Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Is animal testing on products good or bad???


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#1 Reaper

Reaper
  • 1,000 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 November 2008 - 07:30 PM

Ok, so on this topic, I can understand both sides...while its cruel to do to helpless animals, I also wouldn't want experimental things done to regular people. I happened to be reading my shampoo bottle and it said "This final product was not tested on animals". I don't know wether to support it, or go agansit it...I don't know that much about animal testing. I'm neutral about it. How do you feel...is it good or bad?

#2 Oaken

Oaken
  • 7,298 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 November 2008 - 07:34 PM

You mean is testing products on animals bad?

I don't know about you but I wouldn't fancy trying to put a dog on make up.....

#3 Reaper

Reaper
  • 1,000 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 November 2008 - 07:38 PM

Yeah thats what I mean...I don't think they put lipstick on...I thought just the different ingredients on the animal..see if there is a reaction and if there is, they don't make it...I'm really unsure, so if anyone knows, that would be great to know as well.

#4 Rhiann

Rhiann
  • 170 posts

Posted 07 November 2008 - 07:58 PM

I'm all okay with things that have to do with medical ingredients or yeah.
Like how they test new things on lab mice that may cure things.

But make up and shampoo and hygiene related things, no.
They need to make the ingredients human healthy in the first place, so why bother test it.
I guess.


#5 Amour

Amour
  • 214 posts

Posted 07 November 2008 - 07:59 PM

Lawl. Okay some facts about animal testing:

~Dogs, Rabbits, Mice, Cats, Chimps, and all other animals.. DONT have skin like ours. In fact.. guinea pigs can receive enough arsenic in it's blood to kill ten humans and be just fine. Animals ARE not people.

~About 2% of medical breakthroughs have been attributed to animal testing. 2%.. out of all the medical breakthroughs we've discovered.

~Animal testing really only was used back in like.. the early part of the 1900s to satisfy consumers by saying it was 'safe' on animals. More and more companies are discovering that what is safe on animals, is not safe on humans. Therefor you have more companies going out of their way to make sure testing isn't done on animals.. because it makes no sense.

Basically.. animal testing is and always was pretty pointless. And the things they do to those animals.. There's a rather famous quote in regards of animal testing..

"The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' but, 'Can they suffer?'"

And yes. They can.


#6 Sida

Sida
  • Tsvetesman

  • 3,865 posts

Posted 07 November 2008 - 08:01 PM

Animal testing is totally crual and there's no reason for it.

#7 Ives

Ives
  • 4,320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 November 2008 - 10:19 PM

I don't personally agree with, but I think less pain the better, minimizing pain and checking up would be nice.

#8 Grizzly

Grizzly
  • <img src ='http://i29.tinypic.com/9iwl5w.jpg'>

  • 3,964 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 November 2008 - 11:59 PM

I think this is probably the most hypocritical argument of all time. Cause unless you're a fucking vegan, how is it right to butcher animals to satisfy your hunger when there's plenty of other opportunities around.. yet when people are running tests to create drugs that treat cancer, prevent viruses, and cure your damn migraine.. or if people are testing products to see if they're safe for human use, it's suddenly not right.. What difference does it make when we clearly don't value the lives of animals. For the sake of resourcefulness?



#9 Valkyrja

Valkyrja
  • 179 posts

Posted 08 November 2008 - 12:11 AM

If what Amour said is true, then
Just use some people, i don't see why not. Criminal rights in the USA is buuuullllshhhiiiit for people who are on death row, in this example. i'd test it on them. I'm not looking at this from an ignorant and/or liberal perspective, i'm actually being conservative about this; if products that need to be tested cant be used on animals because the animal is too biologically different than a human to test the effects, use people that have no more use in this world. Not like we're running out of people any time soon. Plus I'm terribly insensitive, lols



#10 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11,532 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 November 2008 - 04:06 AM

As far as I know make up animal testing is illegal in America anyways and many other countries smile.gif It's a pointless argument. And where's the actual study that 2% of medical breakthroughs are by animal testing? I assure you with modern medicine it's a lot more than thatl

#11 Reaper

Reaper
  • 1,000 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 November 2008 - 10:47 AM

I have no idea if its illegal here Tet, your probably right. I mean, I guess with makeup I agree, it IS stupid...but like Kitsune stated medical testing would be more beneficial then testing makeup. And the whole prisoner thing (testing on them) is a damn good idea...lol.

QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 8 2008, 12:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think this is probably the most hypocritical argument of all time. Cause unless you're a fucking vegan, how is it right to butcher animals to satisfy your hunger when there's plenty of other opportunities around.. yet when people are running tests to create drugs that treat cancer, prevent viruses, and cure your damn migraine.. or if people are testing products to see if they're safe for human use, it's suddenly not right.. What difference does it make when we clearly don't value the lives of animals. For the sake of resourcefulness?


Its not always that Freak...I value the lives of animals...I wouldn't go butcher one for the sake of killing one, but I wouldn't hesitate to if I was providing food for my family.

QUOTE (Amour @ Nov 7 2008, 08:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>


~About 2% of medical breakthroughs have been attributed to animal testing. 2%.. out of all the medical breakthroughs we've discovered.




I would have to agree that 2% seems really super low.

#12 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 November 2008 - 10:51 AM

QUOTE (Reaper @ Nov 8 2008, 06:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I would have to agree that 2% seems really super low.


Not if those 2% save millions of lives. tongue.gif The number alone is useless without more information to support it.

We could always test stuff on convicted criminals I suppose. whistling.gif

#13 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 November 2008 - 11:26 AM

People are animals.
By the way.

#14 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11,532 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 November 2008 - 11:54 AM

QUOTE (Valkyrja @ Nov 8 2008, 03:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If what Amour said is true, then
Just use some people, i don't see why not. Criminal rights in the USA is buuuullllshhhiiiit for people who are on death row, in this example. i'd test it on them. I'm not looking at this from an ignorant and/or liberal perspective, i'm actually being conservative about this; if products that need to be tested cant be used on animals because the animal is too biologically different than a human to test the effects, use people that have no more use in this world. Not like we're running out of people any time soon. Plus I'm terribly insensitive, lols


Define useless. Maybe we should start testing on all people we look down on... Oh shit. does this sound familiar? Maybe we should start putting Jews in cold water again to see how long they'll live.

#15 Reaper

Reaper
  • 1,000 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 November 2008 - 07:18 PM

QUOTE (Waser Lave @ Nov 8 2008, 10:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Not if those 2% save millions of lives. tongue.gif The number alone is useless without more information to support it.

We could always test stuff on convicted criminals I suppose. whistling.gif


I didn't look at it in that way...but yeah, millions of people could only be 2%....

#16 Sida

Sida
  • Tsvetesman

  • 3,865 posts

Posted 09 November 2008 - 07:55 AM

QUOTE (Freak @ Nov 8 2008, 07:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I think this is probably the most hypocritical argument of all time. Cause unless you're a fucking vegan, how is it right to butcher animals to satisfy your hunger when there's plenty of other opportunities around.. yet when people are running tests to create drugs that treat cancer, prevent viruses, and cure your damn migraine.. or if people are testing products to see if they're safe for human use, it's suddenly not right.. What difference does it make when we clearly don't value the lives of animals. For the sake of resourcefulness?


Killing animals for food is to feed us. We've done it many times before and we know the results. They're killed quickly and pretty painlessly. Animal testing is just that...testing. We have no idea what results it will produce and we don't know how it will affect the animal. If testing was limited to humans only we would thoroughly check everything 5x over to make sure things wouldn't go badly. When it's on animals, we just give it them anyway to see what happens and if it goes horribly wrong... 'oh well, next!'

#17 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 November 2008 - 08:17 AM

QUOTE (SidaZoid @ Nov 9 2008, 03:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Killing animals for food is to feed us. We've done it many times before and we know the results. They're killed quickly and pretty painlessly. Animal testing is just that...testing. We have no idea what results it will produce and we don't know how it will affect the animal. If testing was limited to humans only we would thoroughly check everything 5x over to make sure things wouldn't go badly. When it's on animals, we just give it them anyway to see what happens and if it goes horribly wrong... 'oh well, next!'



QUOTE
Second, the myth that we can't gain anything from medical research since human and animal bodies are different is, well, a myth. Scientists take into account the differences and work to exploit the similarities. The results speak for themselves: animal testing has been instrumental in the development of the polio vaccine; the MRI procedure; the development of, and understanding of resistance to, antibiotics; the drug penicillin; and the procedure of organ transplants, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Animal testing has led to countless minor advancements in medicine. One thing that's often overlooked is the amount of veterinary knowledge that has been gained from animal testing. Humans ain't the only ones who benefit.

The main reason I'm pro-animal testing is simply that there is no way to conduct many of the important experiments on humans. The study of both the physical bodies and behaviors of living beings can just not be reproduced any other way. I'd also like to slip in this tidbit from Wikipedia: "Over 10 times more animals are used by humans for other purposes (agriculture, hunting, pest control) than are used in animal testing."

What it boils down to, though, is that I simply do not think of animals and humans as equals, and I'll never adopt that philosophy. If it takes the deaths of a thousand animals to save one human life, that, in my opinion, is an excellent trade.

Now obviously, there are parts of the practice that warrant real concern. When the experiment in question can be conducted just as reliably by other means, those other means should be explored. And, of course, the animal testing should be conducted as humanely as possible.

But remember, kiddos: it's about more than make-up.

And then, as the books were told, Fina replied: "A can of worms, my dear friend? What has this to do with reason?"

Edited by Frizzle, 09 November 2008 - 08:18 AM.


#18 hungryhippo

hungryhippo
  • 414 posts

Posted 09 November 2008 - 01:42 PM

I feel like with our current level of knowledge about how to make hygiene related products we should be beyond the point of needing to test them on animals anyway. But with medical testing sometimes it really is necessary. And I doubt that that 2% figure has any real merit. It seems nearly impossible to quantify how many medical breakthroughs are "attributed" animal testing. First you'd have to define "attributed." Does it mean the entire result was based on animals or lab mice were used at one stage? And in "animals," are you including viruses (the whole living or nonliving debate with them)? Microbes? Bacteria? Thats where a lot of medicine is going right now. And with the 2%, what do you qualify as a medical breakthrough in the first place? I dont like that stat at all. I think it's played a much more integral role than animal rights activists would like to admit

#19 pyke

pyke
  • 13,672 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 November 2008 - 01:49 PM

QUOTE (Waser Lave @ Nov 8 2008, 02:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
We could always test stuff on convicted criminals I suppose. whistling.gif

Brilliant idea. Only those who've committed serious crimes though.

#20 daemonacht

daemonacht
  • 25 posts

Posted 25 February 2009 - 05:22 PM

Well i think its best to use products on animals.. because well.. they are animals and they will die long before we do. besides that many people just hunt animals wound them and leave them to die.
so atleast this way they get fresh breath or nice smelling hair before they pass away. Plus the animals dont always die, so maybe we can have a product that makes dog breath smell have decent!

#21 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 26 February 2009 - 04:27 AM

QUOTE (daemonacht @ Feb 26 2009, 01:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well i think its best to use products on animals.. because well.. they are animals and they will die long before we do. besides that many people just hunt animals wound them and leave them to die.
so atleast this way they get fresh breath or nice smelling hair before they pass away. Plus the animals dont always die, so maybe we can have a product that makes dog breath smell have decent!

blink.gif

#22 Amour

Amour
  • 214 posts

Posted 26 February 2009 - 02:05 PM

QUOTE (Sunscorch @ Feb 26 2009, 05:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
blink.gif


My thoughts exactly.

#23 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 26 February 2009 - 02:06 PM

QUOTE (Sunscorch @ Feb 26 2009, 12:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
blink.gif


lol wut

#24 Chloe

Chloe
  • 328 posts

Posted 27 February 2009 - 07:50 PM

Animal testing for wrinkle creams, I dont like that so much
Testing for medicines, it sucks but we have to, it saves so many lives. The testing that goes into makeup and stuff like that, I think they should have a sticker or something on them saying they did test on animals that way we could decide wether or not we would want to purchase that......I hate PETA though I cant stand them , thats my little added on thingy because they just enrage me.....If i ever get famous for an awesome sex tape or something <not said to mean im hott but said because im a loser and wont be famous for anything> I put out I would speak out against PETA

QUOTE (Amour @ Nov 7 2008, 07:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Lawl. Okay some facts about animal testing:

~Dogs, Rabbits, Mice, Cats, Chimps, and all other animals.. DONT have skin like ours.



Maybe true, pigs on the other hand can practically be hooked up to our bodies and our blood filtered through their organs then put back in ours to clean it.........maybe even organ transplants can happen someday.


#25 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11,532 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 February 2009 - 08:10 PM

QUOTE (Chloe @ Feb 27 2009, 10:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Maybe true, pigs on the other hand can practically be hooked up to our bodies and our blood filtered through their organs then put back in ours to clean it.........maybe even organ transplants can happen someday.

Actually we used to give people pig's hearts before we had human donations if I recall correctly tongue.gif


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users