Oxigen_Waste Posted November 29, 2007 Posted November 29, 2007 Then why do you care about whether animals are tested on? Because it's not right. I don't care about people either, but rape is still something I don't approve of.
Supergrunch Posted November 29, 2007 Posted November 29, 2007 The fact we're equal doesn't mean I treat them right. Because it's not right. I don't care about people either, but rape is still something I don't approve of. You just said yourself that you don't treat animals right.
Blackfox Posted November 29, 2007 Posted November 29, 2007 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. Most diseases are pathological changes, often with no cause. Are you saying autoimmune diseases are our own doing (Well, it is body vs body, but we don't choose to) or maybe (most types of) cancer? Yeah, there's a hell of a lot of lifestyle diseases - but humans are humans, they still need treating. Do people honestly think scientists test on animals just for some sadist fantasies? Really? It NEEDS to be done to save lives, otherwise it wouldn't be done. Yeah, that's quite true. Animal testing is the second stage in testing. They are testing on supercomputers first to test their viability and efficacy in humans. Then tested on animals to see if they're any safer. As for animal testing - I'm for it. You're probably right in that fact we have no right to say who is the superior species - but at the end of the day, humans vs animals, I'll pick the animals to be tested on everytime. Until a fesible way of testing new drugs is found then there's no other often, in my opinion, and British Law says so too! I challenge any animal right campaigner to refuse their treatment though. Every single drug/vaccine/intervention has been tested for safety on animals before hand. If its life vs death, I wonder who would have the balls to stick with their principles?
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 29, 2007 Posted November 29, 2007 You just said yourself that you don't treat animals right. I treat them right. I just don't care about them, except they're my dog or so... Anyway, I'm a bad example... do you think the world should follow my lead?
Supergrunch Posted November 29, 2007 Posted November 29, 2007 I treat them right. I just don't care about them, except they're my dog or so...Anyway, I'm a bad example... do you think the world should follow my lead? No, but I also don't think anyone should pay attention to your points if your argument contradicts itself: The fact we're equal doesn't mean I treat them right.
The Bard Posted November 29, 2007 Posted November 29, 2007 I don't know...it just really pisses me off, it just seems hugely unjust. I'm no scientist, and I don't have a depth of knowledge of these things past A level Biology, but come on, it's pretty sickening... Humans have caused many of their own problems through drugs. Take pregnant women for example, many of them rely on an epidural, because since painkillers make it easier for women with tiny cervices to give birth, it has made it almost impossible for some women not to have a miscarriage in the absence of dimorphine being pumped directly into their spine. Same thing goes for antibiotics. We're digging our own grave, and not giving a damn about the cost; animals aren't our playthings, they deserve a bit of respect. Meh...
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 29, 2007 Posted November 29, 2007 No, but I also don't think anyone should pay attention to your points if your argument contradicts itself: I was talking about plants and cockroaches... If you couldn't understand that and kept going for 3 posts it's your own fault not mine.
Emasher Posted November 29, 2007 Posted November 29, 2007 My opinion is that its ok as long as its just small animals like mice (and only if its for drugs not makeup and stuff) as it is for the greater good because the drugs can save people's lives.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 29, 2007 Posted November 29, 2007 My opinion is that its ok as long as its just small animals like mice (and only if its for drugs not makeup and stuff) as it is for the greater good because the drugs can save people's lives. WTF? Why only in small animals?? What's the difference?
Supergrunch Posted November 29, 2007 Posted November 29, 2007 I was talking about plants and cockroaches... If you couldn't understand that and kept going for 3 posts it's your own fault not mine. 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. *cough* I think you just said the two were equal.
rokhed00 Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Whilst I don't agree with animal testing I've tried cruelty free make up and it's pretty crappy to be honest.
Emasher Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 WTF? Why only in small animals?? What's the difference? I think you have to agree that testing on a rat and testing on a monkey are entirely different things.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 *cough* I think you just said the two were equal. They are. But I treat them different. Why? I think you have to agree that testing on a rat and testing on a monkey are entirely different things. No... they're not. What's the difference between them?
Supergrunch Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 They are. But I treat them different. Why? Because that gives you no reason to be against animal testing.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Because that gives you no reason to be against animal testing. Of course it does, it's wrong. : peace: What I do or don't do has nothing to do with what is wrong or right.
Iun Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Everyone and everything has a place in the universe. So long as nothing dies a pointless death, then there is no harm. My cancer drugs were animal tested, and I thank the animals that gave their lives for mine. So too do I thank the animals I eat, and I work every day to ensure that the world is a better place through me for their sacrifice. It's when animals die a pointless death that frustrates me, that's why cosmetic testing is wrong. Cosmetics are nice, but they are not really necessary. Yay for Shamanism
Supergrunch Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Of course it does, it's wrong. : peace:What I do or don't do has nothing to do with what is wrong or right. Because it's not right. I don't care about people either, but rape is still something I don't approve of. But you say you don't approve of rape of a random person, yet you don't care whether or not a cockroach dies. That surely indicates preferential treatment of humans over animals.
rokhed00 Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 It's when animals die a pointless death that frustrates me, that's why cosmetic testing is wrong. Cosmetics are nice, but they are not really necessary. I disagree.
weeyellowbloke Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Some of the arguments here are utterly ridiculous, I can't tell whether some are meant to be sarcastic or serious. Supergrunch seems to be the only person making any sense. Animal testing is necessary, without it you get potentially lethal drugs being distributed to people. We've seen what inadequate testing can do in the past with drugs such as thalidomide. As for the whole "get people to volunteer" argument, well who are you going to get volunteer. You think people will sign up out of the goodness of their hearts. No, people sign up for medical testing usually because it pays well and they're desperate for money. With a human testing only set up you'd end up with testing on the poor and vulnerable for the benefit of everyone else. Does that seem more fair then testing on some mice?
rokhed00 Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Some of the arguments here are utterly ridiculous, I can't tell whether some are meant to be sarcastic or serious. Supergrunch seems to be the only person making any sense. Animal testing is necessary, without it you get potentially lethal drugs being distributed to people. We've seen what inadequate testing can do in the past with drugs such as thalidomide. As for the whole "get people to volunteer" argument, well who are you going to get volunteer. You think people will sign up out of the goodness of their hearts. No, people sign up for medical testing usually because it pays well and they're desperate for money. With a human testing only set up you'd end up with testing on the poor and vulnerable for the benefit of everyone else. Does that seem more fair then testing on some mice? Sounds fair to me, human testing is a lot more effective than on animals anyway, a control group of mice/rats/dogs/monkeys aren't going to give as efficient results on the affect on humans as testing on humans will.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 But you say you don't approve of rape of a random person, yet you don't care whether or not a cockroach dies. That surely indicates preferential treatment of humans over animals. No... I don't care if a person dies either, rape is just 100X worse than death, in my book, so... if a cockroach was raped, I'd feel sorry for it, too. Anyway, whilst I have my sense of right and wrong, I am free to deviate upon it.
Supergrunch Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 No... I don't care if a person dies either, rape is just 100X worse than death, in my book, so... if a cockroach was raped, I'd feel sorry for it, too. Anyway, whilst I have my sense of right and wrong, I am free to deviate upon it. So in other words, while your argument is inconsistently based on a bizarre moral code, you don't even follow said code. N.B. Animals are "raped" all the time, and that has nothing to do with humans. The only way to get a female drosophila that is a virgin is to pick it out before its wings harden.
Oxigen_Waste Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 So in other words, while your argument is inconsistently based on a bizarre moral code, you don't even follow said code. N.B. Animals are "raped" all the time, and that has nothing to do with humans. The only way to get a female drosophila that is a virgin is to pick it out before its wings harden. Precisely. I have a bizarre moral code for wich I stand and I don't even follow it. Anything else? Ah, but see, "rape" in animals does not leave them emotionally destroyed or even distressed in the least because, well, they have no emotions... so why bother? (ok, I'm off for the afternoon, cya later).
The fish Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Ah, but see, "rape" in animals does not leave them emotionally destroyed or even distressed in the least because, well, they have no emotions... so why bother/ Ever heard of dogs mourning after the death of an owner?
The Bard Posted November 30, 2007 Posted November 30, 2007 Ah, but see, "rape" in animals does not leave them emotionally destroyed or even distressed in the least because, well, they have no emotions... so why bother? That's the most shockingly wrong thing you've ever said. Of course they have emotions, Animals feel all the emotions that we do.
Recommended Posts