Animal Testing (Ethical debate)

[Slaggis]

I had a lesson in ethics earlier about animal testing and we ended up having a massive debate about it.

 

Everyone seemed to have a different opinion on it and how it's ok to do it on some animals but not others, some said it was wrong on all accounts and others said it's perefectly ok to do.

 

We watched a video where there we saw testing being carried out on rats, which are treated very well all the way up to when they are put to sleep and tested on (though they die in the experiment). We also watched a video of a monkey being taught on a computer, learning to do things which all seemed very nice up intill we were told they were going to inject him with parkinsons disease and see what happens.

 

So, do you think it's bad except for the odd occasion? Or does your opiniom differ depending on the animal? Or is it wrong for cosmetic (etc) companies to do it but right for scientists to?

 

I thought it might make a nice little debate for a thread. So, whats you opinion? I'll say mine when I make my mind up.

[Zell]

It's all down to your own personal belief on animal rights. Are we equal to animals? Or are we superior to them?

[The Bard]

There is no big "ethical debate." We've had this argument before, and my reaction is the same as always:

 

If it's our problem, we should sort it out on our own. Find someone who is willing to be tested on. What is it that gives us jurisdiction over the lives of sentient creatures? I'm not proposing some Auschwitz like ordeal, but the majority of human diseases are there as a result of our own idiocy and lack of foresight, so instead of using war to keep human populations in check, why don't we go right ahead and use drug testing, if it works, great, if it don't, shit happens. I'm only joking. But yeah, Animal testing = epic fail.

[Mikey]

Animal testing kicks all kinds of ass. We owe animals ___NOTHING___, and if testing on them benefits us, then we should damn well do it. We are the dominant species on this planet, and can do whatever we want. Ridiculous nonsense from Bard.

[Tellyn]

I'm not big on animal rights. People die every day often from things like cancer, and animal testing with things like vaccines will eventually help to find a cure. If the animals die in the testing, it's no different than thousands of people being starved in Africa, or someone being murdered. Cosmetic testing I don't see the point in, surely they must know which chemicals can kill people.

[Slaggis]

Animal testing kicks all kinds of ass. We owe animals ___NOTHING___, and if testing on them benefits us, then we should damn well do it. We are the dominant species on this planet, and can do whatever we want. Ridiculous nonsense from Bard.

 

Do you really think that?

 

The monkey in the video I watched was pretty intelligent (in the sense of it's not human)

 

The scientist compared it's intelligence to a young child or someone that is "mentally disabled" (or whatever the right term in nowadays). Now surely thats wrong? I mean, who's then to say testing on a young child or someone who is mentally disabled is any different, I mean they are both of the same intelligence aren't they?

[Mikey]

Animal rights are a fucking stupid concept. The moment you give them rights, is the moment you give them more rights than humans. The only basic right animals have is to try and put themselves on top of the food chain, and if they can't achieve it, fuck them. They don't give a shit about us, so we shouldn't give a shit about them.

 

Do yuo really think that?

 

The monkey in the video I watched was pretty intelligent (in the sense of it's not human)

 

The scientist compared it's intelligence to a young child or someone that is "mentall disabled" (or whatever the right term in nowadays). Now surely thats wrong? I mean, who's then to say testing on a young child or someone who is mentally disabled is any different, I mean they are both of the same intelligence aren't they?

 

Loads of pseudo scientists with their own agenda start talking bullshit. According to other "scientists", humans aren't designed to eat meat.

[The Bard]

Animal testing kicks all kinds of ass. We owe animals ___NOTHING___, and if testing on them benefits us, then we should damn well do it. We are the dominant species on this planet, and can do whatever we want. Ridiculous nonsense from Bard.

 

You are notorious for being an insensitive c.unt.

 

We owe animals pretty well everything, and what you said is pretty much a colossal testimony to your lack of empathy.

 

I'm not big on animal rights. People die every day often from things like cancer, and animal testing with things like vaccines will eventually help to find a cure. If the animals die in the testing, it's no different than thousands of people being starved in Africa, or someone being murdered. Cosmetic testing I don't see the point in, surely they must know which chemicals can kill people.

 

Yes, but doesn't the immorality of the means to the end eventually serve to do nothing but pervert the cause?

[AshMat]

You actually are the most prejudiced person i've ever come into any form of contact with Mikey.

 

Anyway, i don't like the idea of it, but it makes shit safe for us.

[Slaggis]

Loads of pseudo scientists with their own agenda start talking bullshit. According to other "scientists", humans aren't designed to eat meat.

 

No offence but He wasn't talking about some crackpot theory ro whatever, it was just an itelligent guy (the one doing the testing, and a scientist the video was shown to who was against it) saying how amazed he was at how intelligent this monkey was. It was obvious the monkey was pretty intelligent for an animal and you could see how they were comparing it's intelligence to a young child or someone mentally disabled.

 

At least discuss the point I made rather than fobbing me off with that...it's a debate after all:)

[Tellyn]

 

You are notorious for being an insensitive ****.

 

We owe animals pretty well everything, and what you said is pretty much a colossal testimony to your lack of empathy.

 

 

Yes, but doesn't the immorality of the means to the end eventually serve to do nothing but pervert the cause?

 

I don't completely agree with Mikey, I agree that animals must have some sort of rights but we ARE the dominant species and we can and will do anything to ensure the survival of our race. Testing vaccines on animals seems a small price to pay for prolonging our own existence.

[Mikey]

 

You are notorious for being an insensitive ****.

 

We owe animals pretty well everything, and what you said is pretty much a colossal testimony to your lack of empathy.

 

 

lol, stop crying, we owe animals absolutely fuck all. On this planet no species owes another anything, it's how life works. Animals use each other all of the time in a bid to survive, and we're no different. We owe them nothing, and they owe us nothing.

 

The only animal testing I am opposed to, is pointless testing like for cosmetics. I have all of the empathy in the world, without animal testing we are fucked, simple as.

[Slaggis]

lol, stop crying, we owe animals absolutely fuck all. On this planet no species owes another anything, it's how life works. Animals use each other all of the time in a bid to survive, and we're no different. We owe them nothing, and they owe us nothing.

 

The only animal testing I am opposed to, is pointless testing like for cosmetics. I have all of the empathy in the world, without animal testing we are fucked, simple as.

 

We've evolved and are able to feel emotion and are intelligent enough to tell right from wrong and all that crap. Surely just using an animal for our own benifit and inturn killing it in some sometimes horrible ways is a little...barbaric? Also, saying animals don't like us is crap. What about the bonds people develop with animals of all diffeent species? (that bond being recipricated (sp))

 

I don't completely agree with Mikey, I agree that animals must have some sort of rights but we ARE the dominant species and we can and will do anything to ensure the survival of our race. Testing vaccines on animals seems a small price to pay for prolonging our own existence.

 

It's not just vaccines though, they insert electrodes into an animals brain, inject them with diseases just to see the effect of what happens to it compared to a human and many other things.

 

I agree with bard, I mean why not test some of this stuff on us? I mean i'm sure there are people out there who would volunteer.

[Mikey]

You actually are the most prejudiced person i've ever come into any form of contact with Mikey.

 

Anyway, i don't like the idea of it, but it makes shit safe for us.

 

I call it how I see it. If that makes me prejudiced, then so be it. I prefer to think of myself as being realistic, and being unapologetic about it.

[The Bard]

I don't completely agree with Mikey, I agree that animals must have some sort of rights but we ARE the dominant species and we can and will do anything to ensure the survival of our race. Testing vaccines on animals seems a small price to pay for prolonging our own existence.

 

That is just utterly wrong. Do you think animals don't feel as you do? They show all the same basic emotions, and you're saying it's alright to kill or seriously maim these creatures because they're less intelligent? Then, I suppose you would say the same about testing on someone with a mental disability like Downs syndrome right? You're saying that, the right to life is correlated to intelligence in some way. A chimp, and a young human child, pretty much the same cognitive abilities, yet you would have no real qualm about killing the chimp, because it's not the same as you, it's different in some way, even though it thinks and feels, although perhaps not to the same degree as you, you don't know. That my friend, is the very sentiment at the heart of the kind of discrimination you all pretend to look down on so much.

 

Haha...oh, I just re read that...

 

"Survival of our race," eh? Yeah, I'm sure that with over 6 billion people, and overpopulation leading to plagues the world over, the very existence of the human race is at stake.

[Mikey]

No offence but He wasn't talking about some crackpot theory ro whatever, it was just an itelligent guy (the one doing the testing, and a scientist the video was shown to who was against it) saying how amazed he was at how intelligent this monkey was. It was obvious the monkey was pretty intelligent for an animal and you could see how they were comparing it's intelligence to a young child or someone mentally disabled.

 

At least discuss the point I made rather than fobbing me off with that...it's a debate after all:)

 

I wasn't trying to fob you off, I'm just saying be careful about who you believe. Loads of scientists have been convinced that psychics are real because they aren't very good at what they do. Other scientists have compared the intelligence of a pig to a 3 year old child, doesn't make it so though.

 

 

That is just utterly wrong. Do you think animals don't feel as you do? They show all the same basic emotions, and you're saying it's alright to kill or seriously maim these creatures because they're less intelligent? Then, I suppose you would say the same about testing on someone with a mental disability like Downs syndrome right? You're saying that, the right to life is correlated to intelligence in some way. A chimp, and a young human child, pretty much the same cognitive abilities, yet you would have no real qualm about killing the chimp, because it's not the same as you, it's different in some way, even though it thinks and feels, although perhaps not to the same degree as you, you don't know. That my friend, is the very sentiment at the heart of the kind of discrimination you all pretend to look down on so much.

 

The human species looks after its fellow humans, regardless of their intelligence, just like other species look after their own. Animal testing has saved the lives of millions, literally. You want to take that away so some freaking animals can be spared, regardless of what happens to people. I find it disturbing.

[Tellyn]

 

That is just utterly wrong. Do you think animals don't feel as you do? They show all the same basic emotions, and you're saying it's alright to kill or seriously maim these creatures because they're less intelligent? Then, I suppose you would say the same about testing on someone with a mental disability like Downs syndrome right? You're saying that, the right to life is correlated to intelligence in some way. A chimp, and a young human child, pretty much the same cognitive abilities, yet you would have no real qualm about killing the chimp, because it's not the same as you, it's different in some way, even though it thinks and feels, although perhaps not to the same degree as you, you don't know. That my friend, is the very sentiment at the heart of the kind of discrimination you all pretend to look down on so much.

 

It's an opinion, it's not WRONG. Yes animals can think and feel and it's terrible that they might end up being killed or hurt, but until the EU/UN etc. change their laws, we can't test on humans. I'm all for testing this stuff on rapists and murderers, but the fact is it's not going to happen because it's a breach of their human rights. If the human race is to progress then we need to test things on animals, otherwise we may come to a medical standstill and diseases that could be curable with the help of animal testing will kill us.

 

I'm not an emotionless little shit, I just think that animal testing (for the purpose of science) is acceptible.

[Mikey]

If you are against animal testing, you are against finding cures for people who are sick. Do I sound pissed off? Well I am.

 

People > animals. Every single time.

[Slaggis]

Mikey, you said something about the food chain. Who gives us the right to do what we want with any animal just because we are top? I mean, eating n animal is one thing, thats for food and it's natural, whereas injecting an intelligent animal with parkinsons disease to see what happens is another. Surely you can see the difference?

[The Bard]

It's an opinion, it's not WRONG

 

You do realise that opinions can, on oh so many occasions, be plain wrong. You do don't you? Because if you don't, then you're not worth arguing with at all. Why don't we try approaching this in a more Socratic way? Why do you feel the need to say "It's my opinion, so I can't be wrong." It's like, you're trying to be objective in saying that, yes, we should test on animals, and when prompted by way of anything that resembles a proper discussion, you crawl into your shell of subjectivity and proclaim that "it's what you believe." Well, fine, beliefs are personal and all that shit, and if it only affects you, then it's alright, you can believe whatever the fuck you want, but we're talking about living things here, so when you talk about your "opinion," it just shows that this is nothing more than an issue of vanity with you...

 

Mikey, you said something about the food chain. Who gives us the right to do what we want with any animal just because we are top? I mean, eating n animal is one thing, thats for food and it's natural, whereas injecting an intelligent animal with parkinsons disease to see what happens is another. Surely you can see the difference?

 

Exactly my point!

[Mikey]

Mikey, you said something about the food chain. Who gives us the right to do what we want with any animal just because we are top? I mean, eating n animal is one thing, thats for food and it's natural, whereas injecting an intelligent animal with parkinsons disease to see what happens is another. Surely you can see the difference?

 

We give ourselves the right, as the dominant species on the planet. We really don't need any one else's permission. Rights are a human concept, the only natural right in this world, is the right to try and survive. Animal testing falls under this.

 

We treat animals far better than they treat us. We kill them humanely, and even treat them for illnesses when they get them. I don't advocate the torturing of animals, I do advocate doing what is necessary to look after ourselves, and if that means some animals have to suffer, so be it. My dad would be dead now if it wasn't for animal testing, so would millions of others. Saving their lives is far more important than keeping some animals around who don't give a shit about you at all.

[The fish]

I'm going to take a middle ground and say :for medical research, in humane conditions, it's not just fine, but I actively encourage it.

For cosmetics, and when they are treated inhumanely unnecessarily, or if they are given something "just to see what happens" (not a medical drug for testing), the sooner we see the back of it, the the better.

[Tellyn]

 

You do realise that opinions can, on oh so many occasions, be plain wrong. You do don't you? Because if you don't, then you're not worth arguing with at all. Why don't we try approaching this in a more Socratic way? Why do you feel the need to say "It's my opinion, so I can't be wrong." It's like, you're trying to be objective in saying that, yes, we should test on animals, and when prompted by way of anything that resembles a proper discussion, you crawl into your shell of subjectivity and proclaim that "it's what you believe." Well, fine, beliefs are personal and all that shit, and if it only affects you, then it's alright, you can believe whatever the fuck you want, but we're talking about the living things here, so when you talk about your "opinion," it just shows that this is nothing more than an issue of vanity with you...

 

 

Exactly my point!

 

This is a debate though, we're not really going to get anywhere if everyone agrees. Animal testing is a controversial matter, there are benefits and there are disadvantages, no one is going to agree on anything so I'm showing you my points for why I think it's right to test on animals in the name of science.

[ReZourceman]

I think Id be inclined to agree with Tellyn.

 

I dont agree that animals should be tested on for cosmetic reasons full stop.

 

However, IMHO the life of a human is much more important than the life of an animal, and if the testing is based on good research and for a good cause, I dont see the problem with testing, as long as its not torturous or anything.

 

Anyway I dont like deep serious debates like this....Ill stick with "Whose your favourite teletubbie" debates.

[Oxigen_Waste]

I actually agree with bard, it should b a job, "tester", you'd get paid for it and despite the risk I assure you that there'd be thousands doing it.

In my eye, humans and animals are equal, we are not superior to them in worth, so... mistreating animals and the holocaust is the same thing, to me.

 

"Survival of our race," eh? Yeah, I'm sure that with over 6 billion people, and overpopulation leading to plagues the world over, the very existence of the human race is at stake.

 

 

The human species looks after its fellow humans, regardless of their intelligence, just like other species look after their own. Animal testing has saved the lives of millions, literally. You want to take that away so some freaking animals can be spared, regardless of what happens to people. I find it disturbing.

 

If you are against animal testing, you are against finding cures for people who are sick. Do I sound pissed off? Well I am.

 

People > animals. Every single time.

 

One death = one death.

People = animals.

1 Animal death = 1 human death.

I don't care if a cockroach dies, I don't care if a person dies. Unless said cockroach or person is close to me. :P

 

But that's just me.

 

You find it disturbing? Why?