Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

[dimmufan]

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.

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.

 

[Finnegan III]

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.

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

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?

 

[Erythritol]

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.

 

[Finnegan III]

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)

 

[Rockman X]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Erythritol]

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.

 

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

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.

 

[Sephirothalpha]

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

 

[Laro]

It depends on the specie (I'm not sure about the spelling ) if it's endangered than defenetly not. Scientists should have a limited number to test, and there should be a period of time between experiments, even if it was invented the same day. I really think that us and the animals should try and be equal, after all, humans did come from an ape

I'm not sure if I made much of a point, I just wrote down what I think about animal testing

 

[Finnegan III]

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.

Fucking lol, then owned I am if by that you mean he repeated the same shit you said. I'm superior because I decided. Your logic is made of ass and fail.

And again you ignored the fact I pointed out "I'm not a religious person, nor am I a firm believer in evolution" So essentially you're repeating the same rubbish over and over and over and over again. Also you ignored the fact I was relating back to a post made where Eryth said "If god put..." so he brought it up to begin with, stop putting words in my mouth in order to make yourself believe "Oh it's okay he's a fundamentalist christian, I'm clearly in the right"

lolnihlism. I don't find many things we've created to be beautiful. The amount of things we have created such as animal testing, pollution, deforestation, genocide. Out balances all of the things which do have an aura of magnificence. And besides if I were nihlistic, I wouldn't be open minded on evolution/creationism in fact I wouldn't even consider them to be genuine theories I'd stick by my "There is nothing" mantra, I wouldn't give a fuck what you did to the animals. Beauty is what you make of it, and humans are not made of it.


We're not superior, nothing you can say can actually change my mind on the matter so keep "owning" me all you want, but as far as I'm concerned if a we're the superior beings and judging by what I've seen, and read about in this last decade or two, then there is no way in hell we're going to last 'til the end of this century.

Anyway, turtles are the superior beings, they don't die of old age.

Edit: Thank you Princess, at least someone here agrees with me

 

[Rockman X]

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.

Very well said, good sir

Yeh, i see your point.

Personally I think that it's not fair to test on animals, whatever gave humans the right to decide that we are superior? Just because we cut down the rainforests and built factories and have opposable thumbs to do all these wondrous deeds, doesn't mean that we are any better. If anything it makes us worse. Or maybe it's because we all speak the same language that we are better.. oh, wait a minute.. no we don't! It's not even bloody english that the rest of the world speaks, just typical ignorance again. Most speak Mandarin and Spanish anyhoos. How do we KNOW that animals don't communicate in their own dialect?? And how do we know that we think in a language aswell, maybe its just because we speak it that we have to think in a way that we will understand, theres no point translating your thoughts into setswana if you dont have a scooby what its about.

How do we know? Um...well, there's a science called zoology, it studies animals. Animals DO communicate, yes, but it's nothing near as complex as human speech. A few birds have vocal cords developed enough to mimic our speech, but even then their brains have no comprehension of what they're saying. Animals can sometimes learn a few words of a language, but they're never able to speak it nor understand much of anything beyond "sit!" or "fetch!"

Humans are actually the only species of animal (yes, thats right, ANIMAL, as we are made of animal cells and are clearly not plants. 'Oooh, someone wasn't paying attention in biology class') that kill their own kind. And i think it's rather ignorant to imply that animals don't create anything beautiful. Maybe you just haven't looked hard enough?

Wow, this is incredibly stupid and beyond ignorant. I'm pretty damn sure that you missed biology class. Ever hear of the praying mantis? When through mating, the female eats the male. Female black widow spiders will also kill their mates on occasion. I'm pretty sure that counts as killing their own kind. Animals of the same species also generally fight each other over food, too. So go back to school or watch the Discovery Channel before you spew nonsense like "animals don't kill their own kind" because they do.

And tell me, what are you thinking of that animals create? Pretty spiderwebs or something? Eryth was talking about things unnecessary to survival. Humans make paintings, tapestries, statues, music and all sorts of forms of art. Are they necessary to survival? No, but we make them anyway because we have the capacity to create art and appreciate it. Animals don't do anything beyond what instinct tells them too and that doesn't include making art. And if anyone talks about elephants painting, so help me god I'm going to find a way to slap you physically through the internet. Thats just a human giving supplies to the elephant and the elephant screwing around, it has no comprehension of what it's doing. Not to mention you never see elephants or any other animals creating paints in the wild or anything else. Animals. Don't. Make. Art.

The point that you are making in general is really immature though. That because humans have the ability to pick up a paintbrush that it will mask up the wrong-doing of others, and makes it okily do for us to go on slaughtering sprees when the mood arises, or slather innocent animals in harmful chemicals to see how much pain it puts them through.

No, your point is immature since you're blithering on about things when you don't even have simple facts down like animals do kill their own kind. And no, humans creating art does not absolve us from our sins, the POINT Eryth was stating (which I'm sure you've completely missed) is that humans have the brain power and the advancement to create fine art whereas animals do not. Humans are not led by instinct like animals are, we are a higher lifeform that utilizes free will, not routines programmed into our DNA. That is WHY we are able to make fine art or decide to test on lesser, expendable species to save our own lives. And "slaughtering sprees when the mood arises"? Come on man, there's such a thing called "law" which for the most part prevents people from from going on killing sprees. Thats the whole point of law and government, to create stability and prevent anarchy.

 

[Rockman X]

Gimme some fin.. noggin... DUUUDE



Don't start patronising me for having opinions and being just a little open-minded to the possible fact that scientists don't infact know everything, and maybe there is just the tiniest possibility that there are some things that they'll never understand??

It's like the whole colour thing again! The colours that we can see could be a completely different spectrum from what everybody else sees, How do we know??? We can't see what other people see. Try and describe the colour red to someone, its not that easy is it.

Anyhoo my point was that there are some things in life people will never know, and you cannot say for a fact that animals don't have feelings and aren't as important or as smart as humans. Have you ever watched Crufts??? Animals are extremely smart!!!!!!

I'm not patronizing you, I'm telling you to go back to biology class and learn your facts before you post ignorant things like "ZOMG ANIMALS DONT KILL THEIR OWN KIND!!!!"

Yes, there are some things scientists will never understand, most of those things lie in the realm of metaphysics and the spiritual world (assuming that exists).

People see color the same. And scientists can figure out how animals see too, whether it's in infrared or colorblind. And your color argument is also nonsensical and completely off topic.

Crufts is also a silly, irrelevant argument. It's a dog show. You know how those dogs learn the commands? People telling the commands to dogs over and over again and showing them how to go through the course. The dog simply learns to recognize certain commands. If you dropped a dog in there before months of training, it would just run around stupidly without knowing what the hell the course was for. They aren't smart enough to figure it out on their own.

 

[Erythritol]

Gimme some fin.. noggin... DUUUDE



Don't start patronising me for having opinions and being just a little open-minded to the possible fact that scientists don't infact know everything, and maybe there is just the tiniest possibility that there are some things that they'll never understand??

It's like the whole colour thing again! The colours that we can see could be a completely different spectrum from what everybody else sees, How do we know??? We can't see what other people see. Try and describe the colour red to someone, its not that easy is it.

Anyhoo my point was that there are some things in life people will never know, and you cannot say for a fact that animals don't have feelings and aren't as important or as smart as humans. Have you ever watched Crufts??? Animals are extremely smart!!!!!!

The argument isn't that animals are stupid; some animals are quite smart. But their intelligence pales in comparison to the intelligence of humans. Humans are the most intelligence species. Intelligence is our weapon and our defense.

Finnegan, it's called reading. You should try it. I never said *I* decided that humans are superior. NATURE decided humans are superior. You want proof? The mere fact that we can put animals in cages and experiment on them proves we're superior. The stronger species is superior, at least in biological sense of things. You can't argue with that.

 

[SapphireStar]

PA, that was uncalled for. There is no need to resort to name calling.

Im closing this thread as people are starting to flame and cause drama.
If another mod wants to open this back up, then do so. But its just becoming a joke.

*Closed*

 

[Saix]

Although SS has clearly voiced distaste towards some of the unfortunately childish comments made in this thread, I'm re-opening this. However should the petty insults continue, or retaliation incur, I'm locking it indefinitely and giving the perpetrator an infraction.


Resume in a mature manner, kids.

 

[Rockman X]

Yay! You reopened this! Now we can debate to our hearts' content.

Anyway, just to make my stance perfectly clear in case it's been lost during all the debates, I'm for animal testing when it's for scientific purposes to save human lives. I'm not for animal testing when it's for shampoo and cosmetic crap, that's just wasting animal lives. Also, I don't approve of treating the animals cruelly.

As I stated in another post many pages back, my idea would be to try to keep the captive animals as comfy as possible, kind of like how people will board pets at kennels. That way, the animals will be happy and won't be stressed out, so when it comes time to test something on them, they'll react better and won't be traumatized. Afterwards, keep them comfy again. I'm not really sure what they could do with animals they were through using, you can't put them in the wild or adopt them out....maybe an animal sanctuary of sorts?

 

[Jack's Smirking Revenge]

It depends on the specie (I'm not sure about the spelling ) if it's endangered than defenetly not. Scientists should have a limited number to test, and there should be a period of time between experiments, even if it was invented the same day. I really think that us and the animals should try and be equal, after all, humans did come from an ape

I'm not sure if I made much of a point, I just wrote down what I think about animal testing

I've got to say, that's just plain stupid. There's already laws against testing on endangered species, such as pandas, polar bears and so on. The most common animals used are mice, rats, gerbils, guinea pigs; easily bred animals. And restricting the number they can test on won't help development at all. How are advances supposed to be made if they're limited to how many tests they can conduct?
Obviously humans and animals aren't equal, otherwise we'd all live in fields or caves or whatnot.

 

[Demaian]

I'm pretty much fine with animal testing. Oft times or almost always the case, something has to be sacrificed in exchange for something or for the greater purpose. I'm not saying "greater good", because I doubt that it is all the time. Humans are at the top of the food chain when given pleasant circumstances. Humans can think and have thought or even have a soul.

As for an animal like lab rats or rabbits, they do not provoke thought as intelligently as we do. We can never imagine realistically what a lab rat or rabbit feels like because we will never be in their bodies as them, depending on your beliefs, that statement may be different. Yes the animal probably feels stressed from being in a cage, but it was bred and born to fulfill its purpose as an experimental item.

Sometimes, I honestly like to turn the other way and just think ignorantly that a lab rat is just being put in a maze and made to go after that piece of cheese at the end.

I'm just glad for now, I am not the one deciding the fate of a lab rat or rabbit or any other lab animal for that matter.

 

[SapphireStar]

Yay! You reopened this! Now we can debate to our hearts' content.

To a degree. As Saix said, it'll be locked again if the drama starts up again and people are getting infractions. I personally think it should remain shut ...

 

[Sephirothalpha]

As for an animal like lab rats or rabbits, they do not provoke thought as intelligently as we do. We can never imagine realistically what a lab rat or rabbit feels like because we will never be in their bodies as them, depending on your beliefs, that statement may be different. Yes the animal probably feels stressed from being in a cage, but it was bred and born to fulfill its purpose as an experimental item.

I agree the animals are bred from birth to be experiments and dont know any different. Its like if a human is born in a worn torn country, that is life to them.