150 replies to this topic

[RKO]

I wont pick a side here, animal cruelty is bad but I rather it be them then me, so Im neutral on the topic.

[derp]

I think it's bad. :c
But well, I preffer they test with animals instead of humans, like RKO said.

[lua]

I'm completely against animal abuse when it comes to testing products. I feel it even more when those products are "worthless", like just for aesthetics, or have no real urgency for our health. I'd never do it myself and I really hope there's a way to prevent it in the future. In my country there's been some strict laws about this, although everyday someone gets caught trying to sell Amazonian fauna illegally. Which is not very nice, also.

On the other hand, I know that these tests are inevitable and I know of its present importance in our daily life. So, reasonably, I just wait for a time when things can be different.

Edited by lua, 27 April 2010 - 12:58 PM.

[Alstroemeria]

I wont pick a side here, animal cruelty is bad but I rather it be them then me, so Im neutral on the topic.

I agree.

[generalgsus]

IMO it's inhumane. I support products that advertise that they do not in fact test their products on animals.

[NeoVix]

I dont agree with testing products on animals at all.

And while we are at it...this is going to sound strange, but is there not a way for scientists to use the skin of donors...to test things on? This would be much better IMO.

[Sweeney]

I dont agree with testing products on animals at all.

And while we are at it...this is going to sound strange, but is there not a way for scientists to use the skin of donors...to test things on? This would be much better IMO.

Only a microscopic sample of medical products affect the skin.

[Wangalang]

If the animals being used as test subjects are cute/edible, those sick motherfuckers should go learn some ethics or burn in hell.
If not, I don't really give a shit.

[NeoVix]

Only a microscopic sample of medical products affect the skin.

Well organs and that then...just basically everything from the person who died

[DragonX]

What do you do when you have a fever? Take Tylenol? Advil? The fact is, testing on animals is not something we can annaliate altogether. One can only imagine that testing on humans/not testing drugs before they are released would not work.

With that being said, I'm all for tighter regulations/respecting the animals we test with.

Yes, the two are a bit contradictory but I don't agree that 100% one side is necessarily correct. A line between the two must be drawn.

[Noitidart]

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.

HAHAHAH hilarious point! Love it!

[StefanKai]

Okay with it done with ethics in mind

[iargue]

Well organs and that then...just basically everything from the person who died

Er. I think the people who alive need those organs more importantly? If all humans were organ donors sure. Weirdly enough we respect the right of the dead (wtf). So you cant just take a dead persons body and use it. They have to donate their body to science.

No one can prove that the animal actually suffers though. Animal rights activists just assume that the animal is suffering, and think its bad. What if the animal feels no pain, or does not care at all? Would it be okay to do things to an animal that has no feelings?

[StefanKai]

Would it be okay to do things to an animal that has no feelings?

Sure, and it is done under those circumstances.

[iargue]

Sure, and it is done under those circumstances.

Then no one can protest animal testing if that is the case. There is no proof that animals can even suffer. If they can (Which isn't proven) feel pain, there is no proof that the remember the pain long enough for it to be suffering.

[StefanKai]

No, people still can protest whatever they want, lol.

[Volition]

the prisons are filled with pedophiles and harden criminals, why test on animals when there's people on death row?

[StefanKai]

\

Edited by Intrusion, 20 May 2010 - 10:47 PM.

[iargue]

the prisons are filled with pedophiles and harden criminals, why test on animals when there's people on death row?

Why cant I just test on you then?

Criminals are people too. How do you separate the innocent from the guilty? Would you be happy knowing that you tested on a person who was innocent?

[Volition]

Why cant I just test on you then?

Criminals are people too. How do you separate the innocent from the guilty? Would you be happy knowing that you tested on a person who was innocent?

Criminals are people who have violated the god given rights of anyone else, an eye for an eye will actually teach them. The guilty have made their choices, the guilty are those on death row, the murderers the people dangerous to society. In canada there is no such thing as justice, life in prison means parole in five years, do the families of the innocent not deserve any justice?

Edited by SilentErektion, 21 May 2010 - 09:16 AM.

[iargue]

Criminals are people who have violated the god given rights of anyone else, an eye for an eye will actually teach them. The guilty have made their choices, the guilty are those on death row, the murderers the people dangerous to society. In canada there is no such thing as justice, life in prison means parole in five years, do the families of the innocent not deserve any justice?

And the person on death role who didnt actually commit the crime? How do you know he did it? What if he was framed? How can you justify punishing him?

[Joanna]

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.

This times 1 million.

Criminals are people who have violated the god given rights of anyone else, an eye for an eye will actually teach them. The guilty have made their choices, the guilty are those on death row, the murderers the people dangerous to society. In canada there is no such thing as justice, life in prison means parole in five years, do the families of the innocent not deserve any justice?

What the hell are you thinking? Its a prison cell not a torture cell. I vote we throw you into a prison cell and test all of our medical stuff on you.

[Volition]

And the person on death role who didnt actually commit the crime? How do you know he did it? What if he was framed? How can you justify punishing him?

Then couldn't every person in prison use this argument? To say that they are innocent and that they were framed? Then how do you justify putting them in a prison?

This times 1 million.



What the hell are you thinking? Its a prison cell not a torture cell. I vote we throw you into a prison cell and test all of our medical stuff on you.

Ask the prisoners at Abu Ghraib if there's any difference between a prison cell and a torture cell. As shown in the Stanford prison experiment the prison guards are already turning it into a torture cell. If its as simple as a vote, then direct some public discontent at a prisoner and let the people vote, the people of Nazi Germany displayed this quite well. Also I debate for the sake of debating, not trolling, so please use legitimate arguments rather than "what the hell are you thinking".

Edited by SilentErektion, 21 May 2010 - 03:39 PM.

[iargue]

This times 1 million.

Except its bullshit. There is no proof the animal can suffer. Until you prove that, stop using that as a basis for your argument. :|

Then couldn't every person in prison use this argument? To say that they are innocent and that they were framed? Then how do you justify putting them in a prison?

That is precisely what I am saying. We have no guarantee that the person is really guilty, and no ideal who is. This is why we cant justify torturing them. We place them in prison to keep them from society, but we do not test on them because we dont know if they are innocent or not.

Your telling me that you believe that everyone in jail actually committed those crimes, and that they deserve to die.

[Volition]

Except its bullshit. There is no proof the animal can suffer. Until you prove that, stop using that as a basis for your argument. :|




That is precisely what I am saying. We have no guarantee that the person is really guilty, and no ideal who is. This is why we cant justify torturing them. We place them in prison to keep them from society, but we do not test on them because we dont know if they are innocent or not.

Your telling me that you believe that everyone in jail actually committed those crimes, and that they deserve to die.

If we have no guarantee that the person is really guilty then why do we keep them in prisons as a punishment? If we cannot prove that they are guilty why are they not allowed to roam society?

Edited by SilentErektion, 21 May 2010 - 05:17 PM.