Animal testing, In Need of some Help

[marukisu]

...

 

[Dew k. Mosi]

http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=29167

 

[knowsbleed]

How awesome is that link?

 

[SuperMonkey]

Not only unneccesary items like cosmetics and soaps are tested on animals. Medicines, cancer treatments and other life-saving items were mainly developed through animal testing. By the other side's logic, would it be morally acceptable to use something like these on themselves or on a loved one, even to save a life?

-- FunBob

 

[Bubonic]

The thing about animal testing is that you just can't replicate accurate results from one species to another, similar yes, but ideally if you want to find out how a human will react to something, if he'll be healed or hindered by it, you need to test it on a human.

 

[Ugfugly]

You know who else was against animal testing?

 

[Bubonic]

^yah yah, typical.

Obviously if I'm against animal testing then I'm an evil bastard.

They still test crap like clorox and draino on animals, in fact most of the stuff that is tested on animals certainly doesn't serve the greater good of humanity in the way some miracle cure would.

Animals like apes and monkeys have almost as rich a range of emotions as we do, albeit being much more confused by being put in cages their whole lives, not being able to exercise their social instinct, and constantly being tortured.

 

[chaseter]

Pigs and dogs look cute with makeup

 

[The Senator]

Databases such as Proquest and LexisNexis will give you scholarly sources and actual information.

However, Peter Gabriel is an expert on animal testing, as evident in this music video:

 

[jaguarr]

Because if you don't use them for testing, Taiwarriorz will eat them.

jag

 

[AndThePickles]

Aw come on, use that brain and think of some arguments for yourself!

 

[Bubonic]

The U.S. already executes and tortures people, so why don't they get their **** together and test things on hopeless cases anyways?

Just think of all the random news stories posted on the hype involving horrendous things, and most of you being full of rage and saying you'd kill the person and which the worst of things on them.

Well, ****, if you're going to kill them anyways why not try to find a cure for cancer or AIDS by using them... It be a chance for something good to come out of child killers and the like and would yield much more useful results then testing on ****ing animals who are inherently different from us to begin with.

 

[SuperMonkey]

^Because that's against the Constitution. I understand no one here wants to hear it, but people are more important than animals. Plain and simple.

-- FunBob

 

[SuperFerret]

^Because that's against the Constitution. I understand no one here wants to hear it, but people are more important than animals. Plain and simple.

-- FunBob

That's debatable, but in the long run, I'd say that when it comes to testing for important things, using animals may be a valid option, provided that the animals are also well taken care of.

 

[Heretic]

Pigs and dogs look cute with makeup

Lets leave Sarah Palin out of this discussion.

 

[Bubonic]

^Because that's against the Constitution. I understand no one here wants to hear it, but people are more important than animals. Plain and simple.

-- FunBob

It isn't plain and simple.

It is to you because you're probably plain and simple and are coming from the camp that thinks that because we are obviously intellectually superior and much greater achievers then the rest of life on Earth, that we are necessarily inherently better, deserving of the whole planet to ourselves, and should exploit it and it's creatures to it's fullest, because we can.

The only reason you think we are more important is because you've been told we are, and we've been made to believe it.

 

[SuperMonkey]

^Love these assumptions you make. Actually, I never said we were better. But if it comes down to a choice between saving the life of an animal or saving the life of a human being,... there's something wrong with you if that's actually a tough decision.

-- FunBob

 

[Bubonic]

There are plenty of things wrong with me, as I'm sure there is with you.

If you don't think humans are better then animals, then why do you differentiate between the two, stand by your convictions and admit to what you believe in a straightforward manner, instead of denying it in one sentence, only to confirm it in the next.

 

[Carcharodon]

^Love these assumptions you make. Actually, I never said we were better. But if it comes down to a choice between saving the life of an animal or saving the life of a human being,... there's something wrong with you if that's actually a tough decision.

-- FunBob

I cry when animals die in movies. People...not so much. Weird.

 

[chaseter]

Lets leave Sarah Palin out of this discussion.

Oh snaps

 

[Ace of Knaves]

A couple years back a pharmaceutical company used some humans as guniea pigs for a new drug. The people all had horrible side effects, one mans face blew up to the size of a beach ball, and many others ended up looking like "The Elephant Man".

So in some cases animal testing has to be used, for drugs that could save lives or whatever. But i don't like the idea of animals being used for cosmetics companies, because in reality cosmetics aren't exactly life threateningly important are they?

 

[Ace of Knaves]

It isn't plain and simple.

It is to you because you're probably plain and simple and are coming from the camp that thinks that because we are obviously intellectually superior and much greater achievers then the rest of life on Earth, that we are necessarily inherently better, deserving of the whole planet to ourselves, and should exploit it and it's creatures to it's fullest, because we can.

The only reason you think we are more important is because you've been told we are, and we've been made to believe it.

I don't think he means that.

I agree with him, but not because I think humans are superior or some crap like that. I respect animals and the roles they play in the eco-system. I'm not naive, I KNOW that without animals we wouldn't be able to survive anyway, we need them a lot.

But if it comes down to saving a human life at the expense of an animals, I would kill that animal every time.

 

[SuperMonkey]

There are plenty of things wrong with me, as I'm sure there is with you.

If you don't think humans are better then animals, then why do you differentiate between the two, stand by your convictions and admit to what you believe in a straightforward manner, instead of denying it in one sentence, only to confirm it in the next.

"better" is kind of subjective, and variable, don't you think? Hitler wasn't better than an animal. Mother Theresa was. As a whole, the human race isn't "better" than animals, but I'd still like to see you respond to the second part of my last post.

-- FunBob