Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    The only solution is a rational, labour right government.
    That's not compatible.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midnightice)
    That's not compatible.
    Edgy.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    Edgy.
    Haha, seriously though, Labour might have some good potential policies, but they're doing a terrible job at conveying them to the public.

    As far as I'm aware, the main thing they seem to be focusing on is this cost of living crisis narrative, despite the fact that there isn't actually a crisis. They come across as desperate and fragmented, with no clear strategy. Joke of a party at the moment.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by redferry)
    You do realise most animal testing is just running a rat around a maze/feeding it food and measuring doubly labelled water in its urine? Hardly inhumane. On top of that for things like vaccines it can't be trialed on humans.

    Animal testing is clearly wrong for things like make-up. For pet food, essential medicines and behavioral studies, however, it is essential.
    Why can't medicine be tested on humans?
    Oh and I'd hardly call this behaviour research humane
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midnightice)
    Haha, seriously though, Labour might have some good potential policies, but they're doing a terrible job at conveying them to the public.

    As far as I'm aware, the main thing they seem to be focusing on is this cost of living crisis narrative, despite the fact that there isn't actually a crisis. They come across as desperate and fragmented, with no clear strategy. Joke of a party at the moment.
    I looked at their manifesto a while ago. I can't remember the details but it all looked like good policies to me. They're taking a slower road to balancing the deficit to increase growth along the way, which seems the most sensible option to me.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I am not frightened by their policies. UKIPs if ever they had a chance to enact some of them are more concerning, as are the Front Nationale in France.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    I am not frightened by their policies. UKIPs if ever they had a chance to enact some of them are more concerning, as are the Front Nationale in France.
    If anything the Green Party are as dangerous as UKIP if they did win (which they won't) outright at the next general election.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingStannis)
    haha! WHy? Do my posts generally give out a Toryish aura? lol.
    I really couldn't say why!!

    My sincere apologies.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Why can't medicine be tested on humans?
    Oh and I'd hardly call this behaviour research humane
    Because you can't test things on people straight wlaway in case you kill them?

    I'm assuming you refuse all products tested on animals including medicines and are vegan then?

    That sort of thing would never get ethical clearance these days, you have to jump through hoops just to fly a budgie in a wind tunnel.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by redferry)
    Because you can't test things on people straight wlaway in case you kill them?

    I'm assuming you refuse all products tested on animals including medicines and are vegan then?

    That sort of thing would never get ethical clearance these days, you have to jump through hoops just to fly a budgie in a wind tunnel.
    But animals are expendable? Plus animal physiology is not tge same as humans.

    No, I have no issues with eating meat (expect from it's massive ecological and environmental impact.)

    yes but often I would argue that the gain is not worth it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    But animals are expendable? Plus animal physiology is not tge same as humans.

    No, I have no issues with eating meat (expect from it's massive ecological and environmental impact.)

    yes but often I would argue that the gain is not worth it.
    So cancer research, vaccinations, penicillin, antidepressants etc etc are not worth the benefit?

    But you're happy to chow down on animals that have been cooped up in tiny cages their entire lives and pumped full of hormones? Just because they taste good?

    Your logic is horribly flawed
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by redferry)
    So cancer research, vaccinations, penicillin, antidepressants etc etc are not worth the benefit?

    But you're happy to chow down on animals that have been cooped up in tiny cages their entire lives and pumped full of hormones? Just because they taste good?

    Your logic is horribly flawed
    Yes they aren't worth it. Especially when we could just make clones to do tests on.

    No, organic and free range only. We are part of the environment so not eating meat is kinda pretentious.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Yes they aren't worth it. Especially when we could just make clones to do tests on.

    No, organic and free range only. We are part of the environment so not eating meat is kinda pretentious.
    The **** is this, so it's not worth testing on mass produced mice but it\s fine to farm human clones to test on?

    Not eating meat is pretentious...okay...so any animal that doesn't consume meat is being pretentious I guess? We don';t need to eat meat, so why farm animals at all for it? (btw I don't give a **** and will happily chow down a KFC, but just to be devils advocate)
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by joey11223)
    The **** is this, so it's not worth testing on mass produced mice but it\s fine to farm human clones to test on?

    Not eating meat is pretentious...okay...so any animal that doesn't consume meat is being pretentious I guess? We don';t need to eat meat, so why farm animals at all for it? (btw I don't give a **** and will happily chow down a KFC, but just to be devils advocate)
    The ethics are tge same and seeing as effects on human physiology are easier to work out on humans then seeing how mice react yes.

    not eating mean for animal rights is potentially yes.
    but with the amount of land meat takes up environmentally there is certainly an argument for less meat.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Yes they aren't worth it. Especially when we could just make clones to do tests on.
    You know a clone of an animal is just an animal?

    No, organic and free range only. We are part of the environment so not eating meat is kinda pretentious.
    Oh that makes a difference. You know orgaically bred sheep can't be treated for flysrike so they are eaten alive from their arse by maggots?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by redferry)
    You know a clone of an animal is just an animal?



    Oh that makes a difference. You know orgaically bred sheep can't be treated for flysrike so they are eaten alive from their arse by maggots?
    Clones of people.

    I didn't and I don't like sheep meat and quick research suggests that tea tree is an organic cure
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by redferry)
    Oh that makes a difference. You know orgaically bred sheep can't be treated for flysrike so they are eaten alive from their arse by maggots?
    I don't think that by itself is an argument against the merits of organic food. If that's true, it's possibly just a silly regulation (I don't know anything about that treatment so I can't really comment on it) - it doesn't mean the basic concept behind organic food is bad.

    (Original post by Aph)
    Clones of people.

    I didn't and I don't like sheep meat and quick research suggests that tea tree is an organic cure
    ...you're proposing we clone people? Whole people? What?
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    I don't think that by itself is an argument against the merits of organic food. If that's true, it's possibly just a silly regulation (I don't know anything about that treatment so I can't really comment on it) - it doesn't mean the basic concept behind organic food is bad.



    ...you're proposing we clone people? Whole people? What?
    Or just parts of people. It's a better alternTive to using helpless mice who can't object.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    Or just parts of people. It's a better alternTive to using helpless mice who can't object.
    One could argue the difference between a mouse and a human is the fact a mouse does not have the capacity to object, in that they are not self aware nor nearly as emotionally complex as a human being.

    Also mice are prey animals, it is fine for us to farm and slaughter animals to consume, at levels beyond necessary, so why is it so immoral for us to farm mice to test cures for diseases on?
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Aph)
    Or just parts of people. It's a better alternTive to using helpless mice who can't object.
    Cloning conscious people definitely is not a better alternative. If you can clone human tissue then sure.... But that's not a complete solution. First of all, cloning tissue is expensive. Inventing new drugs is hard enough as it is without having to impose lots of new regulations which are genuinely not completely necessary. For drugs that are genuinely there for the good of humans (i.e. not the latest version of Calpol or Neurofen) then I think it is worth sacrificing the lives of mice if it helps speed up the production cycle. As much as I like animals, I do believe that human lives are still more important than the lives of mice - I'm not 100% comfortable with that either, I totally understand why you're objecting, but I'm not convinced that point of view is completely rational. On top of that, the body is more than the product of its parts. Just because tissue responds positively to a drug doesn't mean the body as a system will. Yes, the mice are defenceless and can't consent and humans can... on the other hand, would you rather have a human die or a mouse die? It's not that easy to say "Well the human's an idiot for taking it". Most of the people on these clinical trials are poor university students trying to navigate themselves through debt, you can't really blame them for it.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.