# Animal testing, yes or no?



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 9, 2009)

Between the guy my mom has been talking to and the vegetarian thread got me thinking about animal testing. Now, mom has met a guy who works as an engineer in some labs down in suffolk, england. These labs produce a lot of vaccines and stuff, they also have mice, rats, guinea pigs and monkeys to do their tests on. Now according to my moms new friend the monkeys are treated like kings, they don't have tiny cages, but a room to live in, they feed them all sorts of treats, they have like a bath thing on wheels filled with warm water and are shown movies. Now I found this part amusing, obviously being an engineer he has times when the heating system is working fine so he has nothing to do, well, him and his colleagues go up to the monkeys and sit and watch movies WITH the monkeys, he has even taken his children in to watch movies with them.

Well, story aside, I was thinking about what other furries think about testing products we use, on animals. Is it good? is it bad? should it be done? shouldn't it be done? What are your thoughts?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 9, 2009)

There are plenty of our own that would be better test subjects...and they asked for it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 9, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> There are plenty of our own that would be better test subjects...and they asked for it.



Aye, they might aswell do something useful while banged up in prison for life.


----------



## Geek (Nov 9, 2009)

I don't care... as long it's for a good cause like stemcell research and such...
If it's for a bad cause like torture just for pleasure or killing pets just to make a hollywood movie and such... i'm against that.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Nov 9, 2009)

rats with human ears on there backs are epic


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 9, 2009)

EinTheCorgi said:


> rats with human ears on there backs are epic



Lol yeah, but the place my moms friend works at does not do that type of experiments.


----------



## Idlewild (Nov 9, 2009)

I'm definitely for it most of the time. If it's being used to help a good cause and possibly find cures for diseases, then I don't see why not.  

I had a chemistry teacher last summer who worked with a lot of animals in testing laboratories. He said that he treated the rats with the utmost respect when they were being tested. They always got their favorite treats, really comfortable cages, and they were prevented from feeling pain during the experiments he conducted. That coupled with what you've said about the monkeys just assures my opinion that the animals are all but abused, they live great lives.


----------



## LoveRemorsE (Nov 9, 2009)

I do agree with Leto, if it's being used for a good cause then I'd say, go for it.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 9, 2009)

Don't care unless the testers test the test subjects even after they got good/bad results.If it's harmless and it can increase humans' life quality then I say yes.


----------



## Dass (Nov 9, 2009)

Yes.

Well would you prefer HUMAN testing?


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Nov 9, 2009)

Dass said:


> Yes.
> 
> Well would you prefer HUMAN testing?


 Yeah, pretty much my view on it as well.

But if some PETA fanatics volunteer...


----------



## FluffMouse (Nov 9, 2009)

No. I'm all for saving people and the possibility of finding cures.. but not at the cost of torturing animals. :< If the tests are really harmless, and are to find CURES, to save lives, fine. Not with things like MAKEUP or perfume, or pills for weight loss and other meaningless bullshit. But when it comes to other things.. I doubt that anyone here would even have the mind for what people could/will do if given the chance, or when no one's looking. Yeah, PETA's bullshit. But it doesn't mean that horrible shit like that doesn't happen daily.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 9, 2009)

SugarMental said:


> No. I'm all for saving people and the possibility of finding cures.. but not at the cost of torturing animals. :< If the tests are really harmless, and are to find CURES, to save lives, fine. Not with things like MAKEUP or perfume, or pills for weight loss and other meaningless bullshit. But when it comes to other things.. I doubt that anyone here would even have the mind for what people could/will do if given the chance, or when no one's looking. Yeah, PETA's bullshit. But it doesn't mean that horrible shit like that doesn't happen daily.


 Pills for weight lose?A thing like that wouldn't work.
But then again...
*PILLS HERE*


----------



## Nargle (Nov 9, 2009)

Aside from letting Basil pick his own toys and treats out at Petsmart... no.


----------



## JoeStrike (Nov 9, 2009)

I'm against animal testing because they don't have an opposable digit to hold the pencil with, and even if they did they'd probably get nervous and pick all the wrong answers...

_I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M THE ONLY PERSON ON FAF WHO REMEMBERED THAT JOKE!!!_


----------



## Brandi (Nov 9, 2009)

I would say it depends on what exactly the testing is for and whether or not it's actually necessary... and of course exactly how the animals are treated.

I feel there have been a lot of cases where animal testing has really done a lot to help us out, and a lot where it has failed. I guess it's a gray area... It's a yes for me, though only when its absolutely necessary. Pointless stuff like using animals for cosmetic garbage... no, just no...


----------



## Dahguns (Nov 9, 2009)

who cares...animals are dumb creatures....i torture my sis's dog all the time


----------



## HoneyPup (Nov 9, 2009)

Most definitely yes. But maybe I'm biased due to personal career interests. 

Animal testing can benefit both humans and other animals, including the species being tested on. I believe that the animals used in research should be treated respectfully and pain/suffering should be minimal. 
These animals used in research have saved lives, and will continue to save lives, and not just human lives. Animal testing has led to many of the vaccines and medicines we use now.

I wouldn't mind if these tests were done on humans. However the species most commonly used, (rats and mice) have a shorter lifespan. Tests that take weeks or months on rats would take several years on humans.


----------



## Ratte (Nov 9, 2009)

It depends on the reason for testing, and since animals in a physical sense are easier to replace, might as well stick with them.  It kind of sucks because animals are awesome, though.  As for the humans who want to be tested on, usually to get money out of it, go nuts.  As long as tests are being made in some way, shape, or form, to ensure the future safety of a product (usually medical), I'm all for it, as long as it's necessary testing.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 9, 2009)

Yes, but with some very strict conditions as follows:



The animal must not suffer
Testing for high-intelligence/emotional animals must be extremely humane (IE, high-intelligent/emotional animals such as primates, horses, whales, certain birds, etc.) and time limited so that they can enjoy most of their life outside of a lab.
Part of testing would be to strive toward cellular and computer models that would one day remove the need for testing on live animals


----------



## KirbyCowFox (Nov 9, 2009)

I'm all for it if it's for a good reason (cures for diseases and things like that) and if the animals are treated humanely like the OP said.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Nov 9, 2009)

As long as the companies are actually looking into the effects of the products and discontinuing harmful tests (as opposed to repeating the same thing relentlessly just for a good score based on chance, to push an unsafe product),
and the test animals are actually being taken care of, 
I don't see a problem with it.

I'd rather see a generic lab mouse die to a product causing cancer, than someone who's actually contributing to society.
Priorities.


----------



## Rakuen Growlithe (Nov 9, 2009)

At first I would have said no but I also know how important it is for science. I think it needs to be done ethically and only for certain things. There is no way I'll accept animal testing for cosmetics but animal testing for vaccines and science are acceptable.


----------



## Damaratus (Nov 9, 2009)

There are already a very large number of control factors that are imposed upon any laboratory that wishes to perform animal testing (note: I'm speaking for U.S. laboratories, not for those abroad). These particular controls are designed to reduce the amount of pain and suffering that any animal may endure to the lowest possible levels.  Those laboratories that do not adhere to these standards are hit pretty hard with fines and also have the privilege of testing on animals removed.

There are a few factors that I believe laboratories considering animal testing should certainly, and are normally required to, think about before going ahead with it.



Can I do these experiments _in vitro_? If it can be done in cell culture, without having to cause any harm to animals, then it should be the choice.
Am I picking the right experimental model for this study?  If such studies could be performed on a "lower" organism (e.g. _Drosophila melanogaster_ instead of _Mus Musculus_) then take the lower organism.
Have I considered the best way to reduce pain and suffering to the experimental model of choice? (see above stuff on reduction of pain and suffering)
Part of the reason that using animal models is critical to furthering scientific endeavors is the fact that many models have a much faster generation time.  It's easier to do genetic crosses with fruit flies, mice or rats than it is humans because it takes less time to see whether or not the modifications you've made have any effect on future generations.  Flies you get generations in a week or so, mice and rats in around month (giving time for weaning and such).  This is certainly a reduction to the 9 month gestation period in humans; and while animal models cannot mimic all the various aspects of humans, they certainly can help elucidate very important information within experimental studies.

In short, yes I'm for it with the right guidelines included.


----------



## wendyw (Nov 9, 2009)

Damaratus said:


> There are a few factors that I believe laboratories considering animal testing should certainly, and are normally required to, think about before going ahead with it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 Taking into account these points and including the condition that the tests are in fact necessary in the first place then, although I don't like the idea of it, yes.

When I say necessary I mean things that have practical applications when it comes to health. Is it necessary to know if a chemical currently used in production of household goods is killing people? Yes. Do we need to know if we can make longer lasting make-up? No.

So, basically, if every precaution is being taken and there is unfortunately no other option I say yes.


----------



## south syde dobe (Nov 9, 2009)

ArrLeashen said:


> Pills for weight lose?A thing like that wouldn't work.
> But then again...
> *PILLS HERE*


 
*PEELZ WHERE?!*


----------



## Morroke (Nov 9, 2009)

Dahguns said:


> who cares...animals are dumb creatures....i torture my sis's dog all the time


 
This isn't ignorant at all.

_At all._


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Nov 9, 2009)

Well, animal testing is necessary for medical advancements. For things such as cosmetics, I can agree that's unnecessary.  But otherwise it's vital for science.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 9, 2009)

south syde fox said:


> *PEELZ WHERE?!*


 *HERE!!!!!!*
*http://tinyurl.com/2w4apm*


----------



## Tewin Follow (Nov 9, 2009)

Ishnuvalok said:


> Well, animal testing is necessary for medical advancements. For things such as cosmetics, I can agree that's unnecessary.  But otherwise it's vital for science.



I agree. Cosmetics are unecessary, but people will use them and I'd rather they were safe, you know?

People who are all "OMG T3H BUNNIES!!!2" while wearing a shed-load of makeup or use pretty much any brand name conditioneer need to shut the Hell up, though.
At least the activists aren't being hypocrites.

What bothers me the most is people who casually declare that criminals should be used instead. It's a _massive _insult to scientists. They aren't monsters, they're trying to benefit our species. Don't just assume they're using rabbits and mice to be dicks and _think _about what you're saying.
[/rant]


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 9, 2009)

ArrLeashen said:


> Pills for weight lose?A thing like that wouldn't work.
> But then again...
> *PILLS HERE*



Actually they do work.



Dahguns said:


> who cares...animals are dumb creatures....i torture my sis's dog all the time




Animals are not fucking dumb, remember HUMANS ARE ANIMALS too, so technicaly you just called humans dumb aswell, so who is the dumb one now?


----------



## webkilla (Nov 9, 2009)

yes - and anyone who says no should go down to their local pharmacy and ask just how much of the medicine there is made in part via animal testing

i would much rather have over 9000 easy reproducible bunnies die from medical tests than 9000 humans


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 9, 2009)

Medical: Yes.

Cosmetic: There are plenty of Bums willing to go blind for 50 bucks.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

Depends on scientific community and quality of ethics boards.
I still don't know how I feel about it if its a lethal experiment with practical results towards human aid/welfare.

bleh, upon thinking about it
i dont know about any of it, to be frank


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 9, 2009)

going into biotechnology, personally these animals in the labs have better lives than their counterparts in the wild. goes with OP's post.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 9, 2009)

Dahguns said:


> who cares...animals are dumb creatures....i torture my sis's dog all the time



troll.


----------



## Sino (Nov 9, 2009)

In general, I say no because not every lab keeps their animals... happy? Or at least in decent living conditions. If it could be guarenteed that every lab and every animal was in decent condition then I would be for animal testing but.. humans run the labs, humans aren't prefect and standards slip and slide down the toilet.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 9, 2009)

Ratte said:


> It depends on the reason for testing, and since animals in a physical sense are easier to replace, might as well stick with them.  It kind of sucks because animals are awesome, though.  As for the humans who want to be tested on, usually to get money out of it, go nuts.  As long as tests are being made in some way, shape, or form, to ensure the future safety of a product (usually medical), I'm all for it, as long as it's necessary testing.



yes. I agree we should test how safe antifreeze is by paying bums to drink it. if bad things happen then we know not to use it as an artificial sweetener.

d'oh! too late we already did.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> going into biotechnology, personally these animals in the labs have better lives than their counterparts in the wild. goes with OP's post.



That really depends on the animal.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 9, 2009)

Hey, if they're treated well, I don't object too much... though I can't imagine a better purpose for lifers in prison than to become guinea pigs.  Not saying we should pump them full of fucked-up stuff, but if they can render a service to society through perhaps voluntary guinea pig work... why not?



Zrcalo said:


> yes. I agree we should test how safe antifreeze is by paying bums to drink it. if bad things happen then we know not to use it as an artificial sweetener.
> 
> d'oh! too late we already did.



Saccharin isn't antifreeze, it's coal :V

And I hate it, has an awful bitter aftertaste.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 9, 2009)

Sino said:


> In general, I say no because not every lab keeps their animals... happy? Or at least in decent living conditions. If it could be guarenteed that every lab and every animal was in decent condition then I would be for animal testing but.. humans run the labs, humans aren't prefect and standards slip and slide down the toilet.



it's called regulations.
plus, us scientists dont want to use an animal that might have health problems to begin with. and stress brings about health problems.

honestly what do you think we test it on? any 'ol animal? 

I'm apalled at your naiievity. 
these arent puppy mills. these are HIGHLY CONTROLLED environments that people pour BILLIONS of dollars into.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Hey, if they're treated well, I don't object too much... though I can't imagine a better purpose for lifers in prison than to become guinea pigs.  Not saying we should pump them full of fucked-up stuff, but if they can render a service to society through perhaps voluntary guinea pig work... why not?



You know.
Violation of inalienable human rights.
The system isn't perfect.
That's a really asshole thing to say.

These are just general guidelines as to why not.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 9, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Hey, if they're treated well, I don't object too much... though I can't imagine a better purpose for lifers in prison than to become guinea pigs.  Not saying we should pump them full of fucked-up stuff, but if they can render a service to society through perhaps voluntary guinea pig work... why not?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yeah I know. it's a bad joke. just trying to make the point that things you eat can kill you.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 9, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> it's called regulations.
> plus, us scientists dont want to use an animal that might have health problems to begin with. and stress brings about health problems.
> 
> honestly what do you think we test it on? any 'ol animal?
> ...



No offense, but I've seen a great number of fuck ups when it comes to the ethical treatment of animals in US labs. Especially primates.

I don't really believe primates make humane candidates for any test requiring either seclusion or being placed in a small community in a controlled environment.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 9, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> You know.
> Violation of inalienable human rights.
> The system isn't perfect.
> That's a really asshole thing to say.
> ...



These are people who may or may not have (but usually did) violate another human being's rights, perhaps multiple human beings.  It's voluntary, ideally.  How is it an asshole thing to say? Blunt, perhaps.  Lacking in empathy towards another living creature, sure, guilty as charged.  But "asshole"?


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2009)

If you are going to give a baby medicine you want to know damn sure it isn't going to kill them. As harsh as it sounds; the loss of animal life in testing is less important then the loss of human life.

It's a harsh world, sometimes everything cannot be rainbows and sunshine, you do what you have to do to make sure something is safe for human consumption.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 10, 2009)

Tycho said:


> These are people who may or may not have (but usually did) violate another human being's rights, perhaps multiple human beings.  It's voluntary, ideally.  How is it an asshole thing to say? Blunt, perhaps.  Lacking in empathy towards another living creature, sure, guilty as charged.  But "asshole"?



I get where you're coming from and I don't hold Bill Hicks jokes your dad never got against you.

But at the same time, I'm really tired of people taking liberal comedy that's supposed to be stupid dumb-fuck irony and turning it into some kind of neocon way of looking at the parts of humanity that are demonized to the point of nearly no return.

I don't know.
Maybe its cool to fake anomie so you can piss all over people that had ambition but no inheritance, that made mistakes and our society will never give them the chance to pick themselves up, but its not fucking funny to me, because I hear it like every other day as standardized and naturalized rhetoric of the state worker.

Maybe you should, I don't know, go fuck yourself?

Its like listening to a Maoist make funny joke about Cultural Revolution.

but i dont know
im not really that mad about it
so what does that say about my convictions


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> No offense, but I've seen a great number of fuck ups when it comes to the ethical treatment of animals in US labs. Especially primates.
> 
> I don't really believe primates make humane candidates for any test requiring either seclusion or being placed in a small community in a controlled environment.



true dat. 
I think they should test it on human embryos or tissue- oh wait, thats unethical.

I'm writing a paper for bio-ethics. but it's on healthcare reform. god, I sound like hitler.


----------



## Azure (Nov 10, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> I get where you're coming from and I don't hold Bill Hicks jokes your dad never got against you.
> 
> But at the same time, I'm really tired of people taking liberal comedy that's supposed to be stupid dumb-fuck irony and turning it into some kind of neocon way of looking at the parts of humanity that are demonized to the point of nearly no return.
> 
> ...


Holy crap, you're such a softie. The benefit of the doubt is reserved for people who didn't kill in cold blood.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 10, 2009)

A needed Evil in my opinion. the alternative Is human testing and thats just naaaasty.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 10, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> I get where you're coming from and I don't hold Bill Hicks jokes your dad never got against you.
> 
> But at the same time, I'm really tired of people taking liberal comedy that's supposed to be stupid dumb-fuck irony and turning it into some kind of neocon way of looking at the parts of humanity that are demonized to the point of nearly no return.
> 
> ...



...I'm talking about people who decided that taking it upon themselves to end a human life for personal gain or gratification was OK.  Piss on them? Fuck, I'd do more than that, given the opportunity.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 10, 2009)

Tycho said:


> ...I'm talking about people who decided that taking it upon themselves to end a human life for personal gain or gratification was OK.  Piss on them? Fuck, I'd do more than that, given the opportunity.



So basically you'd kill them or harm them to gain personal gratification.


----------



## Azure (Nov 10, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> So basically you'd kill them or harm them to gain personal gratification.


Do unto others...


----------



## Jelly (Nov 10, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Do unto others...



You want someone to murder or maim you?
Because otherwise I don't think you know what follows those three words.
(It doesn't mean you're God's hammer of justice or whatever. You're just perpetuating an idiotic cycle of aggression. Whatever's cool for you guys I guess. Smoke, kids, makes you look less like a faggot.)


----------



## Tycho (Nov 10, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> So basically you'd kill them or harm them to gain personal gratification.



Actually, come to think of it, no.  Not for personal gratification.  If they were on fire, maybe... maybe not.

If it serves a meaningful purpose, if something useful comes from the act, such as the development and testing of a chemical or medicine or what-have-you that would benefit the rest of humankind... that, I would do.  However, because I DO have a sense of ethics and a grasp of morality, I would not force testing upon an unwilling subject.  To do so would be making a quasi-Faustian bargain - my integrity and decency as a human being in exchange for knowledge.

My "id", the part of me that rages, feels, wants... that part of me would do worse than turn such a prisoner into a test subject.  That is the same part of the mind that dictated that murderer's course of thought leading up to his heinous act.  Unlike him I can keep my "id" in check well enough to recognize that such actions are unacceptable.


----------



## Azure (Nov 10, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> You want someone to murder or maim you?
> Because otherwise I don't think you know what follows those three words.
> (It doesn't mean you're God's hammer of justice or whatever. You're just perpetuating an idiotic cycle of aggression. Whatever's cool for you guys I guess. Smoke, kids, makes you look less like a faggot.)


Well, to be perfectly honest, they wronged society, thus their transgression is visited upon their heads in kind.  It's a fuck of a lot cheaper than keeping them around, feeding them, clothing them, giving them fucking medical care.  Saves money, gratifies a base societal thirst of revenge, and could probably make some great money if we put it on PPV.  If I broke the law in such a way, yeah, I'd want to die as opposed to rot like a jerk forever.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 10, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Actually, come to think of it, no.  Not for personal gratification.  If they were on fire, maybe... maybe not.
> 
> If it serves a meaningful purpose, if something useful comes from the act, such as the development and testing of a chemical or medicine or what-have-you that would benefit the rest of humankind... that, I would do.  However, because I DO have a sense of ethics and a grasp of morality, I would not force testing upon an unwilling subject.  To do so would be making a quasi-Faustian bargain - my integrity and decency as a human being in exchange for knowledge.



Okay.
So, maybe this is just me.
But remission rates are very high for criminals, primarily because of the way society treats them upon release and the social conditioning they receive inside the jail. What possible reason would I, were I an inmate, possibly try to benefit a society that clearly doesn't really want me?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 10, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> Okay.
> So, maybe this is just me.
> But remission rates are very high for criminals, primarily because of the way society treats them upon release and the social conditioning they receive inside the jail. What possible reason would I, were I an inmate, possibly try to benefit a society that clearly doesn't really want me?



Why should I feel guilty because they were punished for their misdeeds? They earn their enmity and distrust more often than not.  You make it sound as if I should be apologizing to a child who didn't get any cake and won't be invited to any other parties because he beat up the birthday boy.

You have a better solution for dealing with criminals? I'd LOVE to hear it.  And if I hear the usual "rehabilitate them, they're victims too" bullshit I'll write you off as a pinko troll and not bother with you anymore.  They may be victims but that does not give them the right to continue the cycle of victimization by making OTHER people into victims.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 10, 2009)

Tycho said:


> Why should I feel guilty because they were punished for their misdeeds? They earn their enmity and distrust more often than not.  You make it sound as if I should be apologizing to a child who didn't get any cake and won't be invited to any other parties because he beat up the birthday boy.
> 
> You have a better solution for dealing with criminals? I'd LOVE to hear it.  And if I hear the usual "rehabilitate them, they're victims too" bullshit I'll write you off as a pinko troll and not bother with you anymore.  They may be victims but that does not give them the right to continue the cycle of victimization by making OTHER people into victims.



I guess you should just write me off then.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 10, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> I guess you should just write me off then.



You're pathetic.  An extremist from the left is no better than one from the right.


----------



## Telnac (Nov 10, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Between the guy my mom has been talking to and the vegetarian thread got me thinking about animal testing. Now, mom has met a guy who works as an engineer in some labs down in suffolk, england. These labs produce a lot of vaccines and stuff, they also have mice, rats, guinea pigs and monkeys to do their tests on. Now according to my moms new friend the monkeys are treated like kings, they don't have tiny cages, but a room to live in, they feed them all sorts of treats, they have like a bath thing on wheels filled with warm water and are shown movies. Now I found this part amusing, obviously being an engineer he has times when the heating system is working fine so he has nothing to do, well, him and his colleagues go up to the monkeys and sit and watch movies WITH the monkeys, he has even taken his children in to watch movies with them.



Damn.  I'm a monkey... well, distant relative anyway.  Can I live there, get tested on & watch movies too?  

Yeah, I'm totally cool with animal testing for most practical things.  The only thing I'm not cool with is testing useless crap on animals, or unnecessary cruelty to animals in testing labs.  (I know; some people thing injecting an animal with Drug X is cruelty, no matter what Drug X is.  I don't.)

[Edit] Damn, I forgot: I'm not only cool with it, my ex-wife and I signed up her cat to be a test subject.  He had terminal heart failure & had already exhausted all of the drugs approved to treat heart failure in cats.  Our normal vet had long ago referred us to the a vet teaching hospital, which is where he was being treated in the final days of his life.  After the final time of having his lungs drained of fluid, the vet told us that it was time for us to accept the fact that he was a goner.  We could either put him down, or we could sign him up to test an experimental drug that can possibly increase the heart muscle's ability to pump blood... but at the risk of him suffering a fatal heart attack.

We signed him up & got the experimental drug.  It worked wonderfully for a week, and sure enough, at the end of the week he died of a sudden heart attack.  But for the last week of his life, he had the energy of a kitten again, and he had more fun than he'd had in the last 2 years combined.

Hell, if I'm 99 and all but unable to move and someone gave the option to take a drug that makes me feel like I'm 18 again... just for one week, then I keep over & die, I'd EAGERLY take the drug!

Animal testing win, imo.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 10, 2009)

@tycho:
Well.




That's one way to never answer a question.
Deny you ever proposed one thing, act indignant at the suggestion of a setting for your revised proposal, betray that you were more for the original proposal, propose that your opponent is the problem.

And I'm usually against potshots, but seriously:


Tycho said:


> My "id", the part of me that rages, feels, wants... that part of me would do worse than turn such a prisoner into a test subject.  That is the same part of the mind that dictated that murderer's course of thought leading up to his heinous act.  Unlike him I can keep my "id" in check well enough to recognize that such actions are unacceptable.



Nice overbearing ego.


----------



## south syde dobe (Nov 10, 2009)

ArrLeashen said:


> *HERE!!!!!!*
> *http://tinyurl.com/2w4apm*


 
You lied ;_;


----------



## xombiehamster (Nov 10, 2009)

A while back I learned that a company that makes soaps and cosmetics was talking to the company that makes catalysts for making soaps and cosmetics and casually mentioned their choices about animal testing.  I was privy to some of this information.

It was explained in this process that cosmetics are tested on hamsters when animal testing is the chosen option.  When it is decided against, they use human 3-year-old girls.  These choices come from the necessity to test products on especially sensitive subjects.

Personally, I adore hamsters.  But I also understand that any new combination of chemicals can create adverse reactions and ought to be tested for safety.  I've had many pet hamsters, though, and their average lifespan is 3 years.  If the product being tested has a horrible reaction a mature hamster would only have 2 years or so left to suffer and die of old age.  A child would have 70 or more years to expect a happy lifetime before they died of old age - and a bad reaction could cut that short or make for a lifetime of misery.

I think the choice is obvious.


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Nov 10, 2009)

You're a fucking nutter Tycho and frankly I'm kind of embarrassed every time I see my name in your signature 


I mean I know I have anger issues but I think you have that and maybe some more


----------



## pheonix (Nov 10, 2009)

While I don't agree with it it's ideal for certain things. I think human testing should be legal and we take all the murderers and phedos and start pumping them full of chemicals and shit and see what happens.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 10, 2009)

AzurePhoenix said:


> Do unto others...



...as THEY do unto others,


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 10, 2009)

ADF said:


> If you are going to give a baby medicine you want to know damn sure it isn't going to kill them. As harsh as it sounds; the loss of animal life in testing is less important then the loss of human life.
> 
> It's a harsh world, sometimes everything cannot be rainbows and sunshine, you do what you have to do to make sure something is safe for human consumption.



There is no caste system among Earth's biomass. Life exists for the sole purpose of perpetuating itself. There is no such thing as "species value" as stated in religious texts.


----------



## Jyaki (Nov 10, 2009)

I say yes, but only rodents and bunnies. All other animals I say NO! (maybe test on monkeys to, they smell)


----------



## ADF (Nov 10, 2009)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> There is no caste system among Earth's biomass. Life exists for the sole purpose of perpetuating itself. There is no such thing as "species value" as stated in religious texts.



As with all things in this world, human life has value because we deem it to have value. As human beings we prioritise human life over animal life, a parent priorities their child over a test animal.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 10, 2009)

Jyaki said:


> I say yes, but only rodents and bunnies. All other animals I say NO! (maybe test on monkeys to, they smell)



This sounds stupid.



ADF said:


> As with all things in this world, human life has value because we deem it to have value. As human beings we prioritise human life over animal life, a parent priorities their child over a test animal.



Humans will always deem themselves as the "superior" race.


----------



## HoneyPup (Nov 10, 2009)

Telnac said:


> I'm not only cool with it, my ex-wife and I signed up her cat to be a test subject.  He had terminal heart failure & had already exhausted all of the drugs approved to treat heart failure in cats.  Our normal vet had long ago referred us to the a vet teaching hospital, which is where he was being treated in the final days of his life.  After the final time of having his lungs drained of fluid, the vet told us that it was time for us to accept the fact that he was a goner.  We could either put him down, or we could sign him up to test an experimental drug that can possibly increase the heart muscle's ability to pump blood... but at the risk of him suffering a fatal heart attack.
> 
> We signed him up & got the experimental drug.  It worked wonderfully for a week, and sure enough, at the end of the week he died of a sudden heart attack.  But for the last week of his life, he had the energy of a kitten again, and he had more fun than he'd had in the last 2 years combined.
> 
> ...


That's awesome. Glad your cat had a good last week. 



Jyaki said:


> I say yes, but only rodents and bunnies. All other animals I say NO! (maybe test on monkeys to, they smell)



So no to fruit flies, fish and amphibians? 
Most of the animals (at least 90%) used in studies are rodents. But other animals are useful for specific studies; for example cats for studies that benefit cats.


----------



## ADF (Nov 10, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Humans will always deem themselves as the "superior" race.



As would any other species on this planet. If we weren't the only species with the ability to think like this; do you think other species would care about human beings? Do you assume animals would be naturally more empathetic than humans? Sounds like furry idealism to me.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 10, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> You're a fucking nutter Tycho and frankly I'm kind of embarrassed every time I see my name in your signature
> 
> 
> I mean I know I have anger issues but I think you have that and maybe some more



Anger's a healthy thing, really.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

I think we should start eating monkeys.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 10, 2009)

ADF said:


> As would any other species on this planet. If we weren't the only species with the ability to think like this; do you think other species would care about human beings? Do you assume animals would be naturally more empathetic than humans? Sounds like furry idealism to me.



I never said any of this. Humans always think themselves more superior to animals, I often hear people call animals "dumb" humans forget the we ARE animals aswell, animals do not act superior to another species, all they do is get on with what ever it is they do everyday only worrying about food and predators.


----------



## usagi15 (Nov 10, 2009)

i will preface this with the fact that animal testing is deplorable and a waste of money and times. the argument that we are the superior species is an interesting and one i acctually agree with which is far different then most tree huggin weirdos like me but my take on this view is that if we are the Superior secieces  i see that as an obligation to shelter the weak and protect them not exploit them and essentially rape them. animal testing is a multi billion dollar industry that people have cultivated into this pesdo science to make people think it is valid science but there are cost effective alternitives that completely eliminate the need for tortutre but muh like big oil compnies that would take alot of "green" out of some big wigs pocets and they dont want to see that happen so they ide behind their veil of lies and deseption. would we be were we are with out animal testing no we wouldnt there was a point in time were it had its place but now that times is passsed and it has become a hinderance. no real result have ever been found by animal testing only when test start on the human level are results acctually yeilded i mean just think about this. if dogs eat chocolate it kills them....doesnt kill us so whats to say there isnt a multitude of other variables like this with in the animal kingdom.the whole idea of animal testing is just sad sad sad buisness....empty the cages


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

usagi15 said:


> i will preface this with the fact that animal testing is deplorable and a waste of money and times. the argument that we are the superior species is an interesting and one i acctually agree with which is far different then most tree huggin weirdos like me but my take on this view is that if we are the Superior secieces  i see that as an obligation to shelter the weak and protect them not exploit them and essentially rape them. animal testing is a multi billion dollar industry that people have cultivated into this pesdo science---etc...





um... so what are we supposed to test the safeness of your medications on? you want us to kill 9000 humans?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 10, 2009)

usagi15 said:


> i will preface this with the fact that animal testing is deplorable and a waste of money and times. the argument that we are the superior species is an interesting and one i acctually agree with which is far different then most tree huggin weirdos like me but my take on this view is that if we are the Superior secieces  i see that as an obligation to shelter the weak and protect them not exploit them and essentially rape them. animal testing is a multi billion dollar industry that people have cultivated into this pesdo science to make people think it is valid science but there are cost effective alternitives that completely eliminate the need for tortutre but muh like big oil compnies that would take alot of "green" out of some big wigs pocets and they dont want to see that happen so they ide behind their veil of lies and deseption. would we be were we are with out animal testing no we wouldnt there was a point in time were it had its place but now that times is passsed and it has become a hinderance. no real result have ever been found by animal testing only when test start on the human level are results acctually yeilded i mean just think about this. if dogs eat chocolate it kills them....doesnt kill us so whats to say there isnt a multitude of other variables like this with in the animal kingdom.the whole idea of animal testing is just sad sad sad buisness....empty the cages



Oh yes it is a waste of money. Ok if it is a waste of money how come it has bought us MOST of the medications WE ALL use today to help us get better etc hmm?


----------



## ADF (Nov 10, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I never said any of this. Humans always think themselves more superior to animals, I often hear people call animals "dumb" humans forget the we ARE animals aswell, *animals do not act superior to another species, all they do is get on with what ever it is they do everyday only worrying about food and predators.*



So do you believe if the roles were reversed a species other than humans wouldn't behave in a similar manner?

It isn't really a matter of believed superiority, it is looking out for yourself. No one but a PETA fanatic would sacrifice human life in exchange for an animals, it is expected of a parent to care more about the condition of their child than a animal in a lab.

If another species had evolved human like traits I wouldn't expect it to behave any differently from us in regard to animal testing.


----------



## Gavrill (Nov 10, 2009)

Yes to animal testing. Theres really no other way to test the safeness of medications or chemicals.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

usagi15 said:


> i will preface this with the fact that animal testing is deplorable and a waste of money and times. the argument that we are the superior species is an interesting and one i acctually agree with which is far different then most tree huggin weirdos like me but my take on this view is that if we are the Superior secieces  i see that as an obligation to shelter the weak and protect them not exploit them and essentially rape them. animal testing is a multi billion dollar industry that people have cultivated into this pesdo science to make people think it is valid science but there are cost effective alternitives that completely eliminate the need for tortutre but muh like big oil compnies that would take alot of "green" out of some big wigs pocets and they dont want to see that happen so they ide behind their veil of lies and deseption. would we be were we are with out animal testing no we wouldnt there was a point in time were it had its place but now that times is passsed and it has become a hinderance. no real result have ever been found by animal testing only when test start on the human level are results acctually yeilded i mean just think about this. if dogs eat chocolate it kills them....doesnt kill us so whats to say there isnt a multitude of other variables like this with in the animal kingdom.the whole idea of animal testing is just sad sad sad buisness....empty the cages




GTFO PETA. you spell bad, you kill animals, and are untrustworthy. plus. this is probably your first and only post. ever.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 10, 2009)

ADF said:


> So do you believe if the roles were reversed a species other than humans wouldn't behave in a similar manner?
> 
> It isn't really a matter of believed superiority, it is looking out for yourself. No one but a PETA fanatic would sacrifice human life in exchange for an animals, it is expected of a parent to care more about the condition of their child than a animal in a lab.
> 
> If another species had evolved human like traits I wouldn't expect it to behave any differently from us in regard to animal testing.



I'm not saying they wouldn't behave like us if the tables were turned. I am not talking about "what if's" I am talking about current times.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I'm not saying they wouldn't behave like us if the tables were turned. I am not talking about "what if's" I am talking about current times.



we should eat black squirrels


----------



## ADF (Nov 10, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I'm not saying they wouldn't behave like us if the tables were turned. I am not talking about "what if's" I am talking about current times.



Then why condemn humans for self interest? You called it a superiority complex; but really it is only looking out for ourselves, which you said any other species would do in our place.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 10, 2009)

ADF said:


> Then why condemn humans for self interest? You called it a superiority complex; but really it is only looking out for ourselves, which you said any other species would do in our place.



I never condemned it. All I originally said was "Humans will always see themselves as the superior race" Meaning many humans look down on other animals, which I find odd because humans are a species of animal, the only thing that separates us from other animals is our level of intellect.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

rule 1: humans, just like any species, is specist. we like ONLY our own kind and will stick up for ONLY our own kind.

rule 2: humans are omnivores and NEED meat to survive from birth. we are MADE to eat other animals.

rule 3: animals lack the ability to actively communicate via language with human beings.


----------



## usagi15 (Nov 10, 2009)

i never said anything about peta so thank you for putting words in my mouth. this was a discussion i weighed in with my 2 cents i did not expect to faced with such anger. plus thousands of people die from hastily made medications every year from side effects that were not properly tested on a human basis because you cant measure. and as for my spelling sorry my key board is broken


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

usagi15 said:


> i never said anything about peta so thank you for putting words in my mouth. this was a discussion i weighed in with my 2 cents i did not expect to faced with such anger. plus thousands of people die from hastily made medications every year from side effects that were not properly tested on a human basis because you cant measure. and as for my spelling sorry my key board is broken



yeah this is a discussion. you will recieve replies. 
yes, many humans die from side effects of drugs that would be recalled. imagine how many more would die if it were tested on human beings.


----------



## usagi15 (Nov 10, 2009)

yeah a reply is different then getting yelled at. imagine using alternate forms of science so we dont have to kill innocent animals just so some money grubbing shit heads can make a quick buck and pretend the are saving lives?

http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index

maybe do some research on the subject instead of hiding behind anger at the thought that you might be wrong there are totally viable other ways around this....


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 10, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> rule 1: humans, just like any species, is specist. we like ONLY our own kind and will stick up for ONLY our own kind.
> 
> rule 2: humans are omnivores and NEED meat to survive from birth. we are MADE to eat other animals.
> 
> rule 3: animals lack the ability to actively communicate via language with human beings.


 Meaning of life with a bit of botox on top.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 10, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> rule 1: humans, just like any species, is specist. we like ONLY our own kind and will stick up for ONLY our own kind.
> 
> rule 2: humans are omnivores and NEED meat to survive from birth. we are MADE to eat other animals.
> 
> rule 3: animals lack the ability to actively communicate via language with human beings.



I'm not so certain about number 3. I mean when huans first appeared on the planet we did not have speech as such, But like everything else things developed over time. although there is still language barriers in the human world, german, french, dutch, spanish, japanese to name a few. I know a tiny bit of french, but not enough to have a conversation with. As for the others, it is a language barrier for me because I know nothing in any other language.

With animals (more so with pets) you get to learn body language and/or signs to be able to know what you pet (especially dogs) want. For example if my moms dog sits by the door, looking between me and the door, I know she wants to go outside. My moms tortoiseshell cat, if I go to her and stroke her head and she nips lightly at my hand and gives a light hiss, I know she wishes to be left alone, as I found out that if I persist with the scritching her nips get harder and claws get involved too.

I dunno, I just feel I can read animals pretty well.


----------



## Jelly (Nov 10, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> I think we should start eating monkeys.



monkey b is a really horrible way to die



RandyDarkshade said:


> I dunno, I just feel I can read animals pretty well.



Dude, you can't even read most of the people on this forum very well, seriously.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

usagi15 said:


> yeah a reply is different then getting yelled at. imagine using alternate forms of science so we dont have to kill innocent animals just so some money grubbing shit heads can make a quick buck and pretend the are saving lives?
> 
> http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=index
> 
> maybe do some research on the subject instead of hiding behind anger at the thought that you might be wrong there are totally viable other ways around this....



ohhh kaay? a site against vivisection? yeah... vivisection is rarely used anymore. 
most things include injecting and monitoring the side-effects. if the animal dies, then they dissect it. 
also, there are cases where SURGERY is used with anesthesia. 
yeah vivisection still happens, but finding an outdated and underused method that probably accounts for less than .01% of "animal testing". 

aaaand what do you think ALLLLLL your medication is tested on? yep. animals.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I'm not so certain about number 3. I mean when huans first appeared on the planet we did not have speech as such, But like everything else things developed over time. although there is still language barriers in the human world, german, french, dutch, spanish, japanese to name a few. I know a tiny bit of french, but not enough to have a conversation with. As for the others, it is a language barrier for me because I know nothing in any other language.
> 
> With animals (more so with pets) you get to learn body language and/or signs to be able to know what you pet (especially dogs) want. For example if my moms dog sits by the door, looking between me and the door, I know she wants to go outside. My moms tortoiseshell cat, if I go to her and stroke her head and she nips lightly at my hand and gives a light hiss, I know she wishes to be left alone, as I found out that if I persist with the scritching her nips get harder and claws get involved too.
> 
> I dunno, I just feel I can read animals pretty well.





ok. let me clairify #3. 

99% of humans cannot verbally communicate with an animal and 99% of all animals cannot verbally communicate with humans in an intelligent manner.


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 10, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> ok. let me clairify #3.
> 
> *99% of humans cannot verbally communicate with an animal and 99% of all animals cannot verbally communicate with humans in an intelligent manner*.


 More intelligence.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

ArrLeashen said:


> More intelligence.



moar cowbell


----------



## usagi15 (Nov 10, 2009)

animal testing is vivisection in any form. who says any of my "medications" come from animal testing? if i get sick i tell the doctor i am vegan and they accommodate that very well.and like i said before animal testing did have its time we wouldn't be here with out it but now that time has come to an end


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 10, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> moar cowbell


 Uhh...What?Where?


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

usagi15 said:


> animal testing is vivisection in any form. who says any of my "medications" come from animal testing? if i get sick i tell the doctor i am vegan and they accommodate that very well.and like i said before animal testing did have its time we wouldn't be here with out it but now that time has come to an end




*cracks up* 

animal testing: testing various things on an animal. you can even test pet products such as kitty treats. 

vivsection: basically dissection while you're still alive. removal of organs, etc. leads to death. generally not under anesthesia. 

um. soooo... you had shots right? animal testing.
you had an asprin? animal testing
ibuprophen? animal testing. 
you drink gatorade? animal testing.
do you take antibiotics? animal testing.
cosmetics? animal testing. 

being vegan doesnt tell the doctor that you want absolutely no product that was tested on animals.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 10, 2009)

usagi15 said:


> animal testing is vivisection in any form. who says any of my "medications" come from animal testing? if i get sick i tell the doctor i am vegan and they accommodate that very well.and like i said before animal testing did have its time we wouldn't be here with out it but now that time has come to an end



It will never come to an end. So long as there is still diseases and other things, science will still need animals to test on, you are a minority and you are sounding like to me one of those god damned animal activists. or PETA or some other stupid organization that can't keep themselves to themselves and have to stick their nose into everyone elses fucking business.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> It will never come to an end. So long as there is still diseases and other things, science will still need animals to test on, you are a minority and you are sounding like to me one of those god damned animal activists. or PETA or some other stupid organization that can't keep themselves to themselves and have to stick their nose into everyone elses fucking business.




no they sound like a brainwashed highschool dropout who doesnt even own animals.


----------



## usagi15 (Nov 10, 2009)

most of that shit i don't use. and if i do use it i find a animal friendly source for it because they exist. my doctor knows my stance on testing and dietary restrictions and goes out of the way to accommodate them thank you


----------



## usagi15 (Nov 10, 2009)

fine fuck you guys i seriously thought this would be a receptive(if not respectful) place but clearly it is not so i will leave you all to agree with each other and not try and think out side of your comfort zone


----------



## Jelly (Nov 10, 2009)

Zrcalo said:


> being vegan doesnt tell the doctor that you want absolutely no product that was tested on animals.



Yeah, a shitload of vaccines and injections are egg-based, they'll only really avoid giving it to you if you're allergic to eggs.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

usagi15 said:


> most of that shit i don't use. and if i do use it i find a animal friendly source for it because they exist. my doctor knows my stance on testing and dietary restrictions and goes out of the way to accommodate them thank you



it's because he's lying to you. 
this is hilarious. 

the only solution is to NEVER go to the doctor.
though I'm sure he would be upset if you skipped out on your meds. 

if you listed these "alternatives" I'm sure you could pop onto their site or look up to see if that product was tested on animals. just look at the FDA site.


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

usagi15 said:


> fine fuck you guys i seriously thought this would be a receptive(if not respectful) place but clearly it is not so i will leave you all to agree with each other and not try and think out side of your comfort zone



you've got to defend your points better. 
we're rather receptive here, but we also are normal human beings.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 10, 2009)

usagi15 said:


> fine fuck you guys i seriously thought this would be a receptive(if not respectful) place but clearly it is not so i will leave you all to agree with each other and not try and think out side of your comfort zone









:V

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 10, 2009)

usagi15 said:


> fine fuck you guys i seriously thought this would be a receptive(if not respectful) place but clearly it is not so i will leave you all to agree with each other and not try and think out side of your comfort zone



Says he who is thinking only in his comfort zone.


----------



## xombiehamster (Nov 10, 2009)

usagi15 said:


> animal testing is vivisection in any form. who says any of my "medications" come from animal testing? if i get sick i tell the doctor i am vegan and they accommodate that very well.and like i said before animal testing did have its time we wouldn't be here with out it but now that time has come to an end



You know something else that's done through animal testing?  Animal behavior research.

The college I graduated from is studying laughter in rats.  They do this by tickling them.  Yes, they sit there in the lab and tickle rats to watch them laugh.  Are you really going to call tickling an equivalent of vivisection?

Really?  The rats seem to think of it as playtime.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 10, 2009)

usagi15 said:


> animal testing is vivisection in any form. who says any of my "medications" come from animal testing? if i get sick i tell the doctor i am vegan and they accommodate that very well.and like i said before animal testing did have its time we wouldn't be here with out it but now that time has come to an end



Doctors lie to you. You do know that.


And you know another thing: testing certain medicines on animals to help other animals.
Funny how things work.

To your other "Goodbye post": 

"And nothing of value was lost".


----------



## Zrcalo (Nov 10, 2009)

xombiehamster said:


> You know something else that's done through animal testing?  Animal behavior research.
> 
> The college I graduated from is studying laughter in rats.  They do this by tickling them.  Yes, they sit there in the lab and tickle rats to watch them laugh.  Are you really going to call tickling an equivalent of vivisection?
> 
> Really?  The rats seem to think of it as playtime.



:3 d'awwww... I used to tickle my pet rat.


----------



## HoneyPup (Nov 11, 2009)

xombiehamster said:


> You know something else that's done through animal testing?  Animal behavior research.
> 
> The college I graduated from is studying laughter in rats.  They do this by tickling them.  Yes, they sit there in the lab and tickle rats to watch them laugh.  Are you really going to call tickling an equivalent of vivisection?
> 
> Really?  The rats seem to think of it as playtime.


Oh no! They are tickling the rats!! How cruel!! 

I've heard about this study. It's really cool, and shows that humans aren't the only animals that can laugh. I really want to see more studies done on animal behavior and cognition. It's an awesome subject.

I think its amusing how some people think any and all animal testing/research is cruel or abusive. Much of it doesn't involve pain or suffering at all. When some people ask me what kind of job I want to have and I say I want to do research on animals I get comments about animal cruelty. All I can do is explain that its not always that way, and even when it is, there is a good purpose behind it, else I wouldn't support it.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 11, 2009)

HoneyPup said:


> Oh no! They are tickling the rats!! How cruel!!
> 
> I've heard about this study. It's really cool, and shows that humans aren't the only animals that can laugh. I really want to see more studies done on animal behavior and cognition. It's an awesome subject.
> 
> I think its amusing how some people think any and all animal testing/research is cruel or abusive. Much of it doesn't involve pain or suffering at all. When some people ask me what kind of job I want to have and I say I want to do research on animals I get comments about animal cruelty. All I can do is explain that its not always that way, and even when it is, there is a good purpose behind it, else I wouldn't support it.



Where my moms friend works (as an an engineer, not a scientist or whatever they call themselves) He can go sit with the monkeys and watch TV, as I stated in my first post, however there are a group of monkeys which they are forbidden to go into the same room as because this specific group of monkeys have HIV and SIV, whatever SIV is.


----------



## TDK (Nov 11, 2009)

xombiehamster said:


> You know something else that's done through animal testing?  Animal behavior research.
> 
> The college I graduated from is studying laughter in rats.  They do this by tickling them.  Yes, they sit there in the lab and tickle rats to watch them laugh.  Are you really going to call tickling an equivalent of vivisection?
> 
> Really?  The rats seem to think of it as playtime.



Maybe the rats don't find that situation funny? Or maybe their having rat asthma attacks due to the tickling?

ANIMAL PERSECUTION! SOMEONE CALL PETA OR AT LEAST SOME BRAIN DEAD CELEBS TO RESCUE THEM!


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 11, 2009)

Motor Mouth said:


> *Maybe the rats don't find that situation funny? Or maybe their having rat asthma attacks due to the tickling?*
> 
> ANIMAL PERSECUTION! SOMEONE CALL PETA OR AT LEAST SOME BRAIN DEAD CELEBS TO RESCUE THEM!



The whole point of the test is to see how the rats react.


----------



## TDK (Nov 11, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> The whole point of the test is to see how the rats react.



Tell that to the dozens of protesters who are going to show up to this research lab :V


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 11, 2009)

Motor Mouth said:


> Tell that to the dozens of protesters who are going to show up to this research lab :V



Protesters are pointless. If any got in my way I'd run them over.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 11, 2009)

Ever seen a beagle create a vaccine for smallpox?

No?

Fuck 'em then.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 11, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> Ever seen a beagle create a vaccine for smallpox?
> 
> No?
> 
> Fuck 'em then.



They don't test on beagles.


----------



## BakuryuuTyranno (Nov 11, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> Ever seen a beagle create a vaccine for smallpox?
> 
> No?
> 
> Fuck 'em then.



I can't imagine any good could come from fucking a beagle.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 11, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> They don't test on beagles.



http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=beagle+animal+testing


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 11, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&q=beagle+animal+testing



I stand corrected.

Although I am fairly certain they don't test on beagles where my moms friend works.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Nov 11, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> They don't test on beagles.



They do, but people hold them dear to their hearts so I'd imagine they'd RABBLE PROTEST more than anything.


----------



## Dark_Black_Wolf (Nov 11, 2009)

No, if anything, they should test on volunteering humans.


----------



## HoneyPup (Nov 11, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Where my moms friend works (as an an engineer, not a scientist or whatever they call themselves) He can go sit with the monkeys and watch TV, as I stated in my first post, however there are a group of monkeys which they are forbidden to go into the same room as because this specific group of monkeys have HIV and SIV, whatever SIV is.


simian immunodeficiency virus, the monkey equivalent of HIV. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simian_immunodeficiency_virus



RandyDarkshade said:


> They don't test on beagles.


Beagles are the standard dog breed for animal testing.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Nov 11, 2009)

Dark_Black_Wolf said:


> No, if anything, they should test on volunteering humans.



And impregnate these volunteers to check if there are any side-effects on their offspring, too?


----------



## Dark_Black_Wolf (Nov 11, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> And impregnate these volunteers to check if there are any side-effects on their offspring, too?


lol, no. They can just take random people.
And humans know what their getting in to, animals don't know what's going on


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 11, 2009)

Dark_Black_Wolf said:


> No, if anything, they should test on volunteering humans.



Who the hell is going to "volunteer"? How about you go volunteer?


----------



## Tewin Follow (Nov 11, 2009)

Dark_Black_Wolf said:


> lol, no. They can just take random people.
> And humans know what their getting in to, animals don't know what's going on



If you say so.
EDIT:

"I'd like to volunteer to be given cancer, please."


----------



## Jack (Nov 11, 2009)

depends... what for, is it cruel, is it important, ect...


----------



## WatchfulStorm (Nov 11, 2009)

Depends on why they're being tested on, and if any good could even come out of it.


----------



## xombiehamster (Nov 12, 2009)

Dark_Black_Wolf said:


> lol, no. They can just take random people.
> And humans know what their getting in to, animals don't know what's going on



Actually a scientific study can't just take random people.  Factors such as personal medical history, age, and social conditions complicate the effect studied and may affect the outcome of the research.  As such, testing must be done on multiple age groups in humans.

Do you think a child knows what they're getting into?  An illiterate parent?  Do you realize that providing any large monetary incentive to participate in research amounts to abuse of the poor?


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 12, 2009)

Dark_Black_Wolf

Species: Arctic Wolf

wait what


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 12, 2009)

Its okay they are maimed  IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE~!


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Nov 12, 2009)

I'm against animal testing or any form of animals being abused.


----------



## Squeak (Nov 12, 2009)

I can see circumstances where there may be no other option, but generally I am very much against it. (Not counting situations like behaviour research where no animal need actually be harmed or trying out a drug on an animal that is dieing of its own accord. Heck, I would happily have the latter done to me.)


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

Brinster said:


> I'm against animal testing or any form of animals being abused.



Are you vegetarian? do you use medication?


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Nov 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Are you vegetarian? do you use medication?


 
Being against it also comes with the harsh reality that there is no stopping its use in my lifetime, Just as we may want petrol cars to be taken out of production we have no say in the matter.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

Brinster said:


> Being against it also comes with the harsh reality that there is no stopping its use in my lifetime, Just as we may want petrol cars to be taken out of production we have no say in the matter.



That didn't answer my question. But if you don't want to answer it that's ok. There are things in this world I'd like to stop or to change but you are right, the groups of people who WANT to make a difference are normally just a small minority, such as animal rights activists, I can understand there side of things, but I also understand why such "cruel" tests are done. It doesn't matter how much animal rights activists protest and stuff, government wont change their mind, why?, because it is a minority of people against a majority, and that majority of people are a mix of people who don't want to make a stand for it, who just don't care either way, or are for animal testing, and a government will always listen to the majority.

Plus the government probably see's it as beneficial to it's people and the government has to think about the peoples welfare also.....Even though it doesn't feel like the government does care.


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Nov 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> That didn't answer my question. But if you don't want to answer it that's ok.


 I guess i could answer your question seeing how sauvely you asked.
As for eating meat, its generally not the eating of the meat thats the problem but how the animals are treated during the process so i only buy and/or eat organic free range produce from animals.


And then to answer your part on medication thats more tied into my previous reply where i dissagree with animals being used as the test subjects for medication but there is no way of me stopping it, and to deny oneself any medical treatment in the pursuit of a protest that as i said will amount to nothing in my lifetime it is something that i can only express my grievance with but so far have no alternatives.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

Brinster said:


> I guess i could answer your question seeing how sauvely you asked.
> As for eating meat, its generally not the eating of the meat thats the problem but how the animals are treated during the process so i only buy and/or eat organic free range produce from animals.
> 
> 
> And then to answer your part on medication thats more tied into my previous reply where i dissagree with animals being used as the test subjects for medication but there is no way of me stopping it, and to deny oneself any medical treatment in the pursuit of a protest that as i said will amount to nothing in my lifetime it is something that i can only express my grievance with but so far have no alternatives.



You would think that with science these days they could find ways to test things without using animals. Although testing cosmetics such as make-up, body lotions etc on animals is just not right, it does not benefit us at all. The place my moms friend works at breeds there animals in captivity, instead of kidnapping them from the wild, however it does not make animal testing correct. 

But then again, if we tested on humans and made humans suffer, would that not also be cruel?


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Nov 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> You would think that with science these days they could find ways to test things without using animals. Although testing cosmetics such as make-up, body lotions etc on animals is just not right, it does not benefit us at all. The place my moms friend works at breeds there animals in captivity, instead of kidnapping them from the wild, however it does not make animal testing correct.
> 
> But then again, if we tested on humans and made humans suffer, would that not also be cruel?


 
It would be cruel but also in a terrible sort of way "fitting" for if anyone is going to suffer for the betterment of mandkind it shouldnt be left for others to do the dirty work,


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

Brinster said:


> It would be cruel but also in a terrible sort of way "fitting" for if anyone is going to suffer for the betterment of mandkind it shouldnt be left for others to do the dirty work,



I see some irony in this testing I mean what ever they test on it will cause suffering, discomfort and possibly death, It is like these scientists have to be cruel, to be nice. By that I mean that have to be cruel to either humans and/or animals to create something nice (Such as a cure) for the rest of us.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 12, 2009)

I'd rather medications be tested on animals before humans and such.... For a simple reason forced experimentation on humans is EVEN less ethcial then on animals =D


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Nov 12, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> I'd rather medications be tested on animals before humans and such.... For a simple reason forced experimentation on humans is EVEN less ethcial then on animals =D


 
Well the point being that people can and will force testing on animals and they have no say, Try and force a person and you have a war or atleast a struggle where the person can voice their objections, animals get no such comfort as having a say or protesting and so it is up to people to stand in the way or atleast express their grievances.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> I'd rather medications be tested on animals before humans and such.... For a simple reason forced experimentation on humans is EVEN less ethcial then on animals =D





Brinster said:


> Well the point being that people can and will force testing on animals and they have no say, Try and force a person and you have a war or atleast a struggle where the person can voice their objections, animals get no such comfort as having a say or protesting and so it is up to people to stand in the way or atleast express their grievances.




This just got me thinking, it is ok to do testing on animals, eventhough they can not "consent" yet it is not ok to have sex with one, for the very reason that they "can't give consent" I am not siding with bestiality and I hate to bring it up, but I find this rather odd.

Just like humans can have sex because they can consent with each other yet testing is forbidden? Am I the only person not seeing any logical sense in this?


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Nov 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> This just got me thinking, it is ok to do testing on animals, eventhough they can not "consent" yet it is not ok to have sex with one, for the very reason that they "can't give consent" I am not siding with bestiality and I hate to bring it up, but I find this rather odd.
> 
> Just like humans can have sex because they can consent with each other yet testing is forbidden? Am I the only person not seeing any logical sense in this?


 
There is no sense in it, and the inconssistancies in their arguments and other jazz is what makes it all so pear shaped,
I like your thinking sir.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 12, 2009)

Brinster said:


> Well the point being that people can and will force testing on animals and they have no say, Try and force a person and you have a war or atleast a struggle where the person can voice their objections, animals get no such comfort as having a say or protesting and so it is up to people to stand in the way or atleast express their grievances.


 But alike the majority of people "I don't care" I value human life over the life of others =D


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> But alike the majority of people "I don't care" I value human life over the life of others =D



I value my own life over any other. If another human or animal attacks me I will attack back.


----------



## wendyw (Nov 12, 2009)

Brinster said:


> I guess i could answer your question seeing how sauvely you asked.
> As for eating meat, its generally not the eating of the meat thats the problem but how the animals are treated during the process so i only buy and/or eat organic free range produce from animals.



How can you be sure?
Do you eat preprepared food products? If so there is no way of knowing the conditions under which the animals were kept because many times the company making the product don't even know this, even more so if they have to source from multiple places.

If you don't buy any preprepared foods that aren't vegetarian then fair enough, but otherwise there's no way you can guarantee that.


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Nov 12, 2009)

wendyw said:


> How can you be sure?
> Do you eat preprepared food products? If so there is no way of knowing the conditions under which the animals were kept because many times the company making the product don't even know this, even more so if they have to source from multiple places.
> 
> If you don't buy any preprepared foods that aren't vegetarian then fair enough, but otherwise there's no way you can guarantee that.


 
tearing something apart to this degree is pointless, afterall as the consumer we can buy a product and that is all we can do, so given the choices available i chose the one(s) that say they are free range and organic, Is there anything more i can do without having to catch my own meal?


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

wendyw said:


> How can you be sure?
> Do you eat preprepared food products? If so there is no way of knowing the conditions under which the animals were kept because many times the company making the product don't even know this, even more so if they have to source from multiple places.
> 
> If you don't buy any preprepared foods that aren't vegetarian then fair enough, but otherwise there's no way you can guarantee that.





Brinster said:


> tearing something apart to this degree is pointless, afterall as the consumer we can buy a product and that is all we can do, so given the choices available i chose the one(s) that say they are free range and organic, Is there anything more i can do without having to catch my own meal?



If a product says it is free range, and trading standards find out is not actually free range the company can be prosecuted for false advertising. The chances are that well known brands claiming to be free range is infact free range. I don't know if America has anything like our trading standards. Plus a lot of products that are free range carry a recognized logo.

But I am unsure if America has a similar system.


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Nov 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> If a product says it is free range, and trading standards find out is not actually free range the company can be prosecuted for false advertising. The chances are that well known brands claiming to be free range is infact free range. I don't know if America has anything like our trading standards. Plus a lot of products that are free range carry a recognized logo.
> 
> But I am unsure if America has a similar system.


 
Well i'm in Australia and we have the same thing, they do that and the right people catch onto and they are shut down, plus there are plenty of farmers in Aus to the point that there is no need to cut so many corners due to supply not being provided by such a small amount although it is still within the ranges of the standard 5% perhaps a lil more.


----------



## Organic Sprout (Nov 12, 2009)

I don't agree with animal testing.
not because I'm a furry.

I just don't like the idea that we have to use poor defensless animals for our own gain.
We are on THEIR world, not the other way around.
I'm all for pet stores(if they take proper care of their animals)
But, animal testing goes too far.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> I value my own life over any other. If another human or animal attacks me I will attack back.


 Common sense really. 
as far as lives go I value them in this order
1. Mine and my lover's and my family.
2. Friends (excluding a select few I consider family)
3. My nation
4. Humanity
5. Animals.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Nov 12, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> Common sense really.
> as far as lives go I value them in this order
> 1. Mine and my lover's and my family.
> 2. Friends (excluding a select few I consider family)
> ...



WHERE IS *JESUS *IN ALL OF THIS?
D:<


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 12, 2009)

Harebelle said:


> WHERE IS *JESUS *IN ALL OF THIS?
> D:<



He is already dead.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> He is already dead.


This Also I am not a man of faith.


----------



## Tewin Follow (Nov 12, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> He is already dead.



My brilliant trick question-- shattered! *presents a cookie*

Anyway...

I used to live near Huntingdon Life Sciences and it's always a target of protesting and what-not. I recall our R.E teacher telling us about a candle sit-down outside it where they would be sending their best thoughts to the animals used over the years.
It was quite an obvious hint that she almost wanted us to skip school to go.


----------



## wendyw (Nov 12, 2009)

Brinster said:


> tearing something apart to this degree is pointless, afterall as the consumer we can buy a product and that is all we can do, so given the choices available i chose the one(s) that say they are free range and organic, Is there anything more i can do without having to catch my own meal?



It's just that you initially avoided answering the question on whether or not you eat meat. If you avoid answering a question the first time round don't be surprised if someone picks at your answer when you do get round to giving one.

The main reason I ask this is because when I check ingredients lists on products like sweets containing gelatin, things containing cheese and so on and find that they're not vegetarian it's just an item in the ingredients, with no reference to where the animal product comes from.

I'll admit I don't know where most of the eggs I consume come from because they're ingredients in preprepared items and I never see the boxes give any information beyond the fact that it contains egg. The same with cheese.

This is why I asked. As for if there is anything more that you can do, well there is which is to prepare food yourself. Only buy the raw ingredients and cook it all yourself.

I'm not going to be a hypocrite and say you should when I don't, but I do question how you can be so sure that you are not accidentally supporting the kind of farming your against when you go the supermarket.


----------



## EinTheCorgi (Nov 12, 2009)

meh i dont know any more on one hand theres animals they love and respect you as long as you do the same to them. then there are humans who act like there opinions are law and if you dont agree with them then you should be stoned to death and they cant even read a full post so no testing for me because if my GF and i were the last people on earth and we had some pets i wouldnt care hell i would probably say "good riddance to the close minded twits"


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 12, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> I'd rather medications be tested on animals before humans and such.... For a simple reason forced experimentation on humans is EVEN less ethcial then on animals =D



So says the Robed Cosmic Fuhrer.


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Nov 12, 2009)

wendyw said:


> It's just that you initially avoided answering the question on whether or not you eat meat. If you avoid answering a question the first time round don't be surprised if someone picks at your answer when you do get round to giving one.
> 
> The main reason I ask this is because when I check ingredients lists on products like sweets containing gelatin, things containing cheese and so on and find that they're not vegetarian it's just an item in the ingredients, with no reference to where the animal product comes from.
> 
> ...


 
As far as I am concerned I have made choices that are steering away from supporting animal cruelty and so in trust i buy these products, and as far jumping on me for not originally answering if i'm a vegetarian off, the individual whom i was originally conversing with pointed out my need to answer the question in which i did, why did you need to rehash on that?


----------



## Takun (Nov 12, 2009)

Testing make up and other superficial things on animals? Fuck no.

Testing beneficial medical and scientific things on animals?  Yes please.


----------



## wendyw (Nov 12, 2009)

Brinster said:


> As far as I am concerned I have made choices that are steering away from supporting animal cruelty and so in trust i buy these products, and as far jumping on me for not originally answering if i'm a vegetarian off, the individual whom i was originally conversing with pointed out my need to answer the question in which i did, why did you need to rehash on that?



I get it from watching politicians I suppose. If someone noticeably avoids answering a yes/no question (which UK politicians and I suppose politicians across the world love to do) it makes me more interested in the answer.

If you'd given a straight answer the first time explaining that you eat meat but avoid factory farmed meat I probably wouldn't have mentioned anything, but for me at least when someone doesn't give an answer to a question the first time it's asked it just makes me curious.

It's not that I'm having a go at you. It just made me think about the subject more and therefore want to pick your brain on it more.


----------



## ZiggyTheWolf (Nov 12, 2009)

Picking my brain eh,
not much left of it i'm sorry


----------



## BackwardsButterfly (Nov 13, 2009)

ToeClaws said:


> Yes, but with some very strict conditions as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I second this


----------



## BackwardsButterfly (Nov 13, 2009)

I also love how vegetarians assume that no animals were harmed in growing their vegetables. Any idea how many pesticides are used these days?

Edit: Sorry for posting twice DX


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 13, 2009)

BackwardsButterfly said:


> I also love how vegetarians assume that no animals were harmed in growing their vegetables. Any idea how many pesticides are used these days?
> 
> Edit: Sorry for posting twice DX


 That and the point that pavement uses ground bone for the calcium to aid in the settling. so if you walk on a sidewalk you are apparently promoting animal abuse.


----------



## BackwardsButterfly (Nov 13, 2009)

The Drunken Ace said:


> That and the point that pavement uses ground bone for the calcium to aid in the settling. so if you walk on a sidewalk you are apparently promoting animal abuse.


 D: snap!

Wonder how many animal activists and the like know this stuff....


if not they sure as hell do now!!


----------



## Jelly (Nov 13, 2009)

BackwardsButterfly said:


> I also love how vegetarians assume that no animals were harmed in growing their vegetables. Any idea how many pesticides are used these days?
> 
> Edit: Sorry for posting twice DX



I don't assume that.
But you do realize that pest animals are killed so that most livestock animals are fed.
Chicken-feed, cow-feed, pig-feed, etc. is primarily grain and corn based.
Where do you think they get the grain and corn?
My ass?
Because, no, they get it from a crop culture (most likely a monoculture) that almost definitely pesticide sprays.

Besides, I buy organic (and polycultures are becoming on and off popular), dickweed >:C

as for animals being killed in machinery, that's actually a negligible number of animal deaths - its primarily death by predation when their environment is ripped up

but honestly, you're going to lose any which way, because you cant exactly stop animals from living in a crop culture

the idea is to try and do least harm and remain a healthy human being

oh sure, you could just eat fruit, but you would get very sick


----------



## Mojotaian (Nov 13, 2009)

I like to think that the Earth was a battleground, and humans won the battle, therefore having the ability to use the resources as they please.

Actually no, I don't REALLY think that... I don't think animals should be tested on, volunteering humans, yes, but if death occurs to a person as opposed to a rat? You humans tend to care more about the human than the rat...

So I don't care, really, test on animals if it's dangerous, but take volunteers where possible.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Nov 13, 2009)

I work in an animal research facility, and have to say yes, because of the many advancements in science that have come from animal testing, like open heart surgery.


----------



## FurrFox (Nov 13, 2009)

Nah nah OOOHH!! come on.. I dont agree with Animal testing..

come on guys I thought a Furry care much about the Animals... hypocrite ppl! what a shame.

and Id read so many articles about furry telling that Furries do care and they do love animals.

then why the hell have to agree on testing with them?? poor of them they also have feeling just like humans.

and theres plenty of human we can use for testing lulz well that I would agree xD and well I would offer myself as well if we re going to the point...


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 13, 2009)

FurrFox said:


> Nah nah OOOHH!! come on.. I dont agree with Animal testing..
> 
> come on guys I thought a Furry care much about the Animals... hypocrite ppl! what a shame.
> 
> ...


 Furry testing opens us touhoutards a gateway for anthro catgirls.
HIGH ALL DAY


----------



## HoneyPup (Nov 13, 2009)

FurrFox said:


> Nah nah OOOHH!! come on.. I dont agree with Animal testing..
> 
> come on guys I thought a Furry care much about the Animals... hypocrite ppl! what a shame.
> 
> ...



Furry fandom has very little to do with real animals. 
And as I said already in this thread animal testing is not always harmful, and it can be very beneficial to animals, in addition to us.
I want to work in an animal research facility because I love animals (including humans). Yes, some animals will die, but if the sacrifice will benefit others, then it is well worth it. Especially if we can find cures for diseases that affect both humans and their animal companions.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 13, 2009)

FurrFox said:


> Nah nah OOOHH!! come on.. I dont agree with Animal testing..
> 
> come on guys I thought a Furry care much about the Animals... hypocrite ppl! what a shame.
> 
> ...



I can tell from your very small number of posts you are very new here and very naive. 

Furry does not always equal animal lover, the type of animal lover that would want animal testing banned. 

Also humans = animals, we ARE an animal, humans are mammals, mammals are animals therefore human is an animal. Whether we test on huamns or animals suffering, pain and death will be involved somewhere. Most, if not all animals used in testing are bred in captivity for the sole purpose to be tested on, these are animals that probably do not know what daylight is, do not know freedom and would not know how to fend for themselves if released into the wild. To me breeding animal for the purpose of food or testing is no different, breeding an animal for a specific purpose allows other animals to roam free.

Lets take farms as an example, you get dairy farms, which naturally specialize in obtaining milk, which means cows are left to roam in the fields and are brought in to be milked. Then you have farms that specialize in the slaughter of cattle and pigs, these animals again would not know what freedom was. However just because these animals are bred for the purpose of food, does not mean they don't deserve some respect while they are alive. I agree with breeding the animals for the purpose of food, but I don't agree with the way they farm them, ie in cooped up barns.

Chicken farms are the worst. I ALWAYS choose free range chicken and eggs. Due to what I have seen on TV and YT video's I will not purchase any chicken or eggs unless it has "free range" printed on them.


----------



## xombiehamster (Nov 14, 2009)

RandyDarkshade said:


> Chicken farms are the worst. I ALWAYS choose free range chicken and eggs. Due to what I have seen on TV and YT video's I will not purchase any chicken or eggs unless it has "free range" printed on them.



Actually, the free range stamp just means that the door is left open for a few hours every day if it's not raining.  The chickens live in the same filthy horrible conditions as anywhere else.

Go for what's locally produced, not what's marketed to your sensibilities.  Small time farmers are typically more humane in their treatment of their animals and less much likely to use gimmicky marketing techniques to cater to your sensibilities.  Farmers markets and produce stands are the best places to look for these things.  Beware of chain stores alltogether - that includes _especially_ Whole Foods.  If you find someone selling "yard eggs" that's the best way to go.  Those are from chickens left to wander in their back yard, and not commercially farmed at all. Some may be fertilized, so be wary of accidental chicks.


----------



## Majy_The_Dragon (Nov 14, 2009)

Take the prisoners and do testing on them. Least we know what kinda reactions stuff would get on an actual person and you'd save some money to. Since its like a couple thousand dollars a day per inmate in a jail/prison.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 14, 2009)

xombiehamster said:


> Actually, the free range stamp just means that the door is left open for a few hours every day if it's not raining.  The chickens live in the same filthy horrible conditions as anywhere else.
> 
> Go for what's locally produced, not what's marketed to your sensibilities.  Small time farmers are typically more humane in their treatment of their animals and less much likely to use gimmicky marketing techniques to cater to your sensibilities.  Farmers markets and produce stands are the best places to look for these things.  Beware of chain stores alltogether - that includes _especially_ Whole Foods.  If you find someone selling "yard eggs" that's the best way to go.  Those are from chickens left to wander in their back yard, and not commercially farmed at all. Some may be fertilized, so be wary of accidental chicks.



Actually over here they wouldn't be allowed to just open the door and then claim "free range". it has to be free range to get the mark, if it is not, it is not free range.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 14, 2009)

Majy_The_Dragon said:


> Take the prisoners and do testing on them. Least we know what kinda reactions stuff would get on an actual person and you'd save some money to. Since its like a couple thousand dollars a day per inmate in a jail/prison.



Humans are animals, so you would still be doing animal testing technically.


----------



## FurrFox (Nov 14, 2009)

HoneyPup said:


> Furry fandom has very little to do with real animals.
> And as I said already in this thread animal testing is not always harmful, and it can be very beneficial to animals, in addition to us.
> I want to work in an animal research facility because I love animals (including humans). Yes, some animals will die, but if the sacrifice will benefit others, then it is well worth it. Especially if we can find cures for diseases that affect both humans and their animal companions.



ooh well yeah you got the point and I forgot to think about the good side of animal testing. Maybe yeah not all is harmful but it just make me feel sad about it. You never know what could happen on them.

anyway yeah I should know that not all prupose are for bad but there is also for cures and goods.

I understand now.. :?


----------



## Ikrit (Nov 14, 2009)

ADF said:


> If you are going to give a baby medicine you want to know damn sure it isn't going to kill them. *As harsh as it sounds; the loss of animal life in testing is less important then the loss of human life.*
> 
> It's a harsh world, sometimes everything cannot be rainbows and sunshine, you do what you have to do to make sure something is safe for human consumption.


not to me


----------



## Tewin Follow (Nov 14, 2009)

lazyredhead said:


> not to me



It would be if it were your mother who needed treatment. Your children. Yourself.

It's easy to say you like animals more than people, but you don't know all people and when it's someone you know, you realise they're more important than a replacable rat.


----------



## BackwardsButterfly (Nov 14, 2009)

jellyhurwit said:


> I don't assume that.
> But you do realize that pest animals are killed so that most livestock animals are fed.
> Chicken-feed, cow-feed, pig-feed, etc. is primarily grain and corn based.
> Where do you think they get the grain and corn?
> ...


What part of what I said constitutes as me being dickweed? :\

Also- just because it says it's grown organically doesn't always mean it is: Its sometimes used as a profitting scam which makes me feel bad for most vegetarians...

So unless you grow it yourself or know who grew it I wouldn't consider it organic.


As for the topic at hand of animal testing: I believe that it's only good if we're coming up with medication for the animal in question. I also recently discovered that most medicines that humans take can also be taken by animals. I had a corgi at one point who had epilepsy and he was perscribed phenobarbitol- which is usually used to treat epilepsy in humans :3 unfortunately, my dog's epilepsy was so severe that it caused him to become blind and deaf .3. he was only two... I miss him

All in all animal testing is a double edged sword, it's good in some cases, its bad in some cases. I do believe that test animals should be given a very good live for what they go through to better medicine for animals and humans (but that's my opinion on medical testing, not so much vanity testing- that shit's messed up =3=)


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 14, 2009)

BackwardsButterfly said:


> What part of what I said constitutes as me being dickweed? :\
> 
> Also- just because it says it's grown organically doesn't always mean it is: Its sometimes used as a *profitting scam* which makes me feel bad for most vegetarians...
> 
> So unless you grow it yourself or know who grew it I wouldn't consider it organic.



If it were a *profitting scam* Trading standards here in the UK would close the company down for miss-leading the public. And if they don't close them down at first they would have to change the label and/or their ways.

Mom gives her dog Piriton (No idea if that is spelt correctly) which is an anti-histamine used to treat allergies in humans. I have seen vets prescribe drugs for animals which is basically the same thing a human would use. The only difference being is the size of the dosage.


----------



## Waggable (Nov 15, 2009)

After reading the book then seeing the movie Plague Dogs as well as learning everything I can about Laika; as well as researching the subject, I really don't like the idea of testing things on animals. 

I am sure if they put the call out, they would get lots of human volunteers. In this day and age though as technology advances, the need to test things on a live animal will hopefully be lessened. I am glad the conditions under which lab animals live seems to have improved. That is a step int he right direction. 

Here is an ethical trap: 
The Nazis preformed horrible experiments on the jews, gypsies and other groups they viewed as "Sub human" or "Animals". We as a species benefited from this research and the data which was learned from it... That really disgusts me. After saying this, I feel the same way about the things we have learned from experimentation on animals... Yet we reap the benefits from this testing on a daily basis with the products we use, the meds we take when sick etc. 

I'm not trying to be negative or start a flame war or anything but I am interested in what others think of this and how they would compare the awful things which where done by the Nazis to the awful things lab animals are subjected to.

Sorry if I brought anyone down. On a lighter note: *lick* *headfuzzle*


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Nov 15, 2009)

Waggable said:


> After reading the book then seeing the movie Plague Dogs as well as learning everything I can about Laika; as well as researching the subject, I really don't like the idea of testing things on animals.
> 
> I am sure if they put the call out, they would get lots of human volunteers. In this day and age though as technology advances, the need to test things on a live animal will hopefully be lessened. I am glad the conditions under which lab animals live seems to have improved. That is a step int he right direction.
> 
> ...



Humans are a species of animal, to me whether we test on a four legged animal or a human, we are still testing on an animal. And who the fuck in their right mind is actually going to "volunteer" to have horrid experiments done on them? No one in their right mind would.


----------



## Merp (Nov 15, 2009)

EDIT - Its hard to say really... For things like shampoo and cosmetics I opt for no testing
but some medical advances have to be done on animals first... Randy is right, I wouldn't volunteer to have an ear attached to my back...

Its sad but its the truth


----------



## Kerwinin (Jul 29, 2011)

Health maintenance is difficult task either in respect of the animals, either in respect of the human beings. So it testing is necessary step to maintain the health and body language. My ans is yes.


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 29, 2011)




----------



## Heliophobic (Jul 29, 2011)

LizardKing said:


>



You sir, are quite funny.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Jul 29, 2011)

Kerwinin said:


> Health maintenance is difficult task either in respect of the animals, either in respect of the human beings. So it testing is necessary step to maintain the health and body language. My ans is yes.



It is against the rules to necro old threads. It is wise to make yourself familiar with forum rules before posting as this prevents you from looking like a numpty.


----------

