Animal Testing - Right or Wrong? - Page 11

October 1, 2007, 8:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamant

ANIMALS ARE JUST A RESOURCE. DEAL WITH IT. The only reason certain animals are treated with "respect" is because people have a personal attachment to them, because they look nice in a tourist attraction, or because they're a source of food. Other than that, a whale or a tiger is no more important than a fly or plankton. They're just a bunch of atoms assembled into cells and following a set of predetermined routines established from their DNA. Their sole purpose for existence is to absorb energy from the sun and multiply as much as possible before they inevitably die off and are forgotten for the rest of time. There's no honor, value, or beauty in any of it. A crocodile or a spider never have and will never do anything productive or useful in this world. Why, then, do we let them live? The only reasons I see are that a crocodile looks nice in a zoo and spiders get rid of nasty insects that many of us would gladly wipe off the face of the earth if we were able.

Despite this, some of you would actually prefer that these meaningless, unthinking creatures should have a slightly extended life instead of developing a new miracle vaccine or medicine that could possibly save thousands of lives. They're just RATS, for gods sake! They're not picking your pet cat or dog off the street and forcing them into a lab! I have never heard of a single event in the history of civilization where carefully controlled animal testing has led to any permanent damage for society, but I have heard of plenty of diseases that we could probably be a lot closer to curing if people would focus their attention on actual scientists instead of corrupt, nonsensical PETA clones.

Yeah. Possibly THE BEST post in this thread. All of you religious fantatics oughta realize that your God put animals on this Earth for humans. Whether we want to eat them, wear them, or try to make the world a better place through the use of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamant

Next people are going to tell me that we shouldn't mow our lawns because we might hurt a few blades of grass.

When I first joined these forums I had a message in my sig that explained how the world died a little each time somebody stepped on a blade of grass. I used it as a funny way to preach about global warming. BTW a nice trimmed lawn is good.

October 1, 2007, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erythritol

I don't really have the time or energy to type out a big long response, so I'll make this rather brief.

Hey smart one, how do you think they developed that enzyme? Magic? Oh wait, no, it was ANIMAL TESTING!

You're, like, totally right. Animals and humans are TOTALLY equal. Animals SO have the same reasoning capacity, intelligence, and consciousness as we do. So I was totally being a Nazi by suggesting that animal testing is okay. Like, people being thrown into freezing cold water just to see how long it takes them to die and having their eyes injected with dye to see if it changes their eye color is completely the same as using animals to find cures for deadly diseases. Shit, I'm glad you cleared that one up for me.

As for testing on humans...I don't know what part of this you don't get, but it's illegal. With or without consent, it is illegal to test something that dangerous on a human.

For any advancements in anything, there must be sacrifices. Deal with it. Life isn't fair. Boohoo.

I'm fully aware of how they got this enzyme. Which means you fucks can stop now right? Cause it's all about the AIDS/HIV amirite?

Illegal to treat something dangerous on a human and not animals. Care to explain why?

If you say anything to do with "Humans being superior" then your post is null and void I'm afraid.

Also it doesn't sound like much a sacrifice to me if we aren't the ones having to make these sacrifices. we're deciding on behalf of another living creature which can't speak out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimmufan

Yeah. Possibly THE BEST post in this thread. All of you religious fantatics oughta realize that your God put animals on this Earth for humans. Whether we want to eat them, wear them, or try to make the world a better place through the use of them.

Before you assume we're all religious fanatics because we don't believe you/ don't agree with you that it's a good idea to be abusing other living creatures. I believe there is something in the bible that says to not eat anything living which does not come from the sea or rivers as it is unclean for you or something like that. I'll find quotes when I can be arsed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adamant

ANIMALS ARE JUST A RESOURCE. DEAL WITH IT. The only reason certain animals are treated with "respect" is because people have a personal attachment to them, because they look nice in a tourist attraction, or because they're a source of food. Other than that, a whale or a tiger is no more important than a fly or plankton. They're just a bunch of atoms assembled into cells and following a set of predetermined routines established from their DNA. Their sole purpose for existence is to absorb energy from the sun and multiply as much as possible before they inevitably die off and are forgotten for the rest of time. There's no honor, value, or beauty in any of it. A crocodile or a spider never have and will never do anything productive or useful in this world. Why, then, do we let them live? The only reasons I see are that a crocodile looks nice in a zoo and spiders get rid of nasty insects that many of us would gladly wipe off the face of the earth if we were able.

Despite this, some of you would actually prefer that these meaningless, unthinking creatures should have a slightly extended life instead of developing a new miracle vaccine or medicine that could possibly save thousands of lives. They're just RATS, for gods sake! They're not picking your pet cat or dog off the street and forcing them into a lab! I have never heard of a single event in the history of civilization where carefully controlled animal testing has led to any permanent damage for society, but I have heard of plenty of diseases that we could probably be a lot closer to curing if people would focus their attention on actual scientists instead of corrupt, nonsensical PETA clones.

Next people are going to tell me that we shouldn't mow our lawns because we might hurt a few blades of grass.

If other animals have no meaning to be kept alive. What makes you think we do?

October 1, 2007, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finnegan III

I'm fully aware of how they got this enzyme. Which means you fucks can stop now right? Cause it's all about the AIDS/HIV amirite?

Illegal to treat something dangerous on a human and not animals. Care to explain why?

If you say anything to do with "Humans being superior" then your post is null and void I'm afraid.

Also it doesn't sound like much a sacrifice to me if we aren't the ones having to make these sacrifices. we're deciding on behalf of another living creature which can't speak out.

Before you assume we're all religious fanatics because we don't believe you/ don't agree with you that it's a good idea to be abusing other living creatures. I believe there is something in the bible that says to not eat anything living which does not come from the sea or rivers as it is unclean for you or something like that. I'll find quotes when I can be arsed

If other animals have no meaning to be kept alive. What makes you think we do?

Well. I was utilizing HIV/AIDS as an example, as I know quite a lot about the situation in Africa. And just because they "found an enzyme" which is, quite frankly, vague as hell, doesn't mean that it will a) miraculously cure AIDS b) work on all AIDS. It's pretty common knowledge that HIV/AIDS is a virus. And what do viruses do, class? They...mutate! That's right. Viruses mutate. So that enzyme, if it works at all, probably will not work on a majority of AIDS cases. But I digress.

Okay, how to say this without stating the obvious, as it would make my post "null and void"....let's see. You might want to go to your local Barnes and Nobles and pick up a law textbook. Because the law tends to agree with my opinion. Legally, animals do not have as much protection as humans do. Why? Because the law regards us as higher life forms. That is why it is "Illegal to treat something dangerous on a human and not animals." And don't even bother trying to argue. This is not my opinion (well, it is) but it is actual written law.

Oh for the love of sweet Jesus, do not bring the Bible into this. The Bible is not the fucking diary of God. It is a compilation of texts that were not composed very long ago (Old Testament was written between the 12th Century BC to the 2nd Century BC). It would just be dumb, on your part, to drag the Bible into this. Especially since the Old Testament condones and even encourages animal sacrifice. Let's not forget the tale of Cain and Abel, eh? God was pleased with Abel because he sacrificed animals to Him; He was displeased with Cain because he sacrificed plants.

Why do we have a right to be kept alive while other animals don't? There is honestly no way of explaining this because you can't seem to accept the biological and evolutionary facts. Animals exist to be preyed upon by larger, stronger animals. The larger, stronger animals are superior. That is how nature works. Humans lucked out in the evolutionary lottery; we are the ultimate predator. Not because we have big sharp teeth or claws, but because we are highly intelligent (well...SOME of us). It is a simple biological fact: humans are superior. We are the most superior animal at the moment. This may not always be true, but for the moment, there is really no refuting that point.

October 1, 2007, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Erythritol

Well. I was utilizing HIV/AIDS as an example, as I know quite a lot about the situation in Africa. And just because they "found an enzyme" which is, quite frankly, vague as hell, doesn't mean that it will a) miraculously cure AIDS b) work on all AIDS. It's pretty common knowledge that HIV/AIDS is a virus. And what do viruses do, class? They...mutate! That's right. Viruses mutate. So that enzyme, if it works at all, probably will not work on a majority of AIDS cases. But I digress.

Okay, how to say this without stating the obvious, as it would make my post "null and void"....let's see. You might want to go to your local Barnes and Nobles and pick up a law textbook. Because the law tends to agree with my opinion. Legally, animals do not have as much protection as humans do. Why? Because the law regards us as higher life forms. That is why it is "Illegal to treat something dangerous on a human and not animals." And don't even bother trying to argue. This is not my opinion (well, it is) but it is actual written law.

Oh for the love of sweet Jesus, do not bring the Bible into this. The Bible is not the fucking diary of God. It is a compilation of texts that were not composed very long ago (Old Testament was written between the 12th Century BC to the 2nd Century BC). It would just be dumb, on your part, to drag the Bible into this. Especially since the Old Testament condones and even encourages animal sacrifice. Let's not forget the tale of Cain and Abel, eh? God was pleased with Abel because he sacrificed animals to Him; He was displeased with Cain because he sacrificed plants.

Why do we have a right to be kept alive while other animals don't? There is honestly no way of explaining this because you can't seem to accept the biological and evolutionary facts. Animals exist to be preyed upon by larger, stronger animals. The larger, stronger animals are superior. That is how nature works. Humans lucked out in the evolutionary lottery; we are the ultimate predator. Not because we have big sharp teeth or claws, but because we are highly intelligent (well...SOME of us). It is a simple biological fact: humans are superior. We are the most superior animal at the moment. This may not always be true, but for the moment, there is really no refuting that point.

1) You were the one who brought god into it and "relgious fanatics" I was merely stating what the bible which apparently is the word of god. So there you go.

2) The law was written by people, so of course it ranks people higher than animals, so your arguement is essentially "Other people agree with me so I'm right" So you didn't really answer my question

3) The fact we are "superior" does not give us any more meaning to be here, so you didn't answer my question again but instead you spouted a load of rubbish about how evolution says we are better. Not why we have any more meaning than anything else, as far as I'm concerned we live, we eat , we destroy, we die, we never summount to anything apart from that. So it's not far from animals, except they don't destroy.

4) You're just repeating the same superiority complex nonsense over and over again, you're just telling me how evolution says we're better. Evolution isn't even proven to be true so where does that leave your conclusion that we evolved to be better. (Before you again decide I'm a relgious fanatic because I questioned Darwins theory, I also question creationism, I like to keep an open mind on subjects such as that, however I'm not open minded to the testing of potentially harmful substances on innocent living creatures, as you can probably tell)

October 1, 2007, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finnegan III

1) You were the one who brought god into it and "relgious fanatics" I was merely stating what the bible which apparently is the word of god. So there you go.

You're the one who played into the religious fanatic bit by trying to bring that bible stuff into your argument. And the Bible never makes any mention of how people should only eat seafood. The only limitations were the non-kosher foods (such as pork) and people not being allowed to eat sacrificial meat. That was it.

Quote:

2) The law was written by people, so of course it ranks people higher than animals, so your arguement is essentially "Other people agree with me so I'm right" So you didn't really answer my question

Okay, how's this for an answer: the fact that humans are actually able to write laws or have a written language and animals can't? As a species we are the most developed and sentient. And take note, I didn't say "superior", I'm simply stating obvious biological fact.

Quote:

3) The fact we are "superior" does not give us any more meaning to be here, so you didn't answer my question again but instead you spouted a load of rubbish about how evolution says we are better. Not why we have any more meaning than anything else, as far as I'm concerned we live, we eat , we destroy, we die, we never summount to anything apart from that. So it's not far from animals, except they don't destroy.

Animals destroy, it's just on a lower scale because they don't have the technological means for mass destruction. And wouldn't the fact that we're the most developed, intelligent species with cognitive thought suggest that there is some meaning to our existence? After all, no other animal is able to even argue like this in the first place.

Quote:

4) You're just repeating the same superiority complex nonsense over and over again, you're just telling me how evolution says we're better. Evolution isn't even proven to be true so where does that leave your conclusion that we evolved to be better. (Before you again decide I'm a relgious fanatic because I questioned Darwins theory, I also question creationism, I like to keep an open mind on subjects such as that, however I'm not open minded to the testing of potentially harmful substances on innocent living creatures, as you can probably tell)

Okay, if you don't like evolution, how about we say that there's some sort of god out there. If that is the case, then this god picked us to be the dominant species. How's that for being better? A higher lifeform than us picked humans to be the superior species. Take your pick, you only have two options:

1. Given the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest, humans are the highest lifeform on this planet.

2. God picked humans to be the superior species, not rabbits or giraffes or aardvarks or whatever the hell else.

October 2, 2007, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Finnegan III

3) The fact we are "superior" does not give us any more meaning to be here, so you didn't answer my question again but instead you spouted a load of rubbish about how evolution says we are better. Not why we have any more meaning than anything else, as far as I'm concerned we live, we eat , we destroy, we die, we never summount to anything apart from that. So it's not far from animals, except they don't destroy.

I think VR did a good job owning you, but I'll just add this. Yeah, we destroy. So do animals. You think we're the only species that commits rape or murder? Oooh, someone wasn't paying attention in biology class! As far as I know, we're the only species that creates beautiful things that aren't inherent to our survival. Poetry, paintings, prose, symphonies, tapestries, the list goes on. Do we need these things to survive? No. You say we never surmount to anything? I'd beg to differ, thanks. Humans may have the capacity to commit atrocities, and yes, some do, but we have also created amazingly beautiful works of art. That amounts to something. So take your nihilist bullshit elsewhere, kthx.

October 2, 2007, 10:11 AM

The way I see animal testing is; what is actually wrong with it? Whatever happened to "survival of the fittest"? Humans have come to be the top species on the planet. I'm not saying that gives us the right to lord it over everyone and everything, but you've got to do whatever it takes to survive and if that means through animal testing then so be it.
Also what most people ignore is the fact that the animals used for testing are bred for that purpose - testing. If it wasn't for the need of testing on them, they wouldn't have had any form of existence. Who are we to deny that?
And the vast majority of people who speak out against animal testing are hypocrites. If it was their child, mother, father, brother, sister or whatever who was seriously ill and needed a drug that had been tested on animals, then they'd agree to it in a heartbeat. When it's affecting them, it all becomes perfectly justified.

Of course that only applies to medical means. I don't agree with cosmetic testing at all.

October 2, 2007, 10:21 AM

Nicely said Tyler Durden. "Survival of the fittest", sounds like Apocalpse talking from X-men.