42 replies to this topic

[Tetiel]

I wouldn't say testing on animals for any reason was absolutely necessary since humans have gotten by fine for thousands of years without having to test anything on animals (other than weapons of course) but since we seem obsessed with making more people live longer it's required for that purpose.

Things would be so much simpler if we just accepted that humans are only built to live for so long...

Of course we cannot accept death. No one has come back from death (true death, of course. Not talking about NDEs) so naturally we are frightened. We don't know what is there so we rely on religion and hope that one will still exist. But still in the back of our minds we fear. Fear nothingness or we fear the depths of hell. Both, if you think about it, are rather frightening prospects for some and we don't want to let go. This world right now is just too good for that. What it offers is just too sweet. So even though we know in our hearts all of us will die, eventually we try and postpone it as long as we possibly can just so we can savor it longer. If that means sacrificing what we deem to be lesser beings then so be it. Most of us have no problem with eating animals to prolong our lives by living on their proteins and fat so therefore not many have much of a problem by using them to ensure that we can live that one last year. And for some... 60 years longer than they otherwise would *waves to Joe*

[Cataliste]

>.< Animal testing is wrong. Plain out wrong.

Why can't we just test new drugs on prisoners? That's is honestly more humane. And I don;t mean people in jail for drugs, I mean rapist/murderers/etc.


I win. I have put forth valid proof of an alternative.

[Tetiel]

>.< Animal testing is wrong. Plain out wrong.

Why can't we just test new drugs on prisoners? That's is honestly more humane. And I don;t mean people in jail for drugs, I mean rapist/murderers/etc.


I win. I have put forth valid proof of an alternative.

I'm afraid we simply do not have enough rapists and murders in this country to fill the need. Nor enough prisoners with certain psychological disorders that need drugs tested on them to see how they work. We don't even have enough in the world.

[Twilight]

Obviously Darwin's law still applies here

darwin's law, survival of the fittest. well i guess we're the fittest. lions eat rabbits, poor rabbits. people test on animals. get the connection?

[Cataliste]

I'm afraid we simply do not have enough rapists and murders in this country to fill the need. Nor enough prisoners with certain psychological disorders that need drugs tested on them to see how they work. We don't even have enough in the world.

But there are enough mice with the mental conditions? o.O

[Twilight]

But there are enough mice with the mental conditions? o.O

we can inject them with a diesease

[Tetiel]

But there are enough mice with the mental conditions? o.O

We actually have purposefully bred "autistic" mice (or at least what we believe to be. Currently the factor we think is with neurolignin-3). Another reason why mice are better than humans - they breed faster.

[Twilight]

ohhh somebody knows their genes and hormones.

[TheFarSideOfNj]

I know a few people who have been raped. I have met people who have been convicted of rape. I certainly cannot condemn them to a lifetime of illness, suffering, and horrible pain for the sake of science. That would be far more inhumane than injecting a rabbit or a mouse with a debilitating disease. If you consider what we are actually doing to animals, you certainty would not be advocating testing on any human. Humans also have the ability to learn, understand, grow, repent, etc. I would not be willing to sacrifice the redemption of a human for the advancement of science. And, with the justice system the way it is . . . Ten years in jail is much different than ten years of scientific testing if you are innocent.

In ‘Nature’ you can see many examples of the exploitation of one species or another. Why is it such a concern when humans do it on a larger scale? Are we going to rescue every antelope eaten by a lion (I hope not it makes for great TV)? Are we going to police nature for the injustice it does to itself? I don’t have any specific examples off hand, and I am too lazy to research them, but I am reminded of an old Simpsons episode. Bart shoots a bird in a tree and realizes that the eggs were lizard eggs . . . hilarity ensues . . .

We alone are the only species that takes care of its mentally retarded, its old, its ill. I don’t see why we have to constantly watch over and protect other species for any other reason than they may be able to benefit us in some way. Or, in the case of the Scarlet Macaw, they look pretty

[Twilight]

I know a few people who have been raped. I have met people who have been convicted of rape. I certainly cannot condemn them to a lifetime of illness, suffering, and horrible pain for the sake of science. That would be far more inhumane than injecting a rabbit or a mouse with a debilitating disease. If you consider what we are actually doing to animals, you certainty would not be advocating testing on any human. Humans also have the ability to learn, understand, grow, repent, etc. I would not be willing to sacrifice the redemption of a human for the advancement of science. And, with the justice system the way it is . . . Ten years in jail is much different than ten years of scientific testing if you are innocent.

In ‘Nature’ you can see many examples of the exploitation of one species or another. Why is it such a concern when humans do it on a larger scale? Are we going to rescue every antelope eaten by a lion (I hope not it makes for great TV)? Are we going to police nature for the injustice it does to itself? I don’t have any specific examples off hand, and I am too lazy to research them, but I am reminded of an old Simpsons episode. Bart shoots a bird in a tree and realizes that the eggs were lizard eggs . . . hilarity ensues . . .

We alone are the only species that takes care of its mentally retarded, its old, its ill. I don’t see why we have to constantly watch over and protect other species for any other reason than they may be able to benefit us in some way. Or, in the case of the Scarlet Macaw, they look pretty

exactly what i said in my earlier post. lions eat rabbits, humans pwn animals

[Cataliste]

So. If a tiger pwns your asses, power to him?

If so, I shall be bringing a tiger to your homes.

[Hawk]

We can't test on humans

I think you're wrong. All you have to do to run some tests on humans is round up all the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, or physically disabled, put them in camps, and run tests on them, since that has never been done in the past. Hell, who needs the Hippocratic Oath! Find some corrupt doctors and lets party!

On a more serious note, medical testing on animals is acceptable. Cosmetic testing on animals, which was brought up earlier, is not acceptable.

[Twilight]

I think you're wrong. All you have to do to run some tests on humans is round up all the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, or physically disabled, put them in camps, and run tests on them, since that has never been done in the past. Hell, who needs the Hippocratic Oath! Find some corrupt doctors and lets party!

On a more serious note, medical testing on animals is acceptable. Cosmetic testing on animals, which was brought up earlier, is not acceptable.

ummm.... jews aren't people. remember?

[Grizzy]

Some find it equal to animal cruelty >.>
I don't mind if it can lead all rats to the hell they deserve.

Some POW's should be available for testing as well, we should make some kind of system for juveniles...scare the shit out of em and do a Kerry.

" YOU DON'T DO GOOD IN LIFE, YOU'LL END UP GETTING TESTED ON"

Edited by desiresd, 21 March 2008 - 05:09 AM.

[adonis]

>.< Animal testing is wrong. Plain out wrong.

Why can't we just test new drugs on prisoners? That's is honestly more humane. And I don;t mean people in jail for drugs, I mean rapist/murderers/etc.

You beat me too this

I think you're wrong. All you have to do to run some tests on humans is round up all the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, or physically disabled, put them in camps, and run tests on them, since that has never been done in the past. Hell, who needs the Hippocratic Oath! Find some corrupt doctors and lets party!

On a more serious note, medical testing on animals is acceptable. Cosmetic testing on animals, which was brought up earlier, is not acceptable.

Ever hear of Operation Paperclip? It's were the US dragged to sanctuary, nazi scientists and war criminals in order to get the information from thier experiments to further their own research. I'm not saying that action was right or wrong innately it would have been a waste to have nothing come from the atrocities of the holocaust.

The fact of the matter is experimentation on certain lvls requires human involvement. Given the diversity of the human body, it is a given that some biological systems cannot be replicated in the entirety of the animal kingdom. Although examples of every system exist, none are without variants that can produce error. On some lvls animal testing is quite effective and I fully condone them as the life of an animal =/= a human IMO. I remember vaugely having some involvement slaughtering and disecting swine as; a)they are common b)accurately represent similarities in human organs and I never had an issue with it. Some people did and did not involve themselves. As a man I can understand thier waiver....as a man of science I cannot accept it. It's the absolute truth that binds all creatures...the fact we serve no other purpose than the propogate and perpetuate our species. In this we do so, accept it.

[Twilight]

So. If a tiger pwns your asses, power to him?

If so, I shall be bringing a tiger to your homes.

welll yes. power to whoever pwns. but humans pwn the most because were smart, we have guns, and all that technology.

[Grizzy]

>.< Animal testing is wrong. Plain out wrong.

Why can't we just test new drugs on prisoners? That's is honestly more humane. And I don;t mean people in jail for drugs, I mean rapist/murderers/etc.


I win. I have put forth valid proof of an alternative.

just go after pedos

[Will]

Assuming we are 'better' then animals is dumb but as a human with a strong instinct for survival I say that if animals need to die so I can live, go for it.

It would be better for the planet and almost every other species if we were though. We're so selfish on both a macro and a micro level...

I like this one.