Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomcoolinguk)
    I just think that opponents of animal testing really need to grow up. I know several people whose parents have very high profile jobs in animal testing laboratories and their lives have been absolute hell with all the violent protest. Don't kind yourself, the protesting is organised and not just by known violent groups such as people against Huntingdon, but also the RSPCA and PETA etc.

    The fact is some people refuse to see beyond the cute fluffy animal and evil sadistic scientist stereotypes, and this subjective and naive viewpoint stifles any chance of real progress. Personally, I think we have been conned. Over 99% of the ingredients used by the body shop have been tested on animals at some point, so there was no need for them to be tested on animals again, as this hurdle is satisfied.

    Furthermore, if people realised how stringent inspection standards are (13 inspections a year) in animal testing centres, and how meticulously the research is conducted and the fact that animals are never killed purposefully and always limited to one experiment, they might start to appreciate the care and consideration the scientific community does pay towards animals. And the most absurd argument is that animal testing should be completely banned, as it will always be necessary if we want to further veterinary medicine!
    Did you even read my post?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    you're not meant to be agreeing with things in here.
    vienna myth #5347 - "vienna does not and will not agree with anyone, because she's a *****"
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    vienna myth #5347 - "vienna does not and will not agree with anyone, because she's a *****"
    hehe sometimes it does no harm to live up to myths, that is celebrity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    vienna myth #5347 - "vienna does not and will not agree with anyone, because she's a *****"
    LOL!!!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomcoolinguk)
    I just think that opponents of animal testing really need to grow up. I know several people whose parents have very high profile jobs in animal testing laboratories and their lives have been absolute hell with all the violent protest. Don't kind yourself, the protesting is organised and not just by known violent groups such as people against Huntingdon, but also the RSPCA and PETA etc.
    My dads virology laboritory carries out animal testing, I don't think he is personally involved anymore but he over sees what is going on. My dad loves animals and I know that he wouldn't want to see any animal suffer for no reason. But the work that is done in his lab is important. I agree with you that people have to move past the idea of the scientists being evil because they are just doing and important job which can lead to the saving of many lives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My view is this: it is sick that, for those charity adverts, how dogs - those NCDL people - get £52 a year and starving people - as on Oxfam - only get £24. It's just not right at all.

    Animal right's protestors too, are another annoyance. Many are causing irreperable harm to human lives. Humans > Animals. It will ALWAYS be that way. It should be that way.

    Also, if one of these protestors wash their face/hair/skin/anything, or if they use a lot of medicine, then they are using products tested on animals at one point, and consequently is a hypocrite. Animal testing too, is desperatedly important for this reason: it saves thousands of human lives, far more than the number of animals harmed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stumbleines)
    or if they use a lot of medicine,
    This made me feel you were 12.
    And i think that most animals should have more rights than those who have, in society abused their and other people's rights. Such as rapists and peadophiles. Why cant we test upon them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We live in such a hippocritical age.
    We are told by the media, by over politcally correct influential members of society that we much treat all equal and it is wrong to be racist and prejudice. That compaines MUST by law have a minimum number of employees from an ethnically diverse background and such forth.

    However this line is swiftly drawn when we cross species, why?
    Why is it morally or ethically correct to test upon an animal than a human as the common practice?
    Because 'its against their human rights' the looney liberals scream. But what about Animal Rights?
    What has an animal done to deserve being treated, in a manner other than that which would usual fit its natural one?
    Can't we test upon people? I know we do on a minimal scale but i mean seriously, a significant amount. Why not test upon rapist and such like?

    Shouldn't since we are so equal according to the 'equal rights for all' groups be adopting biocentric egalitarianism in which we have duties to all
    living things? (Taylor)

    To those who use the case of how cancer specifically needs to be cured, then you must realise that only 10% of the 2.3million animals used in 2002 animal 'experiments' were in the interests of cancer research!
    How can the system seem to be pro Speciesism” - ignoring the interests of a being just because it belongs to another species - isnt this wrong, just like racism and sexism?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MyHappyEnding)
    This made me feel you were 12.
    And i think that most animals should have more rights than those who have, in society abused their and other people's rights. Such as rapists and peadophiles. Why cant we test upon them?
    I'm sorry, I was in a hurry. I'll redo my comment:

    "If they use one of the numerous solutions that have been tested on animals and is used for medicinal purposes"

    Is that better? I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was writing an essay .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MyHappyEnding)
    We live in such a hippocritical age.
    We are told by the media, by over politcally correct influential members of society that we much treat all equal and it is wrong to be racist and prejudice. That compaines MUST by law have a minimum number of employees from an ethnically diverse background and such forth.

    However this line is swiftly drawn when we cross species, why?
    Why is it morally or ethically correct to test upon an animal than a human as the common practice?
    Because 'its against their human rights' the looney liberals scream. But what about Animal Rights?
    What has an animal done to deserve being treated, in a manner other than that which would usual fit its natural one?
    Can't we test upon people? I know we do on a minimal scale but i mean seriously, a significant amount. Why not test upon rapist and such like?

    Shouldn't since we are so equal according to the 'equal rights for all' groups be adopting biocentric egalitarianism in which we have duties to all
    living things? (Taylor)

    To those who use the case of how cancer specifically needs to be cured, then you must realise that only 10% of the 2.3million animals used in 2002 animal 'experiments' were in the interests of cancer research!
    How can the system seem to be pro Speciesism” - ignoring the interests of a being just because it belongs to another species - isnt this wrong, just like racism and sexism?
    So, say you had the choice of having one of your family or friends tested upon, or an animal, which would you choose?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    An animal.
    But given the choice of having my dog tested on or you, i would choose you.
    Why?
    Because of priority and preference.
    Thats why you cannot bring in the friends and family argument into debating.
    I stand by my 12 year old statement
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, admittedly it was a loaded question, but nevertheless I strongly resent the 12 year old statement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stumbleines)
    Yes, admittedly it was a loaded question, but nevertheless I strongly resent the 12 year old statement.
    Well stop acting like you Gcse awaiting child like self and put across points and facts to back up your views
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Regardless, whilst animals should have some rights, they should have no more rights than people. Every person has some worth that promotes them over an animal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Fine.

    How shall I back it up? Ethical concerns, factual evidence? Name something, I'm just DYING to impress you... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stumbleines)
    Regardless, whilst animals should have some rights, they should have no more rights than people. Every person has some worth that promotes them over an animal.
    In what way? Because we're supposedly smarter? Because we are able to test out products on them we might as well?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So what about Vegtables, cant we test upon them?
    Why simple because they are humans are they elevated, read 'Singer' and my comments on specisism
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MyHappyEnding)
    So what about Vegtables, cant we test upon them?
    Why simple because they are humans are they elevated, read 'Singer' and my comments on specisism
    LOL though i don't support animal testing i laugh at your pathetic knowledge of biology, plant cells are very different to animal cells hence you can't test products designed for animals on them
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No. Neither of the reasons you give. Whilst indeed we are supposedly smarter, intellect is no means of determing the worth of a creature.

    Unless a person volunteers to be tested upon, then animals will need to used. It is a necessary evil in today's society. However, the positive effects it has brought outnumber the negative. The treatment of rabies and of anthrax poisoning, the treatment of arthritis, whooping cough (which I myself had), leprosy, diptheria, rubelle and measles can all be attributed to animal testing. The number of lives made better by treatments for these is surely a good reason to continue animal testing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MyHappyEnding)
    So what about Vegtables, cant we test upon them?
    Why simple because they are humans are they elevated, read 'Singer' and my comments on specisism
    The reason people test on animals is their biological similarities to humans. Not because they're there and not likely to be fighting back.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

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.