humans are so repulsive Watch

hdindak
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wUx4BBrukg
150,000 beagles never let our of cages for animal testing in usa alone- chosen for their naturally docile nature
1
reply
TorpidPhil
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
Because testing on humans would be so much more ethical I guess?
0
reply
hdindak
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by TorpidPhil)
Because testing on humans would be so much more ethical I guess?
yep
2
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by TorpidPhil)
Because testing on humans would be so much more ethical I guess?
well at least we could give humans the choice to volunteer
0
reply
HandmadeTurnip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by TorpidPhil)
Because testing on humans would be so much more ethical I guess?
How is that relevant?
0
reply
Novascope
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
Try to do something about it?

I'm not saying I agree with it, far from it. But I just find it a tad bit silly when people complain about things and get upset but don't actually make an effort to stop these terrible things.
3
reply
Octohedral
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by HandmadeTurnip)
How is that relevant?
Because if drugs / surgical methods / advances in scientific knowledge etc are not tested on animals then either humans die from not taking the drugs or they die from not having the drugs / other scientific knowledge. The argument is that animal testing is the lesser of two evils, which is very relevant.

I don't know what lab these animals came from, so I can't say if it was justifiable research, but it is definitely worth thinking about.
0
reply
BitWindy
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Novascope)
Try to do something about it?

I'm not saying I agree with it, far from it. But I just find it a tad bit silly when people complain about things and get upset but don't actually make an effort to stop these terrible things.
What makes you assume that OP is doing nothing about it?

One could even interpret this thread as "doing something" by raising awareness.
0
reply
Novascope
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by BitWindy)
What makes you assume that OP is doing nothing about it?

One could even interpret this thread as "doing something" by raising awareness.
Well if I was so disgusted by what's going on to label a thread "humans are so repulsive", and was actually doing something about it, maybe I'd post a link to a blog or website I have showing how I'm fighting a cause or something? I'm not annoyed or trying to start something, I'd just like to see something as well

Yeah you could say this thread is raising awareness, but it's not a particularly great way of doing so.
0
reply
Octohedral
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Novascope)
Try to do something about it?

I'm not saying I agree with it, far from it. But I just find it a tad bit silly when people complain about things and get upset but don't actually make an effort to stop these terrible things.
I see your point, but I disagree a little.

In an ideal world, everyone would be an activist for everything they disagree with. However, that will never happen. Meanwhile we shouldn't criticise people for bringing the point up - it would be far worse for these things to go ignored. Saying something is one step up from saying nothing.

Of course, making a life out of being a champagne socialist / sofa sitting, bacon eating pigs' rights campaigner is not very admirable, but I don't think not doing anything means you shouldn't say anything - on the contrary, it's spreading of knowledge that often gets large campaigns going.
0
reply
HandmadeTurnip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by Octohedral)
Because if drugs / surgical methods / advances in scientific knowledge etc are not tested on animals then either humans die from not taking the drugs or they die from not having the drugs / other scientific knowledge. The argument is that animal testing is the lesser of two evils, which is very relevant.

I don't know what lab these animals came from, so I can't say if it was justifiable research, but it is definitely worth thinking about.
I agree that that's a reasonable argument to make, but my point was that something being the lesser of two evils does not make it any less evil when considered independently. Personally, I would dispute the view that testing on animals is inherently less cruel than testing on humans, but that's a different matter.
0
reply
TorpidPhil
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by Aph)
well at least we could give humans the choice to volunteer
And how much would you have to pay them? That dead money could be far better spent elsewhere on other research that saves lives.

If you didn't pay them a significant amount then you wouldn't have enough test subjects.

Animal testing saves human lives.
0
reply
TorpidPhil
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by HandmadeTurnip)
I agree that that's a reasonable argument to make, but my point was that something being the lesser of two evils does not make it any less evil when considered independently. Personally, I would dispute the view that testing on animals is inherently less cruel than testing on humans, but that's a different matter.
How is it evil?

If I say that I will kill two groups of people if you do nothing (and somehow let's assume you know that this is certain to happen) and then give you two controllers one detonating a bomb that will kill 2 people and one detonating a bomb that will kill 2000. Would it be immoral for you to detonate the one killing 2 people? Is that a lesser "evil"? No. It isn't an evil at all. It's a good outcome given the situation and your motivation was good. Are there better conceivable outcomes possible? Well, holistically yes, but not in that specific situation.

The fact of the matter is that humans succumb to disease, illness, suffering and death. So do animals. Humans though have more moral value as they feel more pain both physiologically and psychologically. Humans have hopes, dreams and desires that are crushed when they suffer. One human suffering hurts dozens of people around them who witness it. Humans dwell on past suffering for years to come and not only those who suffered but those who witnessed suffering too.

We don't have a choice. Either we allow suffering to animals or we allow it to humans. Because of all of the above it would be immoral to allow it to humans over animals. The only moral thing to do is to prevent human suffering while unfortunately conceding animal suffering. Obviously if there was a way to prevent both we would do it but there is not, hence why it's like the initial scenario, we have to make a choice. Making a choice is not immoral though...
0
reply
Aph
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by TorpidPhil)
And how much would you have to pay them? That dead money could be far better spent elsewhere on other research that saves lives.

If you didn't pay them a significant amount then you wouldn't have enough test subjects.

Animal testing saves human lives.
Why are humans more Importent? We are over populated. A good war or two would do us good, but this would work just as well.
0
reply
HandmadeTurnip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by TorpidPhil)
How is it evil?

If I say that I will kill two groups of people if you do nothing (and somehow let's assume you know that this is certain to happen) and then give you two controllers one detonating a bomb that will kill 2 people and one detonating a bomb that will kill 2000. Would it be immoral for you to detonate the one killing 2 people? Is that a lesser "evil"? No. It isn't an evil at all. It's a good outcome given the situation and your motivation was good. Are there better conceivable outcomes possible? Well, holistically yes, but not in that specific situation.

The fact of the matter is that humans succumb to disease, illness, suffering and death. So do animals. Humans though have more moral value as they feel more pain both physiologically and psychologically. Humans have hopes, dreams and desires that are crushed when they suffer. One human suffering hurts dozens of people around them who witness it. Humans dwell on past suffering for years to come and not only those who suffered but those who witnessed suffering too.

We don't have a choice. Either we allow suffering to animals or we allow it to humans. Because of all of the above it would be immoral to allow it to humans over animals. The only moral thing to do is to prevent human suffering while unfortunately conceding animal suffering. Obviously if there was a way to prevent both we would do it but there is not, hence why it's like the initial scenario, we have to make a choice. Making a choice is not immoral though...
I was only using the word 'evil' in response to Octohedral's use of the term 'the lesser of two evils'. I don't think animal testing as a whole is inherently evil as like you said, some of it has been of vital help to modern medicine, although I do think certain practices can be labelled as such.

The two bombs argument is a poor analogy, it's too simplistic a situation to compare to something as complex as this. You also can't compare something that actively and directly causes suffering, like a bomb, to something that passively and indirectly causes suffering, like the failure to develop a certain medicine.

Where is the evidence that animals feel less pain than humans, either physiologically or psychologically? The biological system that allows nociception in humans is found in most other animals and while it's more difficult to study, most scientists agree that animals respond to pain in much the same way as humans. There is also no evidence that pain does not have a psychological effect on animals similar to that on humans. Again, it's much harder to study this sort of thing in animals due to them not being able to communicate their feelings like humans can.

As for your last paragraph, maybe it's true that there our only choices are to either condemn the human race to suffering or allow animals to suffer in our stead. Even if that is the case, it doesn't mean we shouldn't make every effort to seek out alternatives to animal testing and try to minimise the suffering of those animals involved in it. In the particular example raised by the OP, why were these dogs forced to live their entire lives in a cage? Was it an unavoidable part of the testing they were involved in? I might be wrong but I expect it had more to do with apathy, laziness and saving money.
0
reply
Dilmurod Dilmu
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
No, humans who believe humans to be repulsive, are the repulsive ones.
0
reply
aoxa
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
Animal testing is horrid, yes, but there's not many other options open to us that yield the same results and are as reliable as animal testing.

I do believe that animal testing should be made illegal for all purposes other than medicine though.
0
reply
zKlown
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by hdindak)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wUx4BBrukg
150,000 beagles never let our of cages for animal testing in usa alone- chosen for their naturally docile nature
You do realise you're a human OP?

Unless you're like the T1000 from Terminator or something.
0
reply
bittr n swt
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
lol you call that repulsive? ****ing grow up.

They're just animals at the end of the day. Do you want to ask for their consent?
0
reply
hdindak
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by bittr n swt)
lol you call that repulsive? ****ing grow up.

They're just animals at the end of the day. Do you want to ask for their consent?
oh shutup
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (12)
6.42%
They might tell the bully (19)
10.16%
I don't think they'd understand (32)
17.11%
It might lead to more bullying (70)
37.43%
There's nothing they could do (54)
28.88%

Watched Threads

View All