Originally posted by leonheartmm
^it isnt hypocritical to use the products, the animals are already dead, not using the products wont bring them back, only cause possible harm to you.
You do realise if no one used products that harmed animals, those cosmetic companies (for eg) would cease to test on animals, as making a product that won't sell isn't profitable, right?
Originally posted by Robtard
You do realise if no one used products that harmed animals, those cosmetic companies (for eg) would cease to test on animals, as making a product that won't sell isn't profitable, right?
In his defense, I thought he was referring to using the drugs, no cosmetics. At least, that would make the most sense if he meant that.
However, his logic fundamentally flaws because of what you said. If the product that hundreds of animals had to die for, are continually purchased, the manufacturers will obviously continue to research and develop those products in a profitable way...through animals.
Liability Insurance is the first expensive item to come to mind which is required to test on humans. I've never heard about insurance to test on animals, before. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist. but logic dictates that the insurance on humans would be much much more because an animals mother/uncle, etc. will not turn around and sue for the loss for millions of dollars.
Re: Animal testing...
Originally posted by jaden101
i'm starting a thread on this because i've just been offered a new job working in a lab where i will be conducting analysis on blood and DNA samples from animals that have been used for testing the effectiveness of drugs for combating cancerso...where do the KMC members stand on this controversial subject?
i'm not sure how much of an issue this is in other parts of the world but here in the UK it's always been one of the most controversial issues around
workers are huntingdon life sciences have had their homes torched by animal protesters...the workers who built the new animal testing facility at Oxford university had to wear masks to cover their identities for fear of attacks from animal rights activists...a man who breeds animals to sell to testing facilities even had the corpse of his dead mother dug up and stolen and told it wouldn't be returned until he shut down his business
so whats the verdict...are you for or against it?...should i take the job or not?....is animal testing ok when used in drug testing but not in cosmetic testing?
discuss
I'm for animal testing in certain cases. This is one where I think the circumstances allow for you to take the job without a lot of guilt. However, I think that the practices should be forcibly monitored. There is not one excuse for animal cruelty. I've seen videos of fur farmers ripping the skin and hair off an animal while the damned thing was still alive. It had it's pelt pulled off, started to scream and the guy, holding it by the tail, just slammed it against the table. Another video I saw had the animal's skin ripped off of it while it was alive and it laid there screaming with no skin, not even a way left to it to close it's eyes while it was dying.
The major problem I have with food companies abusing animals is that it's often times swept under the rug in favor of not effecting the profits. I eat meat. But I don't think that the animal should have to suffer needlessly for me to get it. Even in nature you don't see predatory animals torturing their prey just to be sadistic.
That's the problem I have with the process. People do sadistic things and I'm not sure if it's because they're sadistic people to begin with or if the job desensitizes them because of the nature of it, which is killing. these animals serve a purpose to humans, but that doesn't mean they're just fodder. If they benefit us in some way, we should at least be able to return some portion of the favor by not tormenting them or abusing them. We shouldn't neglect their environment or their feeding, just because we're going to use them in a lab exeriment in the morning. We should make them as comfortable as we can until the time comes for them to play their part in it.
On the other side of the issue is the animal advocates, who often become as sadistic and twisted as the people they rail against. They hail Ghandi as a prophet or example and then ignore his eye for an eye advice.
Originally posted by AngryManatee
So then where should we get our test-humans from?
The people who make the drugs. They are obviously too shit scared to try the drug on themselves so they have to test it on an innocent animal.
On your packet of painkillers, it will often say not to give to animals. That drug was tested on animals, yet it suddenly becomes unsuitable for animal consumption? Sound a little strange to you?
Originally posted by Tempe Brennan
The people who make the drugs. They are obviously too shit scared to try the drug on themselves so they have to test it on an innocent animal.On your packet of painkillers, it will often say not to give to animals. That drug was tested on animals, yet it suddenly becomes unsuitable for animal consumption? Sound a little strange to you?
No
so, lets compare the world with animal testing to the world without animal testing...
like, during the patent medicine eras, where instead of using guinea pigs as guinea pigs, companies used the public at large.
but hey, I'm sure that's more effective. They did think heroin was a good cure for morphine addiction.
Originally posted by inimalistGreat punchline.
so, lets compare the world with animal testing to the world without animal testing...like, during the patent medicine eras, where instead of using guinea pigs as guinea pigs, companies used the public at large.
but hey, I'm sure that's more effective. They did think heroin was a good cure for morphine addiction.
Originally posted by inimalistWell, it does cure close to 100%.
so, lets compare the world with animal testing to the world without animal testing...like, during the patent medicine eras, where instead of using guinea pigs as guinea pigs, companies used the public at large.
but hey, I'm sure that's more effective. They did think heroin was a good cure for morphine addiction.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Great punchline.
lol, even a broken clock is correct twice a day
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, it does cure close to 100%.
touche, haha
Originally posted by lord xyz
I thought morphine was heroin, or they are of the same substance anyway.
it would be something like giving crack to a coke addict. (though, I don't know how discriminating opiate addicts are)
Testing on animals is good, but I think testing on criminals who are going to die anyway, OR perhaps give criminals on life imprisonment the choice to go into testing, those guys may be so bored, tired of the same old thing that it may be of interest. animals are just as innocent as some humans, if not less innocent.
Originally posted by leonheartmmSo it's not hypocritical to protest, sometimes violently, the use of animals in the testing of products be they pharmaceutical or cosmetic; and then to use those self-same products because "the animals are already dead, and they're not coming back."
^it isnt hypocritical to use the products, the animals are already dead, not using the products wont bring them back, only cause possible harm to you.
These people aren't protesting the principle of using animals for testing, a continual reality; but rather they are protesting in mourning for the already dead animals and thus this absolves them of any hypocrisy in continuing to use or eat animal products?
Wow, that's some craptastic "non-linear logic."
definition: (lîn): What the whole world considers the end of good taste but is often crossed over by those willing to further the consideration of many who keep their head up their ass.
We don't need to kill animals for make-up. Maybe we do to keep cancer medicine effective, but not blush or panty liners. There is no need for animals to be skint alive to keep the sagging, pasty faces of American women attractive. If an animal has to die to keep an American woman from dying a slow, painful death from breast cancer; do it. We eat cows and chickens and dogs and pigs and crabs and salmon, but torturing them to do so is sadistic and absurd.
Everyone here can agree that the testing can and should take place and that there need be no sadistic situation to bring to you a ****ing sausage.