Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Is animal testing on products good or bad???


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#51 kittycat

kittycat
  • 633 posts

Posted 20 January 2010 - 01:26 PM

It's good for us, bad for animals.

So it would be good since we are human.

#52 Fatal

Fatal
  • 3,615 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 January 2010 - 05:32 PM

I'm not a huge "animal rights" believer, so yes my view is that animal testing is fine. Even if the chances of it helping are extremely small, there is no point in not testing a product or ingredient in every way possible before getting it to the consumer. It's called, "the food chain". Animals may die or be "tortured" by their predators in nature, that's just how it goes. I don't see a need for "extremely unnecessary torture" or anything like that (for example, someone PURPOSELY torturing an animal with no purpose behind it), but if it makes sense at all, then I support it.

#53 jonnykun

jonnykun
  • 403 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 January 2010 - 08:20 PM

things to consider:
1. how will the results gained from testing the animals be used to better humanity?
2. the purpose of testing - commercial, medicine, weaponry
3. if animals die, will they have a humane death?
4. are there other alternatives

these i think can help weigh the cost-benefit of animal testing, and to decide if it is worth it

#54 unworthy

unworthy
  • 602 posts

Posted 21 January 2010 - 02:34 PM

I'm totally for testing on people instead of animals. I think we are by far the less deserving animal on the planet and if we are going to make products to serve ourselves then we should get to experience the side-effects of them. All we do is create problems and then band-aids to fix them. We are the only thing on the planet that do not fit in with the balance of things because we have a higher awareness then any other creature on the planet.

Since we are making the products we should be responsible for their production from start to finish. No animal will ever profit from these products or ever be exposed to them by their own free will. Since animals cannot defend themselves and do not have the IQ that we do then we are responsible for their well being and should not have the right to expose them to harmful toxins. There are always hundreds of people that would be willing to serve as test subjects for compensation so why not let them? Just because it is "unethical" to expose a human to such things is a bullshit reason. The only reason it is unethical is because once we no longer care about our own species we are totally fucked as a whole. The fact that we have the power to do what we please with all the organisms on the planet does not mean that we should do what we please with them.

Many people will disagree with me but its only because they are childish and think that the world revolves around them.(but who can blame them it's how we are brought up to be)

#55 jcrboy

jcrboy
  • Oh shit there's a thing here

  • 6,953 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 January 2010 - 02:45 PM

Those damn animals TOOK MY JOB!

I would have perfume sprayed in my eyes at the risk of blindness if there was a decent paycheck at the end of the day.

#56 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 January 2010 - 04:27 PM

-snip ill considered natural rights argument-

Your argument is based on not placing the lives of humans above the lives of other organisms.
In that case, what about killing weeds in your garden?
Even if you want to focus on organisms above the first trophic level, there are billions of bacteria that you kill every time you wash your hands..
How about macroscopic organisms? Do you keep an eye out for ants when you walk down the road?
Too small? Cockroaches, then. Or pestilent rats?

Hell, are you a vegan? If not, you're a violent hypocrite.

#57 unworthy

unworthy
  • 602 posts

Posted 21 January 2010 - 04:42 PM

Your argument is based on not placing the lives of humans above the lives of other organisms.
In that case, what about killing weeds in your garden?
Even if you want to focus on organisms above the first trophic level, there are billions of bacteria that you kill every time you wash your hands..
How about macroscopic organisms? Do you keep an eye out for ants when you walk down the road?
Too small? Cockroaches, then. Or pestilent rats?

Hell, are you a vegan? If not, you're a violent hypocrite.


I wouldn't say that I am violent. And I am not saying that we should place the lives of other animals above our own or that we shouldn't eat animals and such. I just mean that for something like animal testing there is no fair reason to do it. Your argument with bacteria is just stupid and you know it. The ph of the oil on your skin kills more bacteria then soap does. Everything you breathe/blink/fart/stand still you are killing bacteria. Hell your own body is killing its own cells by apoptosis while you are sleeping. That had nothing to do with what I was saying..sorry for bringing you to that conclusion.

I meant putting make-up on animals and testing other things that hurt the animals for many commercial means. I don't really think cock fighting is good either in the same sense.

You will always be able to find a way to prove me wrong and it isn't a 100% flawless idea so if you are just arguing with me for the sake of proving me wrong there is no point. eg. We can always eat a peanut instead of a chicken.

but the thread is about animal testing

#58 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 January 2010 - 04:49 PM

I wouldn't say that I am violent. And I am not saying that we should place the lives of other animals above our own or that we shouldn't eat animals and such. I just mean that for something like animal testing there is no fair reason to do it. Your argument with bacteria is just stupid and you know it. The ph of the oil on your skin kills more bacteria then soap does. Everything you breathe/blink/fart/stand still you are killing bacteria. Hell your own body is killing its own cells by apoptosis while you are sleeping. That had nothing to do with what I was saying..sorry for bringing you to that conclusion.

I meant putting make-up on animals and testing other things that hurt the animals for many commercial means. I don't really think cock fighting is good either in the same sense.

You will always be able to find a way to prove me wrong and it isn't a 100% flawless idea so if you are just arguing with me for the sake of proving me wrong there is no point. eg. We can always eat a peanut instead of a chicken.

but the thread is about animal testing

If you're denying that your argument was based on equality of life, then you must admit that it has no basis at all.

You're going to have to define a "fair" reason, robustly.

#59 Andy

Andy
  • 226 posts

Posted 21 January 2010 - 04:56 PM

I'm totally for testing on people instead of animals. I think we are by far the less deserving animal on the planet and if we are going to make products to serve ourselves then we should get to experience the side-effects of them. All we do is create problems and then band-aids to fix them. We are the only thing on the planet that do not fit in with the balance of things because we have a higher awareness then any other creature on the planet.

Since we are making the products we should be responsible for their production from start to finish. No animal will ever profit from these products or ever be exposed to them by their own free will. Since animals cannot defend themselves and do not have the IQ that we do then we are responsible for their well being and should not have the right to expose them to harmful toxins. There are always hundreds of people that would be willing to serve as test subjects for compensation so why not let them? Just because it is "unethical" to expose a human to such things is a bullshit reason. The only reason it is unethical is because once we no longer care about our own species we are totally fucked as a whole. The fact that we have the power to do what we please with all the organisms on the planet does not mean that we should do what we please with them.

Many people will disagree with me but its only because they are childish and think that the world revolves around them.(but who can blame them it's how we are brought up to be)


Your argument is based purely on the assumption that all life is created equal, which is false. Lions are above gazelles, birds are above insects, and we are above everything. That is a fact. While it might be nice to think that the world was perfect and that all animals are born equal, it just isn't true.

We as a species which is intellectually superior to other species of animal have every right to use them for our own means to further our own survival, because that's all life comes down to, surviving and having babies. If this includes making a chimpanzee look like it came out of the red light district rather than the zoo, so be it. If they were superior to us they would do it to us too.

#60 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 January 2010 - 05:09 PM

Your argument is based purely on the assumption that all life is created equal, which is false. Lions are above gazelles, birds are above insects, and we are above everything. That is a fact. While it might be nice to think that the world was perfect and that all animals are born equal, it just isn't true.

We as a species which is intellectually superior to other species of animal have every right to use them for our own means to further our own survival, because that's all life comes down to, surviving and having babies. If this includes making a chimpanzee look like it came out of the red light district rather than the zoo, so be it. If they were superior to us they would do it to us too.

Your reasoning is equally flawed, relying heavily on the "naturalistic fallacy".
In fact, it basically just is that fallacy.

#61 Andy

Andy
  • 226 posts

Posted 21 January 2010 - 05:20 PM

I never said anything about our superiority making it ethical to mistreat animals, I just said it is unreasonable to expect humans to act in any other way.

#62 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 January 2010 - 05:24 PM

I never said anything about our superiority making it ethical to mistreat animals, I just said it is unreasonable to expect humans to act in any other way.

"have every right" isn't a statement about ethical stance? News to me.

#63 Andy

Andy
  • 226 posts

Posted 21 January 2010 - 05:42 PM

Touche...

That was a typo, I meant 'have every reason' :whistling:

#64 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 January 2010 - 05:48 PM

Touche...

That was a typo, I meant 'have every reason' :whistling:

Fair enough :p

Still, ethical side of the question is still there, unaddressed. I would argue that it's the very thing that makes us "superior" to other animals that would lead us to expect each other not to act in a brutal way.
Of course, that's not exactly supported by precedent... but in an ideal world :p

#65 zpoy

zpoy
  • 538 posts

Posted 21 January 2010 - 06:20 PM

I'm pretty much in full support of doing human testing on prisoners and on people who are getting paid for it. No reason to test animals if we have a huge wealth of people to test where the testing will be more effective since they are of our species.

#66 Andy

Andy
  • 226 posts

Posted 21 January 2010 - 06:54 PM

Fair enough :p

Still, ethical side of the question is still there, unaddressed. I would argue that it's the very thing that makes us "superior" to other animals that would lead us to expect each other not to act in a brutal way.
Of course, that's not exactly supported by precedent... but in an ideal world :p

In an ideal world there would be no disease and everyone would already look beautiful, so there wouldn't be any need to test on animals anyway :p

But this is the real world, where there are no prancing unicorns, and people get sick, and there are lots of ugly people who want to look better by using obscene amounts of make-up.

No doubt it is definitely unethical to put an untested drug or beauty product on the market, as it may kill a sick or ugly person. However which is it more ethical, testing these products on Asians and arts students, or testing it on animals? The answer is undoubtedly the animals. For their future is blank, a couple of farts and barks, and whoosh, they're as good as dead.

The animals don't have a chance on winning the convenience store employee of the year, nor will they grow up to be high class prostitutes for prominent politicians (one would hope). By risking animals over their human counterparts, we give a better chance for the potential of these young humans to be reached, and perhaps they will go on to do a world of good, curing one of the many forms of cancer out there, or even becoming the president. Even though there is a chance these people may go on to become mass murderers, or even worse, become militaristic vegans, and more than most likely lead unremarkable lives, but the fact that they have the potential to do so much good, and bring so much happiness to the world should be enough reason to protect them from the possible side-effects of drugs during the testing process. And in a way, produce the most end happiness.

#67 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 21 January 2010 - 07:06 PM

In an ideal world there would be no disease and everyone would already look beautiful, so there wouldn't be any need to test on animals anyway :p

But this is the real world, where there are no prancing unicorns, and people get sick, and there are lots of ugly people who want to look better by using obscene amounts of make-up.

No doubt it is definitely unethical to put an untested drug or beauty product on the market, as it may kill a sick or ugly person. However which is it more ethical, testing these products on Asians and arts students, or testing it on animals? The answer is undoubtedly the animals. For their future is blank, a couple of farts and barks, and whoosh, they're as good as dead.

The animals don't have a chance on winning the convenience store employee of the year, nor will they grow up to be high class prostitutes for prominent politicians (one would hope). By risking animals over their human counterparts, we give a better chance for the potential of these young humans to be reached, and perhaps they will go on to do a world of good, curing one of the many forms of cancer out there, or even becoming the president. Even though there is a chance these people may go on to become mass murderers, or even worse, become militaristic vegans, and more than most likely lead unremarkable lives, but the fact that they have the potential to do so much good, and bring so much happiness to the world should be enough reason to protect them from the possible side-effects of drugs during the testing process. And in a way, produce the most end happiness.

Preaching to the choir, here :p

I'm pretty much in full support of doing human testing on prisoners and on people who are getting paid for it. No reason to test animals if we have a huge wealth of people to test where the testing will be more effective since they are of our species.

Actually, there are many practical reasons to test on animals over humans.
Not least of which being the shorter generation time, and the larger populations.

Then of course, there's the situations where appropriate tests involve the death of the organisms involved. LD50 tests, for example.

#68 Andy

Andy
  • 226 posts

Posted 21 January 2010 - 08:39 PM

I'm pretty much in full support of doing human testing on prisoners and on people who are getting paid for it. No reason to test animals if we have a huge wealth of people to test where the testing will be more effective since they are of our species.


How can you possibly support testing on prisoners. The only times this has been practised in modern history was in World War II by the Nazis and Japanese on Jews and prisoners of war, and in the present day in North Korea. It is abhorrent. If you are against the involuntary testing of some humans, then you should be against all involuntary testing on humans, it is a matter of principle.

Preaching to the choir, here :p


Actually, there are many practical reasons to test on animals over humans.
Not least of which being the shorter generation time, and the larger populations.

Then of course, there's the situations where appropriate tests involve the death of the organisms involved. LD50 tests, for example.

I swear, LD50 testing is just an excuse for scientists to cull their rat population. It isn't even an accurate measure of toxicity... But I guess it is pretty helpful if you want to figure out how to kill rats with the least amount of poision :-/

#69 zenkai

zenkai
  • 18 posts

Posted 27 January 2010 - 11:28 AM

it cruel to the animals but if we was testing it on humans, people would be saying that it is wrong so the easiest thing to do is to test the products on the animals

#70 googlehead

googlehead
  • 162 posts

Posted 27 February 2010 - 12:48 AM

My view on the matter is this. Would I rather they test on animals or humans. More often than not I answer animals.

#71 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 27 February 2010 - 07:30 AM

I swear, LD50 testing is just an excuse for scientists to cull their rat population. It isn't even an accurate measure of toxicity... But I guess it is pretty helpful if you want to figure out how to kill rats with the least amount of poision :-/


They won't even dent the rat population. They're more rats then humans..

#72 DarkVision

DarkVision
  • 73 posts

Posted 28 February 2010 - 03:29 AM

Whats more inhumane - Humans dieing over it, Or a purposely bred animal?

Rats and such i don't have much problem with as there doing fine

But monkeys and dogs and more precious animals is wrong

I rather it not happen... But at the end of the day its either them or us.

#73 Jiraiya

Jiraiya
  • 521 posts

Posted 03 April 2010 - 05:25 PM

Animals have rights too!we would not want it to happen to us if there are superior species than us that wants to test products on us..tsktsk

#74 kiddX

kiddX
  • 606 posts

Posted 03 April 2010 - 09:32 PM

Animals have rights too!we would not want it to happen to us if there are superior species than us that wants to test products on us..tsktsk


Well go chill with a lion and it would test its claws on you too...

I definitely think animal testing is a good option since it results in safer products and less human testing.

#75 Elindoril

Elindoril
  • Weeaboo Trash

  • 9,012 posts


Users Awards

Posted 03 April 2010 - 09:39 PM

Animals have rights too!we would not want it to happen to us if there are superior species than us that wants to test products on us..tsktsk

Yeah, and even if we didn't want it to happen to us, the superior species would laugh it off and test on us anyways. Just because you don't WANT it to happen to you doesn't mean it WON'T happen to you.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users