This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Cambridge is cruel

Matilda

Take a look at these pictures they are utterly sad.

I suspect you're a troll and I know the case is really won for necessary animal testing, but my god those pictures/stories are tragic :s-smilie:

Reply 41

fishpaste

Willa

your cat or on your mum?

I don't want to give the wrong impression. But I think a human could at least be made to understand why they had to suffer for a greater good. Whereas an animal could never appreciate that.

Reply 42

Helenia

20

Matilda

Well that would be a very good development. We should start to work on this.

But the only reason they are able to develop computer models is that they are able to use data obtained from centuries of animal experiements. Otherwise they wouldn't have a clue.

The reason they build labs at unis? Because universities do research. So it makes sense to build research facilities there :rolleyes:

And yes, I have used animals for experiements. No, I'm not ashamed, those experiments couldn't have been done on humans and the animals didn't suffer for them.

Reply 43

whitewitch

8

Matilda

It carries out experiments on animals. It's not fair. I'm not going to a university that is cruel and unjust no matter how acedemicaly good it is. Sheffield Hallam where i've applied is much more appropriate in my opinion for myself.

If you dont like for hunting or animal testing.

DONT GO TO CAMBRIDGE!

If you don't mind it

Then by all means go

The number of animals used in research is far smaller than the number killed for food each week (46,000 cattle 326,000 sheep and 271,000 pigs) and at least experiments on animals are likely to help improve our quality of life in the long term whereas killing them for food is (arguably) unnecessary. If it came down to it if you or someone you knew were dying you would be forever greatful to the animal testers who tested the drug that saves your/ their life. Surely the life of a fellow human should always be valued more highly than the life of another animal.

Reply 44

JaF

1

whitewitch

Surely the life of a fellow human should always be valued more highly than the life of another animal.

Exactly. Humans are far more important than animals IMHO.

Matilda - Imagine you are driving down the road when all of a sudden there is a person and a dog in the road. You are going to fast to avoid them both so you have to hit one of them. Which one would you hit?

Reply 45

S@sha

7

whitewitch

The number of animals used in research is far smaller than the number killed for food each week (46,000 cattle 326,000 sheep and 271,000 pigs) and at least experiments on animals are likely to help improve our quality of life in the long term whereas killing them for food is (arguably) unnecessary. If it came down to it if you or someone you knew were dying you would be forever greatful to the animal testers who tested the drug that saves your/ their life. Surely the life of a fellow human should always be valued more highly than the life of another animal.

Quite true. And I don't want to hear vegetarians arguing that killing animals for food is bad. Personally I don't see much of a difference between them and plants. They are alive too.

Reply 46

whitewitch

8

S@sha

Quite true. And I don't want to hear vegetarians arguing that killing animals for food is bad. Personally I don't see much of a difference between them and plants. They are alive too.

Well, I'm vegetarian and would argue that killing an animal is worse than killing a plant probably because animals are supposedly more intelligent than plants, but if people want to eat meat that's up to them. I tend to stay out of that kind of debate though had it far too many times! But then the life of a person is far more important IMO than other animals/plants hence why I see a lot more point to animal testing than to eating meat.

Reply 47

pedy1986

13

3 pages of replies of people still replying to an obvious troll :rolleyes:

Reply 48

Fluffy

15

Matilda

It carries out experiments on animals. It's not fair. I'm not going to a university that is cruel and unjust no matter how acedemicaly good it is. Sheffield Hallam where i've applied is much more appropriate in my opinion for myself.

If you dont like for hunting or animal testing.

DONT GO TO CAMBRIDGE!

If you don't mind it

Then by all means go

SO YOU'VE NEVER VISITED THE BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH LABS AT SHEFFIELD HALLAM THEN?

Reply 49

JaF

1

The thing I don't get about vegetarians is that:

a) A notable precentage of them are part timers eg Fish is OK to eat because its not cute etc.
b) A number of them wear leather shoes :rolleyes:

. Personally I think killing something for food is better than killing it for fashion.

Also, a lot of animals aren't vegetarians ie its natural for animals to eat other animals. When humans eat animals they are just doing what a load of other species do.

Getting back to the original topic:

OMG Cambridge is soooooo evil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111

Reply 50

S@sha

7

whitewitch

Well, I'm vegetarian and would argue that killing an animal is worse than killing a plant probably because animals are supposedly more intelligent than plants, but if people want to eat meat that's up to them. I tend to stay out of that kind of debate though had it far too many times! But then the life of a person is far more important IMO than other animals/plants hence why I see a lot more point to animal testing than to eating meat.

Sorry. I wasn't aiming it as an attack at vegetarians. Just saying that it is likely they will be getting moody over this thread.

Reply 51

faa

grow up- how do you think we find out what shampoos are not going to penetrate your scalp, which girly make-up is safe, which deodorants do not burn skin? If you think you do really avoid ALL products tested by animals- ring up the natural history museum, because so far a stone-age home hasnt been found in-existence!

Reply 52

MadNatSci

12

corey

3 pages of replies of people still replying to an obvious troll :rolleyes:

Thing is though, there are a lot of people who really think like this. It's very sad that anyone can be so naive that they *still* think everything is black and white by the time they're applying to university...

Reply 53

MadNatSci

12

Incidentally, people may be interested to know that the ringleader woman of the evil sods who've been targeting Huntingdon Life Sciences was recently diagnosed with a particularly nasty form of cancer, and has promptly started using cutting edge treatments that were - you guessed it - tested on animals :rolleyes:

Reply 54

Toni Mag

Difficult to resist commenting:
(i) Animals are not used for testing out of any sense of sport. It's from a real necessity. It is a final resort in that if other methods were equally effective they would be used, and it's from the best of motives (to save human life).
(ii) Animals benefit from developing medical procedures and drug regimes too, which are tested on animals and then refined on humans. You should remember that after animal testing comes years of actual use on humans, which in turn results in refinement (e.g. with fewer side effects), which in turn benefits future generations (e.g Chemo drugs) of humans and animals. To that extent, both animals AND humans can be thought of simply as different parts of a whole, not animals as a subservient / subjugated part of 'life'.
(iii) If the life of an animal is 'sacred' and humans are animals, is not the life of an academic researcher also worthy of 'protection'? If animal suffering is so abhorent to you, why cause suffering to humans?
(iv) It is beyond credulity, in my opinion, that if 'easier' methods of testing were available, they would not be used. Of course they would, and they will, eventually. In the interim, just thank your lucky stars you don't need the drugs they're testing; that there are some universities that are committed to finding cures for diseases like cancer even when the best methodologies are unpopular ones; and that you live in a country that will allow you to protest against the common good.
(v) I am convinced - but have no evidence to offer for this - that you militant animal rights activists are exhibiting some kind of Freudian displacement of affection or something. I'm sure there's a research idea there, but we'd all be murdered if we pursued it I suppose!
(vi) Finally, I'm quite sure you don't eat fish or meat, or wear leather or have sauces with your Chinese meal. But why not extend your definition of 'valuable' lifeforms to the plant kingdom? It's only logical, right, because we'd all be dead were it not for plants. Should animals that 'oppress' plants be killed therefore? Should animals be killed if they use other animals for 'selfish' purposes?
Good luck at Sheffield Hallam. I hope you find many, many like minded people there.

Reply 55

Agrippina

15

S@sha

GO TO OXFORD. WE CAN'T AFFORD ANIMAL TESTING!!!

I know for a fact that that isn't true.

Personally, I'm against animal testing if it's for something like cosmetics (ie pointless things), but if it's for something like finding medical cures, then it's surely beneficial in the long run.

Reply 56

shiny

12

It all depends on consistency of argument.

Reply 57

shiny

12

Eeyore

I know for a fact that that isn't true. Personally, I'm against animal testing if it's for something like cosmetics (ie pointless things), but if it's for something like finding medical cures, then it's surely beneficial in the long run.

Why if you can use animals for medical research should you not use them for cosmetics testing as well?

Reply 58

Agrippina

15

shiny

Why if you can use animals for medical research should you not use them for cosmetics testing as well?

No, because cosmetics are a result of human vanity, while medical research is not.

Reply 59

RobbieC

15

Eeyore

No, because cosmetics are a result of human vanity, while medical research is not.

I kind of agree, but to play the pedant wanting to remove acne (considered a medical condition officially) is a result of our vanity, possibly..

Cambridge is cruel

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you