#14: Animal Testing

[dmaster]

Well, all animal or species testing is immoral, but suffering>killing if you have a choice. :F

dmaster out.

 

[gyrasion]

honestly as long as it doesnt hurt the animal i dont care.
and if it does hurt the animal its illegal.
if they test on vermin i dont care if they suffer but larger mammals im against.

 

[Ka$h Money]

^ I kinda get what he means, I think he means that testing on animals that aren't as intelligent or dont add to our animal kingdom is fine to test on. Or maybe is getting at that its fine to test on the most common animal i dunno lol

 

[Pokequaza]

._. I suddenly feel like doing the Darth Pika and say that this thread is getting weirder and weirder.

lol, that was the other thread ;P

honestly as long as it doesnt hurt the animal I don't care.
and if it does hurt the animal its illegal.
if they test on vermin I don't care if they suffer but larger mammals im against.

What makes the difference between larger and smaller mammels? They both have a life and their feelings. Well at least they musn't be allowed to test on animals that are classified as almost extincted, but well that's obviously...

 

[PokeChamp]

Well, all animal or species testing is immoral, but suffering>killing if you have a choice. :F

dmaster out.

That actually depends. Depends on how bad they are suffering. :F

But really, immoral or not, I don't see it stopping. Unless humans start volunteering themselves for this sort of thing, it's just going to keep around.

 

[Ka$h Money]

I dunno if this is the same but could they make clones of animals and test it on them or is that the same as testing on an animal. Do animals have the same rights as its clone?

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

I dunno if this is the same but could they make clones of animals and test it on them or is that the same as testing on an animal. Do animals have the same rights as its clone?

Why would a clone be any less of an animal?

 

[Ka$h Money]

I dunno, Im just thinking if you have an original and its clone, the original is obviously part of a natural process thus being more special. As you can clone as much as you want thus making them not exclusive or unique. This may decrease there value as a being.

But I am most likely to be wrong

 

[Heavenly Spoon]

That's like saying test tube babies are less human ._.

Being formed by nature is completely unrelated to needless suffering, murder, sentience, having a concept of future, and so on. It has nothing to do with the debate at hand.
BTW, the process of cloning at this point is done by making an animal give birth to an exact replica of itself, the conception may not be natural, but the growth is.
... Imagine us using clones as slaves just because they have "less value".

So yeah, you are wrong, and I'm glad you admit it

 

[Ka$h Money]

Well when I saw you had an opinion on my thoughts I knew somehow you was gona out smart me and show I was wrong so I beat you to it . Yh It was silly of me to say it I guess lol

 

[DogMaster40]

It's okay to test medicines on animals, so long as the scientists in charge of the experiments realize when something has gone wrong and put the animal out of it's misery. We can't test on humans, because we wouldn't know what would happen, and human suffering would cause much more of an outrage than animal suffering, since you can't legally put a person out of his or her misery.

 

[afstandopleren]

It's okay to test medicines on animals, so long as the scientists in charge of the experiments realize when something has gone wrong and put the animal out of it's misery. You really think those scientist can be bothered by a suffering lab rat?We can't test on humans, because we wouldn't know what would happen, and human suffering would cause much more of an outrage than animal suffering, since you can't legally put a person out of his or her misery. Another thing that's so crooked about society and especially with the pharmaceutical part. Why should ANY living thing suffer to 'help' others?

Replies in bold.

 

[Pokequaza]

Hmm... This is a subject where it's hard to discuss about. I can't really say if I'm for or against it.

All living beings have the right to live. And one thing we must absolutely not do is suffer animals without any meaning and making them close to extinction or make a whole species extinct.

But does this count too for plants? Don't they have a feeling then? They do live too. Are we allowed to chop a tree then? It is hard, very hard to decide where the border is, if there's even is one?

But who are we to decide whether a creature has the right to live or not? Only because we think we're superior that doesn't mean we can just rule this planet. And that's the thing most people do wrong, they watch everything in the position of a human. Selfishness, something we are all born with and what leads to this. And no I'll totally ignore the Bible and whatever it says about we being the most superior, that we are different from animals, because no we aren't. And again no, in heaven (what doens't exist) is no better place. Here on Earth, one change to live, make something special of it, and not ruin other's lifes.

But on the other side, if we didn't use animals to test in the past and now, we wouldn't be as advanced as we now are. Our average age would be very low and lots of people would be suffering from diseases. The world population would be a lot lower (sorry to say, but I think that would be at least a positive point).

We do raise and kill animals too for their meat and other supplies. Is that wrong too then? Should we all starve to death? After all there's still the selfishness, and doesn't matter what somebody's saying they all think (maybe only a little) they're the best and have the most rights. For example if you're put on an island along with a cow and no other food I would bet you'll kill that cow eventually in order to survive. This is just as true as it is, okay there are exeptions. Love, one exeption, when in love you chose the one or whatever you love above yourself, at least if it's true love.

So in my view killing animals for no reason or useless goals (like for their fur) must be forbidden. We need to survive and we, humans, need to live as one and not as individuals, so killing animals for food should be allowed if the animals have had a nice life without suffering, and killing them should be happen fast and painless. Still this is cruel.

Using animals for tests where they don't hurt, I don't have a big problem with that, just be sure they all have had a nice life before they eventually will die. Tests for medicine is still a hard subject. Partly yes, because we can help lots of more people by letting suffer one animal, but then you should ask yourself, is it really fair? That one (or few) defendless animal(s) in trade for a lot of people. They do still have feelings so... and that's the reason for no, just because they would suffer.

It's late here so I might have forgotten several things... The world is just a hard place to live in, so welcome to the world your god allows it to be like this. I just hope people will realize the world's a big mess atm, I hope they realize it before it's too late...

 

[dmaster]

That actually depends. Depends on how bad they are suffering. :F

Look at it on a positive light. At least they're not dead. x_x

dmaster out.

 

[afstandopleren]

Hmm... This is a subject where it's hard to discuss about. I can't really say if I'm for or against it.

All living beings have the right to live. And one thing we must absolutely not do is suffer animals without any meaning and making them close to extinction or make a whole species extinct.

But does this count too for plants? Don't they have a feeling then? They do live too. Are we allowed to chop a tree then? It is hard, very hard to decide where the border is, if there's even is one? IMHO Yes there is, we actually depend on trees to live (Oxygen anyone?) There is only so little forest left.

But who are we to decide whether a creature has the right to live or not? Only because we think we're superior that doesn't mean we can just rule this planet. And that's the thing most people do wrong, they watch everything in the position of a human. Selfishness, something we are all born with and what leads to this. And no I'll totally ignore the Bible and whatever it says about we being the most superior, that we are different from animals, because no we aren't. And again no, in heaven (what doens't exist) is no better place. Here on Earth, one chanCe to live, make something special of it, and not ruin other's lifes.

But on the other side, if we didn't use animals to test in the past and now, we wouldn't be as advanced as we now are. Who said we are advanced? Maybe we just have a different view on what being advanced means, but I really think we as species are just a bunch of Neanderthals with some extra tools to survive each other and our society. IMO being advanced means development that's not at the cost of our surroundings. Our average age would be very low and lots of people would be suffering from diseases. Sure, we've invented lot's of medicine, but most come at a price with their nasty side effects. I'd suggest looking at hospitals for example. People are given extra medication to get rid of another medicine's side effects. HELLO doesn't that make some alarm go off? The world population would be a lot lower (sorry to say, but I think that would be at least a positive point). There is a reason for this as explained in my sig's link (2012 related)

We do raise and kill animals too for their meat and other supplies. Because most of us are still Neanderthals that love to eat rotten food and we live in a society that makes it hard to get good healthy stuff at decent prices. Did you know that vegetables are decreasing in quality in terms of healthiness? Is that wrong too then? Should we all starve to death? Eat unhealthy poison stuff or death.... a macabre decision to make. After all there's still the selfishness, and doesn't matter what somebody's saying they all think (maybe only a little) they're the best and have the most rights. For example if you're put on an island along with a cow and no other food I would bet you'll kill that cow eventually in order to survive. I can't see myself killing and gutting the cow for it's meat. *shudders*This is just as true as it is, okay there are exeptions. Love, one exeption, when in love you chose the one or whatever you love above yourself, at least if it's true love.

So in my view killing animals for no reason or useless goals (like for their fur) must be forbidden. We need to survive and we, humans, need to live as one and not as individuals, so killing animals for food should be allowed if the animals have had a nice life without suffering, and killing them should be happen fast and painless. Still this is cruel. ....Duality detected XD

Using animals for tests where they don't hurt, I don't have a big problem with that, just be sure they all have had a nice life before they eventually will die. Tests for medicine is still a hard subject. Partly yes, because we can help lots of more people by letting suffer one animal ._. I have yet to see a case where they only needed 1 animal to make a medicine perfect without side effects., but then you should ask yourself, is it really fair? That one (or few) defenseless animal(s) in trade for a lot of people. They do still have feelings so... and that's the reason for no, just because they would suffer.

It's late here so I might have forgotten several things... The world is just a hard place to live in, so welcome to the world your god allows it to be like this. I just hope people will realize the world's a big mess atm, I hope they realize it before it's too late... Idem Ditto

Replies in Bold.

 

[Pokequaza]

@d master342,

Maybe they aren't dead, but they still suffer. And I bet you would chose to die too if you had a choice between that and suffering in pain. They have only one life, please don't ruin their lives then.

@afstandopleren,

Okay there was the proof it was too late yesterday ;P.

Well I agree with most of your responses. Maybe we are not much different from our ancestors, but we didn't evolve from the Neanderthals, so you can't compare us to them. True they were close relatives, both in the genus Homo, but then it splitted into Homo Sapiens, Homo Neanderthalensis and some others, the Neanderthals died out about 24,000 years ago.

But you must ask yourself too. Other animals don't have problems killing others for their food supplies either, so why would we? Since we're still animals, right? We are omnivores, and nothing can change that, we need meat to survive and stay healthy. So what makes us different from animals then? Saying we should not kill animals for their meat means you're actually admitting we are different from animals. And that was the point you're were trying to avoid isn't it?

But still I agree it all can be done different, but sadly most don't understand that.

 

[Ka$h Money]

I believe that we must do these things for survival. At the end of the day if an animal was us and we was the animal, Im sure they wouldn't hesitate to use us as experiments so they can survive. Its our natural instinct to survive, I think its programmed into our primitive brain. So we will do anything to survive and that even includes hurting animals unfortunately.

 

[Pokequaza]

I believe that we must do these things for survival. At the end of the day if an animal was us and we was the animal, Im sure they wouldn't hesitate to use us as experiments so they can survive. Its our natural instinct to survive, I think its programmed into our primitive brain. So we will do anything to survive and that even includes hurting animals unfortunately.

I agree, but animals are hurt too in some cases not necessary for surviving. How do you think about that?

 

[afstandopleren]

@Pokequaza: I know, I was just pointing it out that people still like to behave like undeveloped caveman with just 1% notion of how the world really works.

Nature has meat eaters for balance. Those meat eaters have specially evolved to be adept hunters. They get rid of sick and old animals, as well as controlling the crowd when aiming for young animals. However, we aren't part of it anymore. Sure, we still can get eaten but only if we are overly careless. We can help the carnivores restore balance to nature, but people are just generally not good at it.

Also, I have proof that humans are NOT meat eaters. Our tooth are nothing like true carnivores but are more suited for grinding plants. This hasn't changed in all those years despite eating meat. Surely our dental works should have changed if we really are omnivores.

Life is gray. Just currently a darker gray because of men's stupidity holding progress back.

 

[Pokequaza]

@Pokequaza: I know, I was just pointing it out that people still like to behave like undeveloped caveman with just 1% notion of how the world really works.
Well yeah I got your point, just wanted to point that we're not relatives to Neanderthals so other people don't get the wrong point, anyway it was late yesterday, I should have been a bit clearer.

Nature has meat eaters for balance. Those meat eaters have specially evolved to be adept hunters. They get rid of sick and old animals, as well as controlling the crowd when aiming for young animals. However, we aren't part of it anymore. Sure, we still can get eaten but only if we are overly careless. We can help the carnivores restore balance to nature, but people are just generally not good at it.
So you're admitting we are different from animals? Well I can see your point, but we still need to eat, the only problem is they can't eat us anymore.

Also, I have proof that humans are NOT meat eaters. Our tooth are nothing like true carnivores but are more suited for grinding plants. This hasn't changed in all those years despite eating meat. Surely our dental works should have changed if we really are omnivores.
Well it's scientificly proved we ARE omnivores, so we do eat both vegetables/fruit and other animals. Our tooth aren't like carnivores, because we're omnivores, our tooth are both made for eating plants and meat. Look at the left and right side of our 4 front teeth, there is one teeth at every side, both on the top and bottom, so 4 in total and they are made for cutting meat, those sharp teeth, I don't know what they're called like, but like the smaller version of which cats have for example. And besides if we don't eat meat, we're a lot weaker than usual and have more changes of getting sick.

EDIT: I've searched them, they're called canines, sorry for my lack of English knowledge

Life is gray. Just currently a darker gray because of men's stupidity holding progress back.

Reply in bold =)