150 replies to this topic

[MiladyM]

Ya I agree. Chopping off a cow's head and skinning it when its alive with the blood all spraying out while its struggling is not mean!!! But testing on it is

makes me wonder where youre from

[flashraven]

I thought it's okay to test on pest like rats.

[Gee]

Even rats I do not agree with testing. I don't want to get into a political discussion about it but I really dislike it when humans harm animals. Even ugly shits like rats unfortunately.

[Sweeney]

Even rats I do not agree with testing. I don't want to get into a political discussion about it but I really dislike it when humans harm animals. Even ugly shits like rats unfortunately.

So you'd either rather medicines are tested on humans, or you'd prefer untested meds?
You're the epitome of sense.

[Philj16]

I rather they were tested on animals tbh , as least that way another human life is killed off


I agree sweeney , would people prefer untested products? which could have serious affect on others, there no other way tbh you could test them, other than animals or on humans

Edited by Philj16, 13 September 2010 - 10:55 AM.

[Frizzle]

So you'd either rather medicines are tested on humans, or you'd prefer untested meds?
You're the epitome of sense.

Why not test on humans? It means the results are directly comparable unlike if you tests on rodents.

"Ahh this rat ate some more cheese than the other rats, therefore all humans will eat more cheese than rats"

[Sweeney]

Why not test on humans? It means the results are directly comparable unlike if you tests on rodents.

"Ahh this rat ate some more cheese than the other rats, therefore all humans will eat more cheese than rats"

Because rats have a shorter lifespan, a shorter reproductive cycle, a simpler brain, a larger population, a smaller body size, a lower dietary requirement, a smaller space requirement and oh yeah, no sentience.

Being intentionally dense is unbecoming.

[WakaWaka]

I rather they were tested on animals tbh , as least that way another human life is killed off


I agree sweeney , would people prefer untested products? which could have serious affect on others, there no other way tbh you could test them, other than on animals or on humans

People always say they dont like animal testing.
Yet I dont see them volunteering to be tested on.
If you are so hell bent against animal testing, go take their place.

Edited by WakaWaka, 12 September 2010 - 02:47 PM.

[flashraven]

It really depends on who's in power now. After given alternatives, humans will not sacrifice their own kind no matter what. If rats are in power, they might sacrifice us. And who knows, maybe in years time when Aliens begin their reign they might sacrifice humans as test subjects :shrugs

[Boggart]

It really depends on who's in power now. After given alternatives, humans will not sacrifice their own kind no matter what. If rats are in power, they might sacrifice us. And who knows, maybe in years time when Aliens begin their reign they might sacrifice humans as test subjects :shrugs

Argument is null, we'll all be dead in 2012

[flashraven]

^ Noooooo. Stop being so pessimistic lol

[Sweeney]

It really depends on who's in power now. After given alternatives, humans will not sacrifice their own kind no matter what. If rats are in power, they might sacrifice us. And who knows, maybe in years time when Aliens begin their reign they might sacrifice humans as test subjects :shrugs

"if rats are in power"?
I don't know what you're smoking, but I hope the comedown isn't too hard.

There's no real reason an alien race would need to test on humans, outside of purely investigative purposes. Chances are, a spacefaring race is going to be advanced enough to have progressed way past physiological medicine testing in the first place, and even if they hadn't, there would be so little similarity between our evolutionary history, and our genetic makeup, as to render us totally useless as test subjects.

[flashraven]

By that I was just stating an example. Must be the result of non-fiction overdose

Edited by flashraven, 13 September 2010 - 10:29 AM.

[Sweeney]

By that I was just stating an example. Must be the result of non-fiction overdose

An example of what? How to contribute nothing to a discussion?

[Lallard]

If you are so hell bent against animal testing, go take their place.

That. Plus I think anthropomorphizing is just darn bullshit if anyone plans on arguing that.

[Frizzle]

Because rats have a shorter lifespan, a shorter reproductive cycle, a simpler brain, a larger population, a smaller body size, a lower dietary requirement, a smaller space requirement and oh yeah, no sentience.

Being intentionally dense is unbecoming.

Then why can't we just test on Indian thens? Same difference.

[Sweeney]

Then why can't we just test on Indian thens? Same difference.

Too brown.

[luvsmyncis]

Then why can't we just test on Indian thens? Same difference.

How dare you.


Injuns are people too. Proud people in moccasins made from the skin of lab rats.

[Frizzle]

How dare you.


Injuns are people too. Proud people in moccasins made from the skin of lab rats.

Wrong indian.

[iloveorange]

It in my opinion it's good, because I consider humans to be dominant over animals. Would you rather an animal try a new medicine and die, or your grandma?

[Sweeney]

It in my opinion it's good, because I consider humans to be dominant over animals. Would you rather an animal try a new medicine and die, or your grandma?

Your conclusion may be accurate, but your reasoning is offensively flawed.

[Frizzle]

Your conclusion may be accurate, but your reasoning is offensively flawed.

I can hear the squirrels sharpening their knives.

[Naded]

Its all in the individuals point of view. From a philosophical view, humans have almost always been considered being on top of animals. This started from the first page of the bible where it explains how God created the earth and so on, it says that God created humans that resembled to Him. This ideology being the fundament of christianity has been dominant for centuries and has been going downwards ever since Galileo Galilei proved that the earth was going around the sun and not the other way around. This was the beginning of a decline of anthropocentrism.

So to sum it up, religion has had is still has (to a certain degree) a pretentious view of the humans being the kings of the earth... When really we are just a very lucky outcome of millions of years of evolution.

To be honest I am neutral on this subject, yes it has it positive effects and can ultimately save human lives, but I don't think that its any better to test on animals. We are the specie that is ruining this earth, at the cost of all living beings.

[iloveorange]

Your conclusion may be accurate, but your reasoning is offensively flawed.

I was in no way trying to be offensive, not to you, or animals. : ) I was just trying to give a good example of why I feel the way I do.

[Sweeney]

I was in no way trying to be offensive, not to you, or animals. : ) I was just trying to give a good example of why I feel the way I do.

You failed.