Debate and Discussion

Animal Testing--yea or nay?
MagickLorelai at 6:31AM, July 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
TnT, he DID give his answer: He doesn't HAVE a definite answer. I'd think that's pretty simple.

Myself, it really does depend on the testing. I count humans as animals, and while I would never promote suffering, I DO promote learning. Do I think it's right to smear foundation and lipstick on a monkey or a pig? No. I think cosmetics and that line should be tested on humans.

I value animal life. All and all, if I were pressed for a definite answer, I'd say, No, I Don't Think It's Right. Human products should be tested on humans. I don't agree with the argument, “We kill and eat them, why not use them, too?” because it DOES become torture in some instances. Killing them for food is one thing (And don't get me started on the people who brutally and torturously kill animals for food!), but slowly causing them pain just because they can't look us in the eyes, cry, and beg, “Please, stop, it hurts!” is demeaning and cruel.

If something is meant to help other animals, then yea for animal testing.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
TnTComic at 6:45AM, July 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
MagickLorelai
TnT, he DID give his answer: He doesn't HAVE a definite answer. I'd think that's pretty simple.

Not having an answer is an answer now? What is this, philosophy beat-off day?

Its a simple question, why can't he answer it? You either do, or do not condone it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
ozoneocean at 9:00AM, July 18, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,114
joined: 1-2-2004
TnTComic
Jesus Criminy, no… you haven't answered the question. You've rephrased the question, you've posed more questions, but you haven't answered the original question.
Can I make it any clearer?
ozoneocean
And as I said, this isn't a “yes” or “no” forum. :P
… Sorry TnT, but I'm starting to have some doubts about you. Is this some kind of half arsed attempt at provocation, or do you genuinely just not understand the things I've written, either way you don't appear very genuine. :)

Heh. Ah well, I've had my say in this debate, there are no questions I need to follow up here and I think that's pretty much it. Sorry to leave you disappointed TnT, but this one's pretty much done. Ozone out ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
Insane Angelic at 11:54AM, July 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 79
joined: 7-15-2007
TnT, people may have a ‘yes-or-no’ answer depends on the situation. Respect their opition.

As for me…. I'm not ‘Yea’, but i'm neither ‘Nay.’ I'm netural on it.

First off, to me, I quote a famous person from my country- Knowledge cannot be gained without loss.

Animals suffer for us- we're collecting datas for helping the humans race to survie, to know if they'll suffer or not if they take that ‘thing’, to help find a cure. In a way, that's good because the animal didn't go to waste for nothing.

On the other hand, if the animal suffers, usually no one puts it out of its mistery. No, they studied the dying/ suffering animal….And that's terrible! Sometimes they even do it worser for them!

I'm 50/50 on it, so I cannot give a clear answer.




last edited on July 14, 2011 1:00PM
TnTComic at 2:46PM, July 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
ozoneocean
TnTComic
Jesus Criminy, no… you haven't answered the question. You've rephrased the question, you've posed more questions, but you haven't answered the original question.
Can I make it any clearer?
ozoneocean
And as I said, this isn't a “yes” or “no” forum. :P
… Sorry TnT, but I'm starting to have some doubts about you. Is this some kind of half arsed attempt at provocation, or do you genuinely just not understand the things I've written, either way you don't appear very genuine. :)

Heh. Ah well, I've had my say in this debate, there are no questions I need to follow up here and I think that's pretty much it. Sorry to leave you disappointed TnT, but this one's pretty much done. Ozone out ;)

Let's see… what is the thread title?

ANIMAL TESTING–YEAH OR NAY

Have you said YEA or NAY?

No.

You haven't done the simplest thing, answer the question. Blah blah ethics blah blah morality blah blah torture… DO YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANIMAL TESTING.

Don't write a goddamn paper, just answer the fuckin' question.

This is just like the death penalty, abortion or legalized drugs. ITS A MORALITY ISSUE. That means there's no right or wrong answer, but you still have to give a goddamn answer.

The question is on the table. Let's say the vote is 4 to 4, and you have the deciding vote. The question is, should animal testing be legal… WHAT IS YOUR VOTE.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
MagickLorelai at 3:42PM, July 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
This is off-topic big time, but I'm just using the springboard TnT's provided. The world is not black and white, the title was a suggestion for how to respond, not a required response, and as Ozone pointed out, this section isn't about yes or no answers, it's called Debate and Discussion- which, if you're familiar enough with the English language, means that there are discussions, ideas, neutral comments, reasons why your stance isn't one way or the other, etc. It means that you don't necessarily come to plug in your Yes or No answer.

This subject is a controversial one with good points to both sides, and Ozone's pointed out exactly how he feels, clearly. By now, you're bullying him into giving an answer he doesn't have to give. This discussion is about animal testing, NOT about giving a clear Yea or Nay. If you want to debate people giving fuzzy answers, open a new topic, but don't derail this discussion more by attacking someone for expressing their opinion in a way you're not comfortable with.

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
TnTComic at 4:05PM, July 18, 2007
(offline)
posts: 681
joined: 6-25-2007
Oops! Looks like I forgot to change back!

Anyways, as I was saying…

Here we go. Here's the scenario. There is a motion on the floor to outlaw ALL animal testing. You are a senator and it is your turn to vote. You see the following:

Yea
Nay

Which do you select?

You don't get to bore the machine to death with blathering that has been repeated time and time again in forums all over the goddamn internet… it is voting time. How do you vote?

For crissakes, that is what comes before all the claptrap, Ocean. You state your position and then you buttress it. You've skipped step 1 and gone on to the rest.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:31PM
Hguyver at 2:06AM, July 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 186
joined: 7-25-2006
TnTComic
Here we go. Here's the scenario. There is a motion on the floor to outlaw ALL animal testing. You are a senator and it is your turn to vote. You see the following:

Yea
Nay

Which do you select?


Nay.

As cruel as it may sound in the end I think animal testing IS a necessity for the advancement of science and society.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:48PM
ozoneocean at 4:52AM, July 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 25,114
joined: 1-2-2004
I don't what to have to explain “Debate” and “Discussion” yet again, it seems that understanding is beyond the comprehension of some people.

I will say that Courts of Law are a ridiculous analogy to put. I've sat Jury duty in a real court of law discussing a very serious crime for a couple of weeks and I can tell you how wrong that analogy is: The point of “yes” or “no” questions that the prosecution or the defence puts is for them to get just the kind of answer they want. Those types of questions are structured in such a way so as to render the person being questioned into nothing more than a tool to support YOUR position as the questioner. This is simply NOT what we do with the forum, it goes against everything! The point of the existence of this forum is a place for PEOPLE to put for their positions, explore and debate them, not for some ideologue to come in and say “this is the idea, you either agree with it or you don't, there is no other way, jut black and white, yes or no”. That kind of thing is best left to Fox news and George Walker Bush.

I'm sorry but we're not quite that degenerate here.

In that spirit, Hguyver by replying to your simplistic rendering of the issue is responding to you, not the debate that is under way. This is fine because it's all part of the discussion process. :)
-But don't think you can take control of debates just because you don't like the way things are done and would prefer it all to be simple.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
jmt at 7:11PM, July 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 66
joined: 7-4-2007
I am a big fan of knowledge through suffering.

but I also know where I am on the food chain.


http://www.drunkduck.com/The_Nonstandard_Assembly/


http://www.jonnyaxx.com/

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:09PM
Runosonta at 9:37AM, July 26, 2007
(offline)
posts: 176
joined: 7-23-2007
DemonSaintDante
Im sure in modern day we can discover the effects of certain chemical just by breaking them down and comparing them to our own. So most animal testing is simply done now because it is cheaper.

Blastbeat comp to that!
OK, I have strong personal opinions about the matter, being a vegetarian and living with a vegan and all, but…

- first of all it isn't exact. Animals respond to drugs different than humans.
- if you're explanation is “they're dummer than us!” then why don't use retarded people? Or children? A pig is about as intelligent as your 3-4 years old kid.

Watch the video.
http://www.peta.org/actioncenter/testing.asp

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
Vagabond at 1:33PM, July 26, 2007
(online)
posts: 93
joined: 1-30-2006
… Watching a video from PETA about animal testing? Geez, I'd be better off watching Stalin-era propaganda to learn about Russia.

When a pig shows capability for sentient thought, then you can say it's as smart as a toddler.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:38PM
Runosonta at 1:53PM, July 26, 2007
(offline)
posts: 176
joined: 7-23-2007
Vagabond
… Watching a video from PETA about animal testing? Geez, I'd be better off watching Stalin-era propaganda to learn about Russia.

When a pig shows capability for sentient thought, then you can say it's as smart as a toddler.
I agree that PETA is questionable.. but I didn't find a better vid in English. In Finland we have Animalia; far less… well, PETA.

Still. I think it's sick BECAUSE the testings could be easily replaced with more accurate, though also expensive methods.

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
Aurora Moon at 4:39PM, July 26, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Runosonta
Still. I think it's sick BECAUSE the testings could be easily replaced with more accurate, though also expensive methods.

not only that, certain types of tests on animals wouldn't really give us an accurate answer to as whenever something was safe or not…

After all, animals have certain items that aren't very healthy for them but would do fine in the human body. Take sugar for example. Dogs can't have sugar as seeing it would make them massively ill. And on the opposite side… animals have those medicine that would be very healthy for them, but wouldn't really work on humans.

the one reason why we use animals in testing is because our biology is similar in some cases. And if done humanely and correctly, could yield excellent results. Take stem cell research for example. in some labs they're using (or used to) stem cells from mice instead of human, and it doesn't really hurt the mice at all. to those scientists, it's a great way for them to learn how stem cells work, since on a biological level the mice stem cells work the same way as any humans.

However, if it's things like testing to see if new medicine would trigger an allergic reaction in the animals then I have to question if it would really be accurate. because like I said above… what is bad for the animals isn't always bad for us. They would be better off seeing how alive human blood cell samples would react to the medicine, etc.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
leopardprintstars at 4:47AM, July 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 32
joined: 3-25-2007
always a tricky one,

i would never condone the use of animals to test cosmetics or hair products- you know anything that promotes the false sense of beauty- i buy all my stuff from the body shop, which would never ever test on an animal.

but you see the fact of the matter is that my mom had cancer, and the medication she took had been tested on animals first. Now without the medication she wouldnt be here today…..so therein lies the dilema.

i dont condone it, but if it was a choice between someone i love or an animal- person i love wins every time.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:34PM
Runosonta at 7:12AM, July 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 176
joined: 7-23-2007
leopardprintstars
i dont condone it, but if it was a choice between someone i love or an animal- person i love wins every time.
Actually I don't see it as a animal life VS human life.
I see it as animal life VS money.

As mentioned before, animal testings are done because they are cheap -_-;

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
Insanity at 10:41AM, July 27, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,029
joined: 5-7-2007
People Believe That Animal Testing is Torture To Animals, And That Might Be The Case-SOMETIMES. But would you rather have a human tested first, or a rat?

Rat is
The Correct Answer
TnTcomic
Here we go. Here's the scenario. There is a motion on the floor to outlaw ALL animal testing. You are a senator and it is your turn to vote. You see the following:

Yea
Nay

Which do you select?
Nay. That is the most logical choice.

AwesomeUnicorn
I feel a little bit like Hitler right now, too.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:01PM
maritalbliss at 7:20PM, July 28, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,045
joined: 4-15-2007
Wow, I think thread has ended up being one of the most entertaining than any other I have ever started. First…

TNT–
Oh, my stars and garters. Who croaked and made you King Interpreter? Ozone has contributed to many discussions that I have started and trust me buddy…that is the way to answer the question I posed.

Yours is fine too. Don't get me wrong. Everyone that contributes brings different things to the table, we all have different prior knowledge that makes us unique and interesting. But, really…Dude, you're acting kinda' immature about it. Sorry man; but, somebody had to say it.

As for my opinion:

Morality is such an abstract notion; who is to say what is and isn't moral. (Oh, yeah…the majority, silly me.) The way I figure it, survival of the fittest. I have no problem with any type of animal testing as long as it is for the betterment of humankind. I don't even care if the animal is hurt in the process. Uh, yeah…that's why we try it on them first.

Magick Lorelai makes a great point with the whole, if a tree could scream would we be so cavalier about cutting them down… I totally agree, except that I would rather imagine the cries of a kitten than look at bald little cancer kids and the like.

And really??? Aren't we just the best of the animals? Which means, way up here on the food-chain, tough luck little bunnies, here's mascara in your eye.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:53PM
Aurora Moon at 10:33PM, July 28, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
I think you guys are missing the point.

I'm all for animal testing, provided that it's done humanely enough.

There's a fine line between UNINTENTIONALLY harming a life while testing them, and INTENTIONALLY making that life suffer when you don't even know if that would bring you results. or worse, when you already knew the results–it's fucking VERY safe for humans–but you still continue to make the animals suffer regardless long after you even needed to.

Take that whole makeup shit– 99% of all makeup products are basically the same in terms of chemicals, all the things that it's made out of… even in the products made by companies that doesn't test on animals! and it's been proven for over 70 years that makeup products does not cause any severe reactions in human bodies, yet there's some “testing centers” that continues to torture the animals in such a undignified way where they'd literally force the animals to ingest the products, etc.
I doubt that there would be a human stupid enough to ingest pounds of lipstick, mascara, etc….. so where is the damn danger to humans? Such a testing shouldn't be done for such a shallow, meaningless thing such as makeup!

Now on the other hand…There's humane Labs who puts the animal under before they start testing the animals, so that they wouldn't feel that much pain or be aware of any suffering. Then they watch to see if there's any severe reactions to things like Medicine. If the animals ever felt any real discomfort at this time, it was UNINTENTIONAL as seeing the guys did their best to keep the animal from being in too much pain. THIS KIND OF TESTING, I am in favor of.

After all, in such inhumane tests how do you know if the animal is reacting in pain to the product itself; or from YOU? That's why I question the ACCURACY of such inhumane tests.

pretty much my same feelings on toturing suspects, you don't know if they're telling the truth or just telling you what you wanted to hear so that you would stop beating them up. Touture makes all living creatures, animal or human, react in such a way that you can't really be certain of the results.

So in summary, my stance is this: I'm all for TORTURE-FREE animal testing.
Sadly, it doesn't seem like theres others who feel the same way…=(
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
mapaghimagsik at 6:34PM, Aug. 1, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
I think there's also a fine line as to when the testing is appropriate or not, which might be based on “I'm trying to develop a cure for cancer” vs. “I'm trying to make a sexy new mascara” vs. “I wonder how loud a pig can scream”
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Insanity at 10:13AM, Aug. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1,029
joined: 5-7-2007
http://mtd.com/tasty/
This is being ranted on and on about with PETA. Those Guys are nuts. They have been linked with The ALF, Animal Liberation Front, a terrorist organization, and their views are totally screwed up. This was an email I sent to the maker of People Eating Tasty Animals About His Hate Mail:
Subject: PETA
To: eats@mtd.com


Hopefully this is the right address, but this is about your People Eating Tasty Animals Website:

It is AWESOME!!!

I can see your point through all of this. I may only be twelve, but I know alot more than the 20-30 year-olds that send you hate mail “Because PETA is better” than what you have shown on your site.

I've tried to see good in PETA's ways, but it is obvious that they are wrong. And I Quote:
"I dont see anything so respectful about getting cancer, hypoglycemia, and multiple shlerosis all of which can be attributed to a meat based diet."
This is, of course, full of BS. The way our ancestors needed to survive was by eating animals, and wearing their fur. Were are ancestors ‘gasp’ HUNTERS AND GATHERERS?

We probably can't begin to send a message that is any where near original.
So to just add our comments:

You very well may burn in Hell, along with
the rest of those
that gravitate towards your sesspool mentality. We would really like to know
exactly what it is that gives you your kicks though. Is it a self esteem
problem? Not loved enough as a child? Or perhaps it's a labido thing?
You must live a very shallow and unrewarding life if you have nothing better
to do but maintain a Web Page of trash. Place that wasted energy into
something good & decent. Especially in the name of PETA. An
organization that cares only about mistreatment of animals. Is that so bad?
Eat your burgers. I do. Get rid of the fur. Like it really keeps one warm.
What else can we say? Get a life! :-(

This one just made me laugh.

I know it's an old site, but keep doing what you're doing, Eric
:)

AwesomeUnicorn
I feel a little bit like Hitler right now, too.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:01PM
Aurora Moon at 10:30AM, Aug. 8, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
oh man, I HATE PETA (the crazy animal activists, that is). they're such huge hyroptices!

I'd rather take HATS (Humane Animal Treatment Society) over them for a lot of reasons.. the main reason being that they do not treat all humans like the evil race set out to enslave all animals. They understand that some animals and humans are better together, and that some animals wouldn't be able to live too long on their own. and they stick mainly to work that would really make a difference, such as adopting out animals in need of a home.

Then of course there's also the ever famous HSPCA (also known as Animal Cops on Animal planet) who does so much more than PETA ever does with all of their fear-mongering.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Hawk at 2:20PM, Aug. 8, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
There actually is a good PETA though. It's People for the Eating of Tasty Animals. I'd like to join their cause.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
Runosonta at 9:47AM, Aug. 9, 2007
(offline)
posts: 176
joined: 7-23-2007
Hawk
There actually is a good PETA though. It's People for the Eating of Tasty Animals. I'd like to join their cause.

I have nothing against people eating meat (though I'm a long time vegetarian/ part time vegan myself)! Just make sure you don't torture those animals you eat or buy your meat from a torturer. Go hunting. Fish. Farm happy animals - just don't be inhuman.

I hate it when people “attack” vegetarians and vegans. IMO the people eating meat are far more agressive towards my diet than vegetarians towards theirs >:(

…I'm not saying you attacked me or anything! Just popped in to my mind from your message :D

last edited on July 14, 2011 3:12PM
Hawk at 5:09PM, Aug. 9, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
Runosonta
IMO the people eating meat are far more agressive towards my diet than vegetarians towards theirs >:(

That's probably true. I've never had a vegetarian get on my case about the meat issue, but I've seen it go the other way many times.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
7384395948urhfdjfrueruieieueue at 7:55AM, Aug. 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 6,921
joined: 8-5-2006
So you don't want animal testing because every once and while it might not work? Then I guess that means the first few weeks of release are the human testing. We shouldn't potentially endanger people because it sometimes won't work. What about the other times? Besides, nobody should ever try newly released medicine unless it's for a very bad complication.
i will also like to know you the more
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:04AM
Aurora Moon at 1:25PM, Aug. 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Atom Apple
So you don't want animal testing because every once and while it might not work? Then I guess that means the first few weeks of release are the human testing. We shouldn't potentially endanger people because it sometimes won't work. What about the other times? Besides, nobody should ever try newly released medicine unless it's for a very bad complication.

Uh, that's not what I said. I said that I was all for animal testing, provided that they do it HUMANELY.

Just think of it like toturing suspects/prisioners– you get questionable results if you do it too much and too overboard.

For instance, what does forcing animals to ingest pounds of perfume,lipstick, etc ever do for humanity? it doesn't relaly tell us any clear results at all.

The right way to test such a thing on animals would be just to simply put it on thier skin (and I don't mean purposefully jabbing it into thier eyes), and see if they devlop any skin irrations or sereve allegeric reactions to the product.

The same could be said for more important testing such as cancer studies, etc.
Humanely testing animals=Good.
Harming animals by using methods that wouldn't ever be applied to humans=Not good. (not to metion bringing in very questionable results).

After all, what human would be dumb enough to put lipstick into their eyes, or ingest six bottles of perfume? or in the case of medience, shallowing a whole bottle of pills?
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
mapaghimagsik at 5:44PM, Aug. 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
I don't think comparing animal testing to torture works as a good analogy.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Aurora Moon at 7:44PM, Aug. 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
mapaghimagsik
I don't think comparing animal testing to torture works as a good analogy.

oh isn't it? in both cases you got living creatures that can't really fight back at all…they're basically defenseless at the hands of whoever is supposed to “take care of them”.
They can't do anything if the person handling them goes overboard in such a way where it actually damages/hurts the desired outcome.

After all, if a scientist/lab tester goes overboard in testing the animals without regards for the animals' lives and the animals dies–What did the animals die from, the test medicine/whatever or from the person who went completely overboard in testing them?
You see? More time is wasted figuring what the animal died from when they could had spent that time studying the animals' reactions to placebos, etc and just taking care of them like normal.
If the said lab tester didn't go overboard to the point where it was hurting the animals so much that they died, they would had noticed results more snice the animal in question would had lived much longer to show the effects of the tests.
So, therefore, there needs to be limitations on what a scientist/tester can or can't do to an animal.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
shaneronzio at 6:42AM, Aug. 16, 2007
(online)
posts: 497
joined: 12-4-2006
nay.

pay a volunteer.
Current Project:CROSS WORLDS NEXUS
Updates Monday, Wenzday & FRIDAY
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:32PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved