Dan_Dare Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 I support animal testing. It makes it safer for us and without it I doubt most of the really important drugs on the market would not be available. it's not pleasant. It is, however, a good thing in the end.
Kaeporagaebora Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Zeldafreak, you're a fucking dick if you think drugs should be "tested" on animals. They have the ability to feel, just like us. Man, you just couldn't be more of a dickhead could you? I would personally kill every chimp in the world, with my bare hands, to save one street junkie with AIDS. See Penn and Teller. It's not really relevant until about the twelfth minute, but you can watch the whole thing if you want. I'm not trying to say you're in PETA or anything, just that this is the best pro-animal testing video I've ever seen. Not that this is off-topic or anything.
The Bard Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 I would personally not give a shit. Animal testing is wrong. You might think of it as the lesser of two evils, but I think of it as the greater.
ZeldaFreak Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Right bard you keep telling yourself its wrong, do you eat meat then its the same thing. Personally I don't believe any animal has feelings, they have a basic intelect of yes and no. Nothing more nothing less.
gmac Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 the thing is though just because the drugs work on the animals does not mean that they will work on humans.
Eenuh Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Right bard you keep teeling you its wrong, do you eat meat then its the same thing. Personally I don't believe any animal has feelings, they have a basic intelect of yes and no. Nothing more nothing less. Then I personally don't believe you have feelings either, since you're just as much an animal as those you'd like to see being tested on. If you believe an animal can't feel things like pain, then you seriously are a retard or one of those bastards who likes to stick firecrackers up the ass of a frog.
dabookerman Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Things have been stirring up here havent they eh. Well, Humans are top of the food change. I do not condone harm to animals, i love animals. But yeah, its pretty much expected Animals to be tested on, since what else can you test things on. Humans are a selfish breed and only care about themselves.
ZeldaFreak Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Then I personally don't believe you have feelings either, since you're just as much an animal as those you'd like to see being tested on. If you believe an animal can't feel things like pain, then you seriously are a retard or one of those bastards who likes to stick firecrackers up the ass of a frog. No you see humans have an evolved brain which can prosess a lot more 'data' from alot more stimuli. I know that this politically correct country is at the hands of that fucker Blair, then for greenpeace for pushing for eveyone to do their bit for their enviroment. Well excuse me assholes I know you like to live in a hole and not go on holiday abroad,like on the US, but I like to and I ain't going to stop.
Dan_Dare Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 I would personally not give a shit. Animal testing is wrong. You might think of it as the lesser of two evils, but I think of it as the greater. Seriously? You'd rather save a few chimps than millions of humans? because that's exactly what you're saying...
Eenuh Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 No you see humans have an evolved brain which can prosess a lot more 'data' from alot more stimuli. I know that this politically correct country is at the hands of that fucker Blair, then for greenpeace for pushing for eveyone to do their bit for their enviroment. Well excuse me assholes I know you like to live in a hole and not go on holiday abroad,like on the US, but I like to and I ain't going to stop. It's not because we can talk and all that stuff that we should consider ourselves the only true inhabitants of this world. And I don't even live in your country, so I don't see how that point has anything to do with this. And I do go on holiday abroad, to the US even. You're just talking crap.
Zell Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 If you don't test a new drug on animals, you're basically testing the drug on humans by retailing it. I'd rather have a dead chimp than a dead person. Also animal testing leads to better animal medicine, so we're not that greedy, more animals are saved thanks to animal testing than are killed becaus of it.
Eenuh Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 I'm not necessarily against animal testing, but there are limits to it. Plus the circumstances in which the testing happens isn't always the greatest. There's also a difference between testing for medicines or other stuff like cosmetics, soaps, shampoos, which I think is really not necessary.
Shino Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 They shouldn't test on cute animals, just on flies and mosquitoes... and horses.
Eddage Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 They shouldn't test on cute animals, just on flies and mosquitoes... and horses. Shut the fuck up, horses are awesome! Thus ends my great input into this debate!
The Bard Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Seriously? You'd rather save a few chimps than millions of humans? because that's exactly what you're saying... Animals are better than humans. They don't pollute, they don't spread to an area, reproduce until the environment can no longer support them (or anything else) and then move to another area, animals are simple, they don't kill for pleasure, they kill for sustenance. We are a spanner in the works, the only animal group that doesn't fit in. If humans need to test drugs, they should try them out on themselves, find someone who is willing to bite the bullet, instead of potentially harming creatures that want nothing to do with it. The majority of plagues are caused by humans anyway, you can take Aids as an example; people in the 60's insisted on having multiple sexual partners without heed to what thousands of scientists/ doctors were saying leading to Aids and infact, the majority of Venereal disease. If we are the cause then we should find the cure on our own. If you looked a little closer you'd see that there is a lot of beauty in simplicity, animals can see, hear, feel, taste, smell and they can love too, just beacuse Humans are a more cerebral race doesn't mean that that they are superior. Thats my two cents, but what do I know, I'm just an ignorant fuck.
Eenuh Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Animals are better than humans. They don't pollute, they don't spread to an area, reproduce until the environment can no longer support them (or anything else) and then move to another area, animals are simple, they don't kill for pleasure, they kill for sustenance. We are a spanner in the works, the only animal group that doesn't fit in. If humans need to test drugs, they should try them out on themselves, find someone who is willing to bite the bullet, instead of potentially harming creatures that want nothing to do with it. The majority of plagues are caused by humans anyway, you can take Aids as an example; people in the 60's insisted on having multiple sexual partners without heed to what thousands of scientists/ doctors were saying leading to Aids and infact, the majority of Venereal disease. If we are the cause then we should find the cure on our own. If you looked a little closer you'd see that there is a lot of beauty in simplicity, animals can see, hear, feel, taste, smell and they can love too, just beacuse Humans are a more cerebral race doesn't mean that that they are superior. Thats my two cents, but what do I know, I'm just an ignorant fuck. You just went up a giant step on my list of cool people. Totally agree with your opinion here.
Shino Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Shut the fuck up, horses are awesome! Thus ends my great input into this debate! I hate horses... I hate them with all my heart! DAMN YOU HORSES!! As for the animal superiority, animal instinct is below human logic. And The Bard, monkey gave us aids. See, they're evil.
thebenmaster Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 Well isnt this quite the ethical debate eh? It seems to me that the bard holds quite the strong opinion agaisnt it and everyone seems to be generally against him::shrug: I think people should consider a few moral systems rather than just being like: accept my opinion as the right one now!!! Everyone has a vague idea what utilitarianism is 'the greatest good for the greatest number' put simply, however it is really to do with the consequences of actions and applying this to animal testing gives the following: the duration of the pleasure of patients who receive drugs tested on animals is obviously quite significant because they don't die and so this pleasure is also probably quite intense. Sed person surviving leads to a pure and extensive pleasure because the family is in turn happy their relative is not dead, ill etc. So at face value it seems animal testing is morally acceptable as it leads to great pleasure of humans. Most ethicists who follow systems such as this do not even factor in animals becuase they lack the intelligence to be moral agents and so cannot effectively be part of a moral system. Put of course moral systems like utilitarianism are a load of codswollop because they are confusing and no-one really gives a dam. People are more swung by traditional beliefs of culture, religion, family, etc. The practice of the virtues, things which people generally see as 'good' things is an old tradition going back to Aristotle (quite far back). The pain inflicted onto animals is not a virtue so a 'bad' thing to do, you kick a dog or cat in the street do you? (Well i seriously hope not you sick bastards). Since there a so many religious people in the world it would be unfair of me to not include some religious points that will enrich your lives oh so much. In the monotheistic tradition there is the common idea that mankind is the steward of God's creation. So by killing animals we are not taking care of His creation so all you animal testers are going to burn in Hell! So i think i can safely say that no one can say whether it is right or wrong and achieve anything in doing so. If you're against it go out and protest and don't buy perfume or medicine, etc. If you are for it go buy shares in a company or something. Frankly i dont care because you or i or anyone else aint gonna change a thing. So in conclusion BOOOOOOM HEADSHOT MOTHERFUCKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Bard Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 A level RS has given you such a clinical approach to moral ethics that I feel ridiculous even having asked for your opinion, Ben. Yes, maybe you or I aren't going to change anything, but it's the virtue, and our peace of mind at doing the right thing that counts.
Zell Posted November 16, 2006 Posted November 16, 2006 In the end it all boils down to one's own morals/beliefs etc and whether one finds it morally acceptable or not. And no amount of arguing is going to convince someone differently. In conclusion respect people's beliefs blah blah (unless they're part of the Flat Earth Society, they're just retards).
Aimless Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 As for the animal superiority, animal instinct is below human logic. But only humans value human logic. I agree with The Bard¹, in the grand scheme of things we're the worst of the world's inhabitants; I love humanity, and I love being human, but deep down I know we're the scourge of this planet. ¹Perhaps the world can be saved, as apparently miracles do happen.
Shino Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 But only humans value human logic. I agree with The Bard¹, in the grand scheme of things we're the worst of the world's inhabitants; I love humanity, and I love being human, but deep down I know we're the scourge of this planet. ¹Perhaps the world can be saved, as apparently miracles do happen. People need to have more faith in humanity, how can you praise everything else in nature and not praise one of its biggest creations?
Aimless Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 People need to have more faith in humanity, how can you praise everything else in nature and not praise one of its biggest works? Biggest -pieces- of work, more like. Anyway, did I not say I love humanity? I hate it too, of course, but I'm human and will always value humanity perhaps more than it is worth. Perhaps we are a great achievement, but so was Frankenstein's monster: we are fascinating, awe inspiring, capable of such amazing things; we are enraptured by ourselves, in awe of our own brilliance, and capable of monstrous atrocities against the world that bore us.
Shino Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 Biggest -pieces- of work, more like. Anyway, did I not say I love humanity? I hate it too, of course, but I'm human and will always value humanity perhaps more than it is worth. Perhaps we are a great achievement, but so was Frankenstein's monster: we are fascinating, awe inspiring, capable of such amazing things; we are enraptured by ourselves, in awe of our own brilliance, and capable of monstrous atrocities against the world that bore us. It wasn't entirely directed at you, but you seemed to go along the misanthropy seen in this thread. I just think that our emotional attachments too each other puts us above less cognitive animals, and they're more suitable subjects to tests. Also, we are capable of much, but even if we are the ones that will one day end with everything on this planet, I say theres nothing wrong in that as nature decided so.
Aimless Posted November 17, 2006 Posted November 17, 2006 It wasn't entirely directed at you, but you seemed to go along the misanthropy seen in this thread. I just think that our emotional attachments too each other puts us above less cognitive animals, and they're more suitable subjects to tests. Again, human values. I'm not saying you're wrong — I'd agree with you — but isn't it ridiculous for us to prescribe how we see the world as absolute truth? Isn't it disrespectful for humanity to see Earth's inhabitants as mere amenities that we can abuse as we wish? Isn't it arrogant to think the world is ours, that we are the best it has to offer? Also, we are capable of much, but even if we are the ones that will one day end with everything on this planet, I say theres nothing wrong in that as nature decided so. Humans are full of potential, but most are too short-sighted to see just what we could be. Surely our consciousness — or whatever you care to call our more elaborate minds — grants us something nigh on unique, the ability to choose how we live. It isn't up to nature any more, it's up to us. Do we continue to choose destruction, continue to scorn the world that made us what we are? Or do we protect it, nurture it, see over it as it watched over us? We are unlike anything else out there, but that is no reason to get so wrapped up in our uniqueness that we forget everything else, neglect that which is around us. Wasted potential is one of the most painful things to see, especially when it hurts so much and many. That is why it's time to stop living for ourselves. Instead, let us live up to our promise.
Recommended Posts