van to see what happens to a car - they'd both crumple in a crash but with very different results... test a car (human) to find out what happens to a car (human)



It isnt possible to conculstivly demostrate one way or the other, absoulty to whom is right here, its a matter of opinion based on the limited amount of evidance avaible to us.
What i will say is, even if animals can suffer, just as much as humans, my argument stands uneffected, as its based more on the nessisity, and the fact im a member of the human one.

i thought you could empathise?


As ive said, i dont belive any of these alternatives come close to reproduceing the real thing. In the same way a computer simulated car doesnt compare to a real car. And we can simulate cars one hell of alot better than we can come close to, in simulating an animal.

the point is, they WILL come closer and are pretty close right now
and as they do so, the middle stage of testing involving non-human animals will become more and more obsolete, whilst the voluntary testing of humans will still prove useful as the human can actually tell you how they feel


This is more an outlook question, if in doing this, the guy somehow figures out a cure for deminsia, he'll probably be hearled as a hero.
Its ok when the scientist does it becuse, there doing it for a reason, and the likely hood of success is actualy pretty high. The reaserch is nessary for improveing our own understanding and helping to preserve ourselves as a species.
The random person doing it for a random reason, is not nessary and provides no benifit. Suffering without nesseisty = bad.

but it ISN'T necessary to preserve ourselves as a species, and, as i argued earlier in this thread, it's actually helping to make us genetically weaker as a species


Id like to see the same thing. Unluckly, im a realist. I know and accept, there arnt any real alternatives, scientist dont cause animals to suffer becuse they think its fun, they do it, as they know there isnt another option, if the partical aria of reaserch is to be looked in to.
If we knew enough to perfectly simulate an animal, wed most likly know enough to perfectly simulate a human, so no testing would be needed. The facts how ever that we dont, so we cannot.

realist bordering on defeatist perhaps - i'm not saying that right this minute we should instantly ban all non-human animal testing - just acknowledge that it is basically a bad thing to do and phase it out at the point that we as a society can do without it - as a species we can already do without it


How many what? how many people die? millions every day? or how many animals die in testing, alot less. Animals in the wild. Alot higher.
Its becuse of animal testing we dont see that so much now days, most familys havent got at least half the orignal number dead by one of many decises around now. We reap the benifits already.

i was talking about the number of non-human animals that die in experiments... in the wild is irrelevant

ever wonder that if we hadn't started creating unnatural medicine in the first place then maybe we'd be much hardier genetically and people more susceptible to cancer would have naturally died out? so we're curing a lot of problems of our own creation?


Morally wrong, according to your morallity, not mine.
Alot more humans will die in the testing, without the animal testing first. It will become very unsafe, which will put most the human testees of i exspect.

i wasn't advocating that we instantly replace it with non-human animal testing... i'm not THAT much of an idiot :P


Since a pool is an item, and the amount of an item has nothing to do with the size or value of those items. So no simplifcation is takeing place, if a mathmatition wasnt asking how many apples you had, much how much apple you had.

you've already simplified it by saying that a pool is an item... :rolleyes:

PHASE OUT TESTING ON NON-HUMAN ANIMALS
it's innaccurate, and morally wrong

[TheLastShadow]

Test on rats....ewwwwww

[plastiKKstars]

i think its only okay when they test it for like a cure for something
or whatever
something that we need to keep on living or something like that

but it sickens me to the idiots who do it just for stuff like hairspray/bodyspray and stuff like thatt
no point to it at all
just because people smell they have to blind an animal or whatever for it. :)

[DJ-Precocious]

Ok this has probably been said already but If you think about it if we couldnt test Cures or Medicines on animals then we wouldnt be able to test them, So it would be disasterous for developement if we did get rid of it, but i do think that testing cosmetics on animals is wrong becase cosmetics are accesories not neccesities.

[:Liam]

I think its totally wrong to test on animals espcially with cosmetics, even with medicine it should be a last resort as thousands of people volenteer to test medicines for hospitals/doctors/scientists ect.

[docker]

i have different views depending on the seriousness,
i am ok with testing natural products etc that do not contain harmful ingredients but i do not agree with testing harmful products that could cause pain or irritation to the animal

[Jnike]

As many as 115 million animals are experimented on and killed in laboratories in the U.S. every year. Much of the experimentation-including pumping chemicals into rats' stomachs, hacking muscle tissue from dogs' thighs, and putting baby monkeys in isolation chambers far from their mothers-is paid for by you, the American taxpayer and consumer, yet you can't visit a laboratory and see how the government has spent your money. You can't even get an accurate count on the number of animals killed every year because experimenters and the government have decided that mice and rats and certain other animals don't even have to be counted.

Animal experimentation is a multibillion-dollar industry fueled by massive public funding and involving a complex web of corporate, government, and university laboratories, cage and food manufacturers, and animal breeders, dealers, and transporters. The industry and its people profit because animals, who cannot defend themselves against abuse, are legally imprisoned and exploited.

Fortunately for animals in laboratories, there are people who care. Some of them work in labs, and when they witness abuse, they call PETA. Thanks to these courageous whistleblowers, PETA's undercover investigators and caseworkers, who sift through reams of scientific and government documents, have exposed what goes on behind laboratory doors.

-------------------

http://the-big-one

[Hitman]

How is it right, animals are being killed for you make- up, there is areas like shoe box sized, min food and water, should be doing exercises, the argument of, the medicines thing, n oway, if we cared that much we wouldnt abuse them, people dont care so no one gives a dam, the majority of you say they dissage but I bet they dont actually LOOK at what there buying to see if it non animal tested, well I do, and also, if you CARE about animals so much, Im sure your a vegy? If yes then thats ok, but if not, your just a hippocrit, as they die in the same way.

I eat meat, so I'm not a veggie, but still, I think animal testing is cruel. I always (used) to get free range stuff, but now, I don't eat much meat anymore. :(

[CrabRacket]

I get a thrill from animal testing! :evil: :wink_blue

Cheers to animal tesing! :Ocass14

Actually I hate it. Ban it now!

[Mentor]

I eat meat, so I'm not a veggie, but still, I think animal testing is cruel. I always (used) to get free range stuff, but now, I don't eat much meat anymore. :(

Free range stuff isnt actualy any better treated than battery stuff alot of the time, the free range logo is easy to obtain and holds very little real standing, look for the britsh farms something or other symbol, as the laws in the UK are very strict and its hard to obtain meaning only farms wich treat the animals very will can obtain it "/


[B][COLOR=red]As many as 115 million animals are experimented on and killed in laboratories in the U.S. every year. Much of the experimentation-including pumping chemicals into rats' stomachs, hacking muscle tissue from dogs' thighs, and putting baby monkeys in isolation chambers far from their mothers-is paid for by you, the American taxpayer and consumer, yet you can't visit a laboratory and see how the government has spent your money. You can't even get an accurate count on the number of animals killed every year because experimenters and the government have decided that mice and rats and certain other animals don't even have to be counted.
Ignorance is not a crime, but your realy abusing the privileged here. First off did you copy this of some brainwashing site becuse its VERY badly linked to the people your talking to, who for the most part are NOT American, nore in many cases even tax payers in there own country's of origan yet.
Plus what does a count actualy matter when put in context with the aurguments for animal testing anyway?


Animal experimentation is a multibillion-dollar industry fueled by massive public funding and involving a complex web of corporate, government, and university laboratories, cage and food manufacturers, and animal breeders, dealers, and transporters. The industry and its people profit because animals, who cannot defend themselves against abuse, are legally imprisoned and exploited.
1) Over here we call it the NHS. The US doesnt really have an equivalent so health cares + and its reaserch+development has to be corporatly funded. The drugs trade is very lucrative, it turns out people will actualy pay quite a lot for life saveing drugs. Strange as that might be. Theres exploition of the market, less here thanks to the NHS, but of animals, not really.
2) animals can defend themselves, plants cant :)


Fortunately for animals in laboratories, there are people who care. Some of them work in labs, and when they witness abuse, they call PETA. Thanks to these courageous whistleblowers, PETA's undercover investigators and caseworkers, who sift through reams of scientific and government documents, have exposed what goes on behind laboratory doors.
Yea. then peta can avoid tax, exploit children and vunrable sectors of society, take there cash, on the premis of useing it to look after the animals. Then kill all the aniamls, and be rich. But in this case, the kill out of greed, not to help people and save lifes, which is obviously a Much better cause in your opinion i take it?
Weird that so many of PETA's empoliys are in jail for animal rights abuses aint it. Yet these "horribe" people who are trying tosave lifes and getting attcked by petas brainwashed idiots, actualy have very good records of treating there animals exceptionaly well. Better than most people treat there pets in fact.... Odd that.

Finaly if you want to support RND you need to use the correct url and image code o.0

[Browney]

Call me ignorant and big headed but I'd prefer a mouse to die rather than a human.

[GommeInc]

So should anyone. The only come back is cosmetics from these PETA lovers. To be fair, looking good is something of the future it seems, so to some, they would rather look beaufitul, than ugly. So why not let something try it out before hand?

Also, if they test cosmetics on animals, surely the testers would know what things would make an animal sick or burn...

[-:Undertaker:-]

As many as 115 million animals are experimented on and killed in laboratories in the U.S. every year. Much of the experimentation-including pumping chemicals into rats' stomachs, hacking muscle tissue from dogs' thighs, and putting baby monkeys in isolation chambers far from their mothers-is paid for by you, the American taxpayer and consumer, yet you can't visit a laboratory and see how the government has spent your money. You can't even get an accurate count on the number of animals killed every year because experimenters and the government have decided that mice and rats and certain other animals don't even have to be counted.

Animal experimentation is a multibillion-dollar industry fueled by massive public funding and involving a complex web of corporate, government, and university laboratories, cage and food manufacturers, and animal breeders, dealers, and transporters. The industry and its people profit because animals, who cannot defend themselves against abuse, are legally imprisoned and exploited.

Fortunately for animals in laboratories, there are people who care. Some of them work in labs, and when they witness abuse, they call PETA. Thanks to these courageous whistleblowers, PETA's undercover investigators and caseworkers, who sift through reams of scientific and government documents, have exposed what goes on behind laboratory doors.

-------------------

http://the-big-one





Maybe this PETA could protest against the governments of countrys like Zimbarbe who kill hundreds/thousands of people a year.

Humans are first, animals second.

Animal testing is fine, except I don't agree with animal testing for things like new washing products etc.

Medical reasons are fine and just :)

[Describe]

Or we could Test on people that have life inprisoment.

[Browney]

Like Gomme said, I doubt they would put a notoriously stinging substance in a make up. Now adays it will be testing for irritation and rashes.

[Thrilled.]

it's only animals.
they don't matter.

[OMGitsaROSS]

Medical reasons = Fine by me. Would you rather die from a faulty product than an animal would?


@ Physch.

Like tha Nazis? :l

[Jam]

Medical reasons = Fine by me. Would you rather die from a faulty product than an animal would?


@ Physch.

Like tha Nazis? :l

Right...

Did Anyone See That Documenty On The ITV News About The Japenesse PPL Killing The Dolphins? I Seriosly Wanted To Vomit After Seeing That, They Slit The Dolphins Necks And Just Left Them. (I'l Probs Get Infraction But I need To make My Point) The *******S, Thats Just The Same As Someone Comming Up To Your Pet And Slitting Its Neck, Its Just Plain SICK. As For Testing Well, Its Still A Dam Living Thing Isn't It? We Have The Most Inteligent Creatures Bar Humans On Earth (Monkeys, You May Not Agree But This Is MY Opinion) And We're Killing Them For Some Damned Hair Spray, Come On GET REAL. I Personally Hope The Dam Company Who Do This Die.

I Get A Guilty Consience From 5 Years Ago When I Pushed My Friend And They Hurt Themselves, And These People Are Killing And Harming 1000's Of Animals.

Thanks,
Future Animal Rights Activist, James

[Thrilled.]

Right...

Did Anyone See That Documenty On The ITV News About The Japenesse PPL Killing The Dolphins? I Seriosly Wanted To Vomit After Seeing That, They Slit The Dolphins Necks And Just Left Them. (I'l Probs Get Infraction But I need To make My Point) The *******S, Thats Just The Same As Someone Comming Up To Your Pet And Slitting Its Neck, Its Just Plain SICK. As For Testing Well, Its Still A Dam Living Thing Isn't It? We Have The Most Inteligent Creatures Bar Humans On Earth (Monkeys, You May Not Agree But This Is MY Opinion) And We're Killing Them For Some Damned Hair Spray, Come On GET REAL. I Personally Hope The Dam Company Who Do This Die.

I Get A Guilty Consience From 5 Years Ago When I Pushed My Friend And They Hurt Themselves, And These People Are Killing And Harming 1000's Of Animals.

Thanks,
Future Animal Rights Activist, James

why do you type with a capital letter for the beginning of every word?
doesn't it get a bit annoying?

[Browney]

Right...

Did Anyone See That Documenty On The ITV News About The Japenesse PPL Killing The Dolphins? I Seriosly Wanted To Vomit After Seeing That, They Slit The Dolphins Necks And Just Left Them. (I'l Probs Get Infraction But I need To make My Point) The *******S, Thats Just The Same As Someone Comming Up To Your Pet And Slitting Its Neck, Its Just Plain SICK. As For Testing Well, Its Still A Dam Living Thing Isn't It? We Have The Most Inteligent Creatures Bar Humans On Earth (Monkeys, You May Not Agree But This Is MY Opinion) And We're Killing Them For Some Damned Hair Spray, Come On GET REAL. I Personally Hope The Dam Company Who Do This Die.

I Get A Guilty Consience From 5 Years Ago When I Pushed My Friend And They Hurt Themselves, And These People Are Killing And Harming 1000's Of Animals.

Thanks,
Future Animal Rights Activist, James

Slitting the throat is the fastest way to kill them painlessly.

[Jam]

They Roll Around For About 3 Minutes In Each Others Blood, If Thats Painless Well, God Help Me

[Browney]

You just said they get hung up?