[schizophrenicroom]

i say no, but i'll say yes to a few circumstances.

[flophousefloozie]

Good point there, Marilyn. I agree with that, also.

[Norma J]

Why thank you. I speak the truth.

[Toilet & Bowels]

anyone who is against it is naive

[Cantankerous]

Toiletteeeeeeeeee

[Norma J]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

anyone who is against it is naive

On the contrary.

Now get out of your bad mood and think straight.

[Cantankerous]

toilette is right though.

[Norma J]

According to you because you want his balls. But he is not right.

[Cantankerous]

okay granola boy.

[Norma J]

Rolled oats mixed with various ingredients, such as dried fruit, brown sugar, and nuts, and used especially as a breakfast cereal?

I don't eat breakfast.

[wax]

ok,
to all the people who are giving a straight and definte no, answer this.

your mother is dying from a disease, there is one chance for her to survive and its something that has been developed from animal testing.
would you prefer for your mother to die because the animal rights people succeeded in banning all forms of animal testing, or would you rather have your mother live?
a simple question.
in a perfect world, there would be no disease and no need to hurt animals. but its not a perfect world and i value my mother more than a billion rats and monkeys.

[Hip Priest]

Perhaps I should remind people that I'm an animal-loving vegetarian, perhaps not (it's probably relevent though). I'm also a libertarian, tolerant of others choices. However, I find it utterly incredible that as a society we breed people who are willing to spend their days inflicting torture. At what point does the medical profession pick people off and put them into this kind of field? And if the medical profession spots that one of it's own would make a good torturer, then I would say that the first thing they should do is evict them. It makes me angry that I pay taxes for certain things, but it makes me close to feeling physically sick that I pay for torture.

PArt of the problem, I think, is that people don't have a full view, because to have a full view is close to impossible due to the higher authority assumed by (and accorded to) the researchers; we are allowed knowledge of the success stories, but denied knowledge of the millions of tortured animals, of the extent of the suffering and of the massive cost and innefficiency of the system. The vast majority of people - even those who read the anti-animal testing literature - have litle idea of the severity of what occurs, or of the way the so-called 'rigorously-enforced safeguards' are flouted. Letting some of the public into the laboratories, to see for themselves what happens, would change society in a big way - by removing the distance, we would allow people to make genuinely informed choices for the first time (and of course advances in knowledge should be explained if there are any). But that's exactly why it's not going to happen soon.

The public at large, unless they are motivated to carry out a massive amount of research and/or direct action, are kept misinformed on this issue. Every stage of the process indicates clearly that this is deliberate - and the scientists performing the research recieve more and more protection and are granted more and more secrecy. Indeed it is now illegal in the UK to hold any kind protest outside the laboratories.

Originally Posted by wax

ok,
to all the people who are giving a straight and definte no, answer this.

Alright then.

Originally Posted by wax

your mother is dying from a disease, there is one chance for her to survive and its something that has been developed from animal testing.

This is one of the central questions to the issue, but there's a distinction to be made. Your question assumes that the cure already exists, and even though that cure may have been discovered in an immoral way through immoral behaviour, utilising pre-existing knowledge is different from continuing to behave immorally and seeking out new immorally-discovered solutions. For example, the torure inflicted upon bats to discover how their sonar works was despicable, but we shouldn't attempt to forget the knowledge that we now have.

The toughter question would be to ask 'your mother is dying from a disease, there is one chance for her to survive and its something that is currently being reseached through animal testing'.

Originally Posted by wax

would you prefer for your mother to die because the animal rights people succeeded in banning all forms of animal testing, or would you rather have your mother live?
a simple question.
in a perfect world, there would be no disease and no need to hurt animals. but its not a perfect world and i value my mother more than a billion rats and monkeys.

In the first case, using pre-existing knowledge, I'd want my mother to be saved. BUt the fact rmains that I want animal teting to cease, for two reasons:

1 It's wrong to assume the right of torture over other species.
2 There's much evidence that developed solutions affect humans differently from how they affect animals. Therefore much of the research is worthless, and the torture all the more wrong.

That said, of course, if were to hold ten rats in front of me and say, case-specific, 'it's these rats or your mother', then I'll pick my mother without hesitation, because I am a human being and therefore I'm selfish.

But the question isn't one of 'this rat' versus 'this person': we're not going to have animal testing policy defined by people whose mothers are about to die any more than we're about to have sentencing of burglars defined by the burgled or school curricula defined by rabid religious bigots. From a personal assesment I believe that animal testing is both morally wrong and desperately inneficient.

[jon boy]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Hip Priest again.

right mutha fucking on!

[Norma J]

Originally Posted by Hip Priest

Perhaps I should remind people that I'm an animal-loving vegetarian, perhaps not (it's probably relevent though). I'm also a libertarian, tolerant of others choices. However, I find it utterly incredible that as a society we breed people who are willing to spend their days inflicting torture. At what point does the medical profession pick people off and put them into this kind of field? And if the medical profession spots that one of it's own would make a good torturer, then I would say that the first thing they should do is evict them. It makes me angry that I pay taxes for certain things, but it makes me close to feeling physically sick that I pay for torture.

PArt of the problem, I think, is that people don't have a full view, because to have a full view is close to impossible due to the higher authority assumed by (and accorded to) the researchers; we are allowed knowledge of the success stories, but denied knowledge of the millions of tortured animals, of the extent of the suffering and of the massive cost and innefficiency of the system. The vast majority of people - even those who read the anti-animal testing literature - have litle idea of the severity of what occurs, or of the way the so-called 'rigorously-enforced safeguards' are flouted. Letting some of the public into the laboratories, to see for themselves what happens, would change society in a big way - by removing the distance, we would allow people to make genuinely informed choices for the first time (and of course advances in knowledge should be explained if there are any). But that's exactly why it's not going to happen soon.

The public at large, unless they are motivated to carry out a massive amount of research and/or direct action, are kept misinformed on this issue. Every stage of the process indicates clearly that this is deliberate - and the scientists performing the research recieve more and more protection and are granted more and more secrecy. Indeed it is now illegal in the UK to hold any kind protest outside the laboratories.



Alright then.



This is one of the central questions to the issue, but there's a distinction to be made. Your question assumes that the cure already exists, and even though that cure may have been discovered in an immoral way through immoral behaviour, utilising pre-existing knowledge is different from continuing to behave immorally and seeking out new immorally-discovered solutions. For example, the torure inflicted upon bats to discover how their sonar works was despicable, but we shouldn't attempt to forget the knowledge that we now have.

The toughter question would be to ask 'your mother is dying from a disease, there is one chance for her to survive and its something that is currently being reseached through animal testing.



In the first case, using pre-existing knowledge, I'd want my mother to be saved. BUt the fact rmains that I want animal teting to cease, for two reasons:

1 It's wrong to assume the right of torture over other species.
2 There's much evidence that developed solutions affect humans differently from how they affect animals. Therefore much of the research is worthless, and the torture all the more wrong.

That said, of course, if were to hold ten rats in front of me and say, case-specific, 'it's these rats or yout mother', then I'll pick my mother without hesitation, because I am a human being and therfore selfish.

But the question isn't one of 'this rat' versus 'this person': we're not going to have animal testing policy defined by people whose mothers are about to die any more than we're about to have sentencing of burglars defined by the burgled or school curricula defined by rabid religious bigots. From an objective assesment I believe that animal testing is both morally wrong and desperately inneficient.

And people are looking at it like it's either animal testing or no testing at all, therefore no cure for disease etc. That's a totally 1D view of the subject.

Well done Hip Priest.

[Sheriff Rhys Chatham]

We shouldn't need to test, we should fucking know.

[wax]

i think you do realise the point im trying to make, that animal lovers of all kinds would be glad of something thats been tested on animals at some point, including something as serious as dying relatives.
im aware to a certian extent that there are alot of horrible pointless experiments on animals, which i did hint at in my first post and i also made the point that its stupid for this to be a yes and no question.
im totaly for animal testing on certian grounds.
unfortunetly, those grounds are far from being the norm, and never will be.

[!@#$%!]

although i think animal testing is quite horrid, it's much much worse to watch people you love die from nasty diseases.

between your mother and a guinea pig, which one would you choose, fools?

FOOLS.

[_slavo_]

No shit
it's inhuman.

[Glice]

I read a statistic that said that, since the 80's (and the good work of operations like the Body Shop), the actual proportion of animal testing done relative to non-animal testing is somewhere in the region of 10:90, that is, it is done very rarely. From what I remember of the same paper, the main reason for this was nothing to do with 'animal rights', but the problem of anthropomorphism. Generally speaking, in this country at least, I suspect the unbelievably stringent testing has meant it occurs only in very, very special cases.

Speculation, of course, but personally I honestly don't see what benifit rats do to anyone.

[!@#$%!]

the question of "animal rights" is a peculiar one-- it is religious in origin or is there a rational basis for it?

human "rights" have been conquered (by revolution, political struggle, etc), although propagandists like to say these rights are "god given" or "inherent" or what not. yah right.

now we want to extend the same rights and privileges to animals? seems to me that outside of some eastern religions only people who grew up watching bambi or mickey mouse are capable of that thinking.

experimentation with animals is not "torture", as the point is not to inflict pain or derive pleasure from it. the pain & suffering of animals is a side effect of the testing.

as human animals we lack proper fangs, speed, a tough hide & other natural advantages, but we have our knowledge. obtaining knowledge is part of our natural survival mechanisms. how we go about getting that knowledge can be morally ambiguous, but do not fool yourselves into thinking that we can do without it. unless you're waiting for another species to come & eat your young.