what do you think of animal testing?

[D.]

express your opinions!

[Donkey]

my dog has an IQ of 74, which makes him a bit smarter than Affect.

Hmm...i guess i do support testing animals.

[blackfaerie]

animal testing = pointless and cruel.

[blackfaerie]

Originally posted by Donkey
my dog has an IQ of 74, which makes him a bit smarter than Affect.

[patrick]

Originally posted by blackfaerie


animal testing = pointless

no, there certainly is a point. it's a cheaper means of testing a product without getting humans involved. pointless wasn't the correct word to use.

[Donkey]

Originally posted by blackfaerie

can we be friends?

[crescentfresh]

Originally posted by Donkey
my dog has an IQ of 74, which makes him a bit smarter than Affect.

i hate your sense of humor. so...flat. no zing.

I think it is necessary in some cases. Some companies take it too far.

[Donkey]

Originally posted by crescentfresh


i hate your sense of humor. so...flat. no zing.

I think it is necessary in some cases. Some companies take it too far.

come on, you can't tell me that was zingless. I even like you, you sexy Amazon lady.

[crescentfresh]

Originally posted by Donkey


come on, you can't tell me that was zingless. I even like you, you sexy Amazon lady.

[sideburned one]

depends on what kind of animal....
dogs - leave em alone, they're too smart
cats - leave em alone, even though they're the devil
rats - fuck em
mice - fuck em
guinea pigs - leave em alone, too helpless
monkeys - too smart

i think we should give death row inmates the chance to be drug testers (entirely on a voluntary basis)

[Donkey]

Originally posted by crescentfresh

I have tons of friends that don't share my political views. That's no reason to dislike someone.

[Donkey]

Originally posted by sideburned one
depends on what kind of animal....
dogs - leave em alone, they're too smart
cats - leave em alone, even though they're the devil
rats - fuck em
mice - fuck em
guinea pigs - leave em alone, too helpless
monkeys - too smart

i think we should give death row inmates the chance to be drug testers (entirely on a voluntary basis)

so you're the scientific "cute factor" analysis. Interesting.

[blackfaerie]

Originally posted by failure
no, there certainly is a point. it's a cheaper means of testing a product without getting humans involved. pointless wasn't the correct word to use.

you're right, pointless was the wrong word to use. it was the first one that came to mind. sorry.

there is a point to testing, and yes, it saves money, but there ARE people out there willing to do the same. take for example my ex who tested some kind of drug for like 2 weeks. there are human beings who are willing to do this. now, to do this to an animal (and we as human beings are still classified as animals) who cannot complain nor protect itself is essentially IMHO cruel and heartless.

who here really feels the need to poke, prod, and mutilate an animal that cannot say no?

[sideburned one]

hey, i didn't use the word "cute", did i? no

[blackfaerie]

Originally posted by Donkey


can we be friends?

i thought you wanted to have sex?

[patrick]

Originally posted by blackfaerie


you're right, pointless was the wrong word to use. it was the first one that came to mind. sorry.

there is a point to testing, and yes, it saves money, but there ARE people out there willing to do the same. take for example my ex who tested some kind of drug for like 2 weeks. there are human beings who are willing to do this. now, to do this to an animal (and we as human beings are still classified as animals) who cannot complain nor protect itself is essentially IMHO cruel and heartless.

who here really feels the need to poke, prod, and mutilate an animal that cannot say no?

i didn't infer this earlier, but i'm a vegetarian and agree. i was just trying to help your argument

[blackfaerie]

Originally posted by failure
i didn't infer this earlier, but i'm a vegetarian and agree. i was just trying to help your argument

i appreciate that.

thanks sweetie.

[scouse_dave]

fuckin ell

humans come into the testing process at the very last stage...after years of research and when the manufacturers are almost certain nothing will go wrong.

they're not going to test on humans as a first port of call. animals will always be used at first, as it's by far the riskiest stage.

personally, i think animal testing is an unfortunate but necessary means-to-an-end. it should be strictly regulated and used responsibly tho. i read about some research they did recently where they played various types of music at unbearably high volume levels to lab rats to see which genre would affect/ kill the animals the most/ quickest. just so you know, the prodigy kills rats quicker than mozart.

[Nothing/everything]

Originally posted by sideburned one
depends on what kind of animal....
dogs - leave em alone, they're too smart
cats - leave em alone, even though they're the devil
rats - fuck em
mice - fuck em
guinea pigs - leave em alone, too helpless
monkeys - too smart

you're an idiot. there's nothing scientific about your classification, it's purely cultural. I do not see the difference between testing on cats, and testing on, let's say, rats. Sure, rats don't make such good pet as cats do, but they're both animals. Nothing more, nothing less. It's the same thing with breeding various animals for their fur for fur coats, compared to cattle leather. It's the conditions everything's held/bred under that differ, and that should upset us, and not the kind of animal.

[Nothing/everything]

Originally posted by scouse_dave

humans come into the testing process at the very last stage...after years of research and when the manufacturers are almost certain nothing will go wrong.

they're not going to test on humans as a first port of call. animals will always be used at first, as it's by far the riskiest stage.

personally, i think animal testing is an unfortunate but necessary means-to-an-end. it should be strictly regulated and used responsibly tho.

i totally agree. There's no way that first stage clinical tests are ever going to be conducted on humans, those are way too dangerous. People should stop being such hypocrites, saying animal testing is wrong while on various life saving or life improving medicines. Again, regulations should be more strict, and conditions should improve.

[Ghetto_Squirrel]

I think it's a really antiquated system. There are loads of other options: cell/organ cultures, computer synthesis, testing it on human organs that have been donated to science (even neomorts), etc.

If we can send people to the moon, we can certainly deduce that oven cleaner is toxic without making dozens of dogs ingest it.

[scouse_dave]

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel
If we can send people to the moon, we can certainly deduce that oven cleaner is toxic without making dozens of dogs ingest it.

maybe, but what about various cosmetic products or anything that's applied to that face. manufacturers need to know if the product is safe should a little get in a consumer's eye, mouth, nose etc..

[Nothing/everything]

there are several alternative methods in development, but the research in this field is still that limited, that the FDA hasn't approved of any method yet.

And besides, it'll take a long time before these alternatives will be cheaper than animal testing. Of course, legislation could make producers use these, in stead of animals, but don't underestimate the power and influence of, let's say, large pharmaceutical coorperations.

[Ghetto_Squirrel]

Originally posted by scouse_dave
maybe, but what about various cosmetic products or anything that's applied to that face. manufacturers need to know if the product is safe should a little get in a consumer's eye, mouth, nose etc..

Of course safety is a legitimate concern. There are loads of companies that verify their cosmetics are safe without using animals, though. (There's a list of the companies that do so in a little Leaping Bunny booklet that you can get online or through the Humane Society of the US.) I'm not sure which methods these businesses choose to use, but they're apparently getting through the testing process without the use of animals. I guess it just isn't in the financial interests of other businesses to follow their lead.

[Nothing/everything]

Originally posted by Ghetto_Squirrel


Of course safety is a legitimate concern. There are loads of companies that verify their cosmetics are safe without using animals, though. (There's a list of the companies that do so in a little Leaping Bunny booklet that you can get online or through the Humane Society of the US.) I'm not sure which methods these businesses choose to use, but they're apparently getting through the testing process without the use of animals. I guess it just isn't in the financial interests of other businesses to follow their lead.

but i think there's a big difference in cosmetics testing and drug testing. I don't see alternatives for drug testing coming up in the next 50 years. Cosmetics is a different thing though.