[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by jon boy

its not sentimental i just dont agree with it. i cant just turn my feelings off and say its ok in some circumstances. the past is the past and there is nothing that can be done about that, something which pro animal testers seem to have a hard time understanding. i think in the present day and future there is no need for it.

anyway to quote michael in alan partridge 'why do they spray the perfume in the monkeys eyes? why dont they just put it on its wrist?'

oh well i do not agree with the testing of cosmetics on animals and shit like that. i favor the use of "natural" body products for that reason.

the question was rather general on "animal testing"

i agree however with the testing of animals for medical research.

let's not conflate the two.

it is sentimental when people offer no solid arguments against testing because it's "unpleasant" without considering the consequences of going without animal testing.

the article i posted mentions how 1/3 of the population of europe was killed by the bubonic plague during the middle ages.

i don't know of any spoiled, middle class, coddled person in this planet who could survive a fortnight under the life conditions of the middle ages.

but that's where we would be more or less without animal testing & other "progress' that hippies love to decry.

yeah im rambling i know but i just had this delicious cheesecake...