The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Animal liberation front

Scroll to see replies

Stumbleines
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.


I've said this before however you probably haven't read back through the thread so i'll say it again. Many of the diseases we suffer from today are caused by us and the way we live our lives so why should we use another creature which didn't fill the atmosphere up with sulphur to help us out of it.
And one last thing we are animals you all seem to be distinguishing between humans and animals, humans are animals believe it or not
BloodyValentine
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


LMFAO
Are you being serious?

What is the term vegtable also used for in reference to human, (WHICH I STATED!)
MyHappyEnding
LMFAO
Are you being serious?

What is the term vegtable also used for in reference to human, (WHICH I STATED!)


Wait let me get this straight you're proposing that we test on mentally retarded?
Its like talking to a brick wall.
Read what i said then get back to me :wink:
BloodyValentine
Wait let me get this straight you're proposing that we test on mentally retarded?


Yes, for all his talk of animal+human equality, it doesn't seem to extend to equality for humans...
BloodyValentine
I've said this before however you probably haven't read back through the thread so i'll say it again. Many of the diseases we suffer from today are caused by us and the way we live our lives so why should we use another creature which didn't fill the atmosphere up with sulphur to help us out of it.
And one last thing we are animals you all seem to be distinguishing between humans and animals, humans are animals believe it or not


Yes, humans are animals. Admittedly, animals who have culture, sentience, language, scientific achievements, high intelligence - you can see where this is going right?

Yes, some diseases are human caused, however, a great many are not. Rabies, leprosy, all manner of illnesses - not human caused - are nevertheless aided by animal testing.
MyHappyEnding
Its like talking to a brick wall.
Read what i said then get back to me :wink:


Having reread again what you said here you want to put paedophiles and rapists up for testing i still don't quite see how that relates to vegetables but please enlighten me.
A simple yes/no might have been easier
MyHappyEnding
So what about Vegtables, cant we test upon them?
Stumbleines
Yes, humans are animals. Admittedly, animals who have culture, sentience, language, scientific achievements, high intelligence - you can see where this is going right?

Yes, some diseases are human caused, however, a great many are not. Rabies, leprosy, all manner of illnesses - not human caused - are nevertheless aided by animal testing.


Well cancer for one has been linked to cigarettes, alcohol and the use of some fertilisers (i meant to find that source sorry timeofyourlife) and since half of animal testing is as you said being used as cancer research well you can work it out
So you think animals should there have equal rights with humans, but not people who have an illness... Wow... all manner of contradictory ideas...
I am saying, if it is ok that racial equality, what by proxy of the equitable world we are supposed to live in.
Makes an animal infereior?

Why simple because you are a human rather than a horse make you elevated?
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


Forgive me for not managing to work out what you were trying to say in that garbled sentence. I'm assuming this is what you meant to say

So what about the mentally retarded, can't we test upon them? Simply because they are humans are they elevated (to what i might add?) . Read "Singer" (author please) and my comments on speciesism
BloodyValentine
Well cancer for one has been linked to cigarettes, alcohol and the use of some fertilisers (i meant to find that source sorry timeofyourlife) and since half of animal testing is as you said being used as cancer research well you can work it out


Oh, including cancer, fair enough. Yes, those things have been linked to cancer, and animals are used for cancer research, but never the less, animal testing has undeniably positive attributes, such as the cures to all of those diseases I just mentioned. The Polio epidemic in the early 1900s was cured via animal testing. Smallpox now has a cure. The use of penicillin for therapuetic purposes was discovered through animal testing.

Yes, in curing the Polio epidemic, many creatures died. However, think of the millions saved, the millions of lives that were saved.
MyHappyEnding
I am saying, if it is ok that racial equality, what by proxy of the equitable world we are supposed to live in.
Makes an animal infereior?

Why simple because you are a human rather than a horse make you elevated?


I'm having similar problems as BloodyValentine - we can agree on one point it seems :smile:.

We've addressed this point of animal and humans, more than enough times. I propose a question to you; what makes a mentally disabled person inferior? What means we can test on them, hmm?
Stumbleines
Oh, including cancer, fair enough. Yes, those things have been linked to cancer, and animals are used for cancer research, but never the less, animal testing has undeniably positive attributes, such as the cures to all of those diseases I just mentioned. The Polio epidemic in the early 1900s was cured via animal testing. Smallpox now has a cure. The use of penicillin for therapuetic purposes was discovered through animal testing.

Yes, in curing the Polio epidemic, many creatures died. However, think of the millions saved, the millions of lives that were saved.


as i remember the story behind penicillin is they tested it on a man who was dying and he made a stunning recovery before dying when they ran out of penicillin since it was still being produced by fungus or mould whichever it was.
Anyway back to animal testing my point is not the amount of lives it saves i agree that it does save live however what right do we have to subject animals to testing?
BloodyValentine
Read "Singer" (author please) a


Anyone commenting upon animal ethic and doesnt know the name Singer shouldnt be commenting.
MyHappyEnding
Anyone commenting upon animal ethic and doesnt know the name Singer shouldnt be commenting.


Does Singer also advocate testing upon disabled people?
Stumbleines
I'm having similar problems as BloodyValentine - we can agree on one point it seems :smile:.

We've addressed this point of animal and humans, more than enough times. I propose a question to you; what makes a mentally disabled person inferior? What means we can test on them, hmm?


No i am stating if you can actually read ethical points.
Why can we test on animals as they are inferior in that they cannot communicate, cannot meet the standards we, as humans can.
Compare what a chimp can do to what a Veg can a chimp can do more.
But by proxy the human can be imune from testing be cause he is human, nothing more?
This is specisism is it not?
Stumbleines
Does Singer also advocate testing upon disabled people?


OMG no wonder you've only just finished your GCSE's it shows.
Your commenting on Animal Testing yet you havnt read the book as to what this forum is discussing!
What are you doing here!
MyHappyEnding
Anyone commenting upon animal ethic and doesnt know the name Singer shouldnt be commenting.


Just like mentally retarded people and paedophiles should be subjected to tests i suppose?
I haven't read a book and you're therefore saying that i have no right to comment on a issue that concerns me, i sincerely doubt you've actually read around the subject of ecology as much as me and animal ethics aren't a subject that particularly interest me in light of some slightely more serious concerns like global warming however each to his own.
You're basically saying that if someone doesn't fulfil your criteria they don't have rights which is quite pathetic but a very good way to ensure everyone agrees with you

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you