INTENSITY²
Start here => Free For ALL => Topic started by: Adam on April 22, 2011, 06:28:04 PM
-
When the fuck is this ever ok?
And yeh you can say testing for life-saving drugs etc makes it justifiable, but that is BULLSHIT! there are plenty of human subjects to test on, either willing ones or child-abusing scum who have forfeited their rights anyway. And these guinea pigs are going to offer much more accurate results, as they are human, therefore how can the suffering and deaths of other animals ever be justified ?
also sign this petition
http://nocruelcosmetics.org/
-
there are plenty of human subjects to test on
That's true.
Seems odd. Thought testing of cosmetics was, for the most part, of the past. There's enough existing data on enough ingredients, it's not considered needed. Then looked and this says it's been banned there for some time, except for botox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testing_cosmetics_on_animals
Also looked up the site for the organizaiton presenting the petition, and their numbers of millions just makes me wonder how it matches up. http://www.eceae.org/
-
Looked at their site more and those numbers aren't about cosmetics but they still don't add up, unless just missing something.
http://www.eceae.org/en/the-truth-about-animal-testing/key-facts
-
what numbers?
-
The last link says over 12 million. Click the read more on statistics.
-
that's not just cosmetics tho, that's all experiments
-
Don't think it's cosmetics at all, since testing has been banned there for some time and import and sale of tested cosmetics banned for the last couple of years. Was just noticing numbers in their statistics don't add up to 12 million and wonder from where that number comes.
-
When the fuck is this ever ok?
And yeh you can say testing for life-saving drugs etc makes it justifiable, but that is BULLSHIT! there are plenty of human subjects to test on, either willing ones or child-abusing scum who have forfeited their rights anyway. And these guinea pigs are going to offer much more accurate results, as they are human, therefore how can the suffering and deaths of other animals ever be justified ?
also sign this petition
http://nocruelcosmetics.org/
Experimental drugs can easily kill people or lead to devastating long-term effects. Even if they consented, testing unknown drugs on human subjects would be unethical. Testing on unwilling prisoners would also be wrong. Prisoners don't forfeit their rights; those rights are denied by the state in the interest of justice and the safety of the populace. They still exist.
-
Yes I know they don't actually forfeit their rights
I also know drugs can kill
Testing on consenting humans is only unethical in your opinion
Are the current subjects consenting?
-
Yes I know they don't actually forfeit their rights
I also know drugs can kill
Testing on consenting humans is only unethical in your opinion
Are the current subjects consenting?
Can human subjects actually make an informed decision? Most subjects of drug trials aren't doctors; they are people who happen to have a particular condition. I doubt that many of them truly understand how that drug works. Many of them may have incurable diseases, and an experimental drug may be seen as a life raft. They may underestimate the risks in their own minds; offering that life raft may be coercive. Furthermore, because of ethical concerns, a drug company may have to pay for medical treatment of anyone enrolled in a drug trial who gets sick. This can add up to a lot of money quickly. In the current system, animal lives are being used in place of human lives in the early stages of development. This is not perfect; animals do not consent to be subjects. In the end, it's an issue of acceptable losses: is it better to kill animals without consent or humans with consent?
Also, your argument is hypocritical if you eat meat. Drugs and food are both critical for human survival. There are even people who survive without eating meat; some drugs are necessary for certain people to survive. I could argue that eating meat is a selfish luxury.
-
I am reading a lot about experiments on animals in my biological psych textbook. Rats, hamsters, cats, monkeys, mice have all been experimented on. They do stuff like remove parts of the brain, stimulate parts of the brain, cause brain damage, get animals addicted to drugs, sever the spinal cord and so on.
Important discoveries have been made but yet I think it is cruel, too.
-
Nobody loves animals and defends their rights more than veterinarians, right?
Did you know that it is mandatory in most vet schools to perform at least one surgery for practice on a dog that will not survive. They do a couple of procedures then euthanize them without waking them up. This is how every advancement in medicine (both veterinary and human) has come about.
Do you feed your pets prepackaged food? To determine that the food has the appropriate ingredients to keep a pet healthy they will feed that food to a sample group of dogs or cats for a few months and then kill them and cut them apart looking for signs of malnutrition, etc.
Humanity exists in its present form for no other reason that its ability to manipulate its environment and use resources to its advantage. Animals have always been one of the most important resources available. Animal testing on cosmetics is disgusting because a creature is suffering for somebody's vanity. Animal testing to discover new surgical techniques, replacement heart valves, life saving drugs, stem cell therapy, etc is crucial to our current way of life. The alternative is settling for lives filled with pain that end in your mid-forties.
You probably don't even want to consider how many animals died for your headache pills to gain approval. Before any drug can be tested on people it must first go through at least two rounds of animal testing and all those animals are killed and dissected and analyzed.
-
Those headache pills can be tested on humans
-
Those headache pills can be tested on humans
They are tested on humans, but only after they have been tested on animals first.
-
I know that
I mean instead
-
I know that
I mean instead
Wouldn't come in question today except for in countries like North Korea.
-
I know that
I mean instead
If we had relied on strictly human testing of new medications instead of also allowing animal testing, we wouldn't have drugs like insulin now and people like Eris would have died within a few years of becoming a diabetic.
I remember reading that insulin was discovered by someone named Banting because of dogs and it was tested on dogs first. I like dogs but many diabetic dogs and cats are alive because of insulin, in addition to many diabetic people.
-
I know that
I mean instead
Wouldn't come in question today except for in countries like North Korea.
The last group of people who performed wide-scale medical testing on people instead of animals were the Nazis.
-
:thumbup:
signed the petition
am dead against using animals to test on cosmetics and
luxury items.
Not sure about the life saving drugs. In theory i agree a far
more suitable ginnea pig sits in segregated nonce cells in our prisons.
But then, as Semicolon points out, they still have rights, and how
would you feel to discover a miscarriage of justice and maybe some
one innocent died horribly?
saying that, no matter how logical it is and no matter how
beneficial to humans and medicine
i just can't bring myself to fully 'ok' it... it just doesn't seem
right to do that shit to an innocent animal. I think we fuck about
with nature too much anyway so i am inclined to say 'leave the
fucking animals alone'
I know it's a pathetic answer, and a bit too 'on the fence' but i
am afraid that is just how i feel about it :-\
-
I know that
I mean instead
If we had relied on strictly human testing of new medications instead of also allowing animal testing, we wouldn't have drugs like insulin now and people like Eris would have died within a few years of becoming a diabetic.
I remember reading that insulin was discovered by someone named Banting because of dogs and it was tested on dogs first. I like dogs but many diabetic dogs and cats are alive because of insulin, in addition to many diabetic people.
That is a good point
I know that
I mean instead
Wouldn't come in question today except for in countries like North Korea.
The last group of people who performed wide-scale medical testing on people instead of animals were the Nazis.
and that too. I agree with both of you, but i just can't file it off in my damn brain as ok
-
I know that
I mean instead
Wouldn't come in question today except for in countries like North Korea.
The last group of people who performed wide-scale medical testing on people instead of animals were the Nazis.
I know :orly:
-
Difference with the Nazis though is I'm talkign about volunteers
Well I did say child abusers as well, but that wasn't really 100% serious. It kind of was, but I know it would never work as there will always be a minority of cases where they were actually innocent. As for rights though, what about the death penalty? If you're going to kill them anyway then why not test a few thigns on them as well? It doesn't have to harm them if you do it while they're unconscious
-
Difference with the Nazis though is I'm talkign about volunteers
Well I did say child abusers as well, but that wasn't really 100% serious. It kind of was, but I know it would never work as there will always be a minority of cases where they were actually innocent. As for rights though, what about the death penalty? If you're going to kill them anyway then why not test a few thigns on them as well? It doesn't have to harm them if you do it while they're unconscious
I've heard that this does happen with volunteers. However, there is always the chance that a prisoner will receive a stay of execution at the last minute. Prisoners have a right to due process.
-
hadn't thought of that
-
My vet always says to me never give your dog human meds and vice versa. Also some drugs you can give to cats but not to dogs etc.
If this is the case i don't understand why we test human meds on animals???
We are genetically very different from say a rat, so how is judging the rats response going to help?
Am i being thick here? it doesn't make sense :dunno:
-
My vet always says to me never give your dog human meds and vice versa. Also some drugs you can give to cats but not to dogs etc.
If this is the case i don't understand why we test human meds on animals???
We are genetically very different from say a rat, so how is judging the rats response going to help?
Am i being thick here? it doesn't make sense :dunno:
I dunno? For the lulz?
(I did not just think that. Is this the forum I can blame it on Semicolon :P )
-
My vet always says to me never give your dog human meds and vice versa. Also some drugs you can give to cats but not to dogs etc.
If this is the case i don't understand why we test human meds on animals???
We are genetically very different from say a rat, so how is judging the rats response going to help?
Am i being thick here? it doesn't make sense :dunno:
I dunno? For the lulz?
(I did not just think that. Is this the forum I can blame it on Semicolon :P )
No, that would be My Way or the Highway. :zoinks:
-
My vet always says to me never give your dog human meds and vice versa. Also some drugs you can give to cats but not to dogs etc.
If this is the case i don't understand why we test human meds on animals???
We are genetically very different from say a rat, so how is judging the rats response going to help?
Am i being thick here? it doesn't make sense :dunno:
I dunno? For the lulz?
(I did not just think that. Is this the forum I can blame it on Semicolon :P )
No, that would be My Way or the Highway. :zoinks:
Oooppppsss :angel:
-
I think that humans should test on animals for the benefit of medicinal science, and only for that one reason. I do not agree with cosmetic or agricultural testing.
Callaway is right. I would be dead without it and so would millions of people. We wouldn't have the scientific breakthroughs in medicine without animal testing.
-
Difference with the Nazis though is I'm talkign about volunteers
Well I did say child abusers as well, but that wasn't really 100% serious. It kind of was, but I know it would never work as there will always be a minority of cases where they were actually innocent. As for rights though, what about the death penalty? If you're going to kill them anyway then why not test a few thigns on them as well? It doesn't have to harm them if you do it while they're unconscious
I've heard that this does happen with volunteers. However, there is always the chance that a prisoner will receive a stay of execution at the last minute. Prisoners have a right to due process.
Last stage of testing is done on humans.
A friend of mine did that to make money. Another friend of mine worked freelance at a company who did testing like that, not as a testee. She told me that if I ever needed money, she'd rather give me a grand than see me go into that testing. This final testing is where the differences between reaction of animal and human on the meds become clear.
Animal testing. I dislike it. I disapprove fully when it is about cosmetics, and most cosmetics in the cheaper range are without animal testing by now.
For medicines? I'm not liking it. But, would not know alternatives. The invention of insulin is a great good indeed.
Is it true what I heard, that progress in AIDS research is also being used to understand FelineAids better?
What MLA told about pet food is just too weird. Guess that that is what happens when you want the absolute best for your pet. :-\ We do live in the world wanting perfection and seem to barely have moral limits to get there.
So, and lets discuss bio-industry now too. A whole bunch of animals could benefit if people were prepared to pay more for their meat. Animals could have more space and more of a life, and they would taste a lot better because of that, if people were prepared to pay for it.
-
I test animals for deliciousness.
-
I test animals for deliciousness.
:laugh:
What are your findings so far?
-
They all pass.
-
i think it should be harder for companies to get a license to do this.
am sure that a lot of tests get repeated by different companies.
they would have to share the results then
(and cost's too)
i can condone some tests for valuable research, or life saving meds but the repetition of
these done by different companies and in different countries is IMO unacceptable
-
They all pass.
surely not the three toed sloth? they look very gristly
-
or humans. a lot of them look pretty filthy, not very tasty
-
or humans. a lot of them look pretty filthy, not very tasty
Chavs would probably be nutritious, though. All those gold chains -----> high mineral content! :zoinks:
-
but who knows what you'd catch from them!
-
but who knows what you'd catch from them!
Thorough cooking should be sufficient to render them safe for the dinner table! :2thumbsup:
-
but who knows what you'd catch from them!
Thorough cooking should be sufficient to render them safe for the dinner table! :2thumbsup:
Cooking gets rid of bacteria, not of toxins.
-
but who knows what you'd catch from them!
Thorough cooking should be sufficient to render them safe for the dinner table! :2thumbsup:
Cooking gets rid of bacteria, not of toxins.
Oh dear. Then perhaps it is best to leave chavs roaming in the wild! :nerd!:
-
but who knows what you'd catch from them!
Thorough cooking should be sufficient to render them safe for the dinner table! :2thumbsup:
Cooking gets rid of bacteria, not of toxins.
Oh dear. Then perhaps it is best to leave chavs roaming in the wild! :nerd!:
Toxins can make great medicines though. :orly:
-
but who knows what you'd catch from them!
Thorough cooking should be sufficient to render them safe for the dinner table! :2thumbsup:
Cooking gets rid of bacteria, not of toxins.
Oh dear. Then perhaps it is best to leave chavs roaming in the wild! :nerd!:
Toxins can make great medicines though. :orly:
Then perhaps we need a thread about chav testing! :viking:
-
but who knows what you'd catch from them!
Thorough cooking should be sufficient to render them safe for the dinner table! :2thumbsup:
Cooking gets rid of bacteria, not of toxins.
Oh dear. Then perhaps it is best to leave chavs roaming in the wild! :nerd!:
No way, Chav's deserve to be eaten to extinction
have you seen what they do to their pets
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a73/missteresabrown/jokes%202/chavkittin.jpg?t=1303822714)
-
but who knows what you'd catch from them!
Thorough cooking should be sufficient to render them safe for the dinner table! :2thumbsup:
Cooking gets rid of bacteria, not of toxins.
Oh dear. Then perhaps it is best to leave chavs roaming in the wild! :nerd!:
No way, Chav's deserve to be eaten to extinction
have you seen what they do to their pets
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a73/missteresabrown/jokes%202/chavkittin.jpg?t=1303822714)
Now that's just wrong. :zombiefuck:
-
its evil
all that burberry check
-
its evil
all that burberry check
And that vulgar gold chain! What's wrong with these people?! :screwy:
-
I test cat petting techs on cats. :LOL:
-
WTF is a Chav?
-
I think its the brit version of white trash. Or a british nigger.
-
I think its the brit version of white trash. Or a british nigger.
brigger?
-
My vet always says to me never give your dog human meds and vice versa. Also some drugs you can give to cats but not to dogs etc.
If this is the case i don't understand why we test human meds on animals???
We are genetically very different from say a rat, so how is judging the rats response going to help?
Am i being thick here? it doesn't make sense :dunno:
You are mistaken.
When it comes to DNA, it turns out there's not that much difference between mice and men.
Mice and humans each have about 30,000 genes, yet only 300 are unique to either organism. Both even have genes for a tail, even though it's not "switched on" in humans.
"About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," said Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts."
Source (http://articles.cnn.com/2002-12-04/tech/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome_1_human-genome-new-human-genes-genes-that-cause-disease?_s=PM:TECH)
-
I assumed she meant in comparison to other humans
-
WTF is a Chav?
Council
House
And
Violence
A chav can be from anywhere in the uk, although an unusually large family of them
appear to be rapidly breeding in Liverpool.
They have no morals, and will steal what they need to survive, having never been
subjected to right and wrong by their inattentive, uncaring and often absent parents.
They are by and large 'intellectually challenged' although when it comes to
claiming benefits they have an unrivalled knowledge.
Famous for wearing that hideous burberry check, or on accasion 'the shell suit'
They spit a lot, extenuating the noise of it as loudly as possible
Most popular word they use is 'innit' and can often be heard saying
this at least twenty times in one quick call on their mobile phones
which usually hangs in a plethera of fake gold around their scrawny necks.
Not all, but a fair few are white and racist - even though they talk
with a 'blick' accent and listen to hip hop.
They often hang around in 'packs' outside supermarkets, with
the trademark fake burberry cap angled on top of their acne
riddled heads. Upon site of their female form (chavette) they
will be most likely to woo her with "get your tit's out for the lad's"
The 'Chavette' is also a hideous product of the UK. It is a common
misconception that there is some far eastern influence there due
to their eyes - but their eyes are somewhat slanted due to the
fact they have their hair pulled so tightly in a bun (lots of laquer) on
top of their heads, with some curly extensions (unmatching colour)
sprouting out, it looks actually like someone tipped a pot noodle
over them.
A comical sight seen often at shopping centres, chain smoking, and
pushing the customary pushchair. When these ladies aren't fully
decked in fake burberry they can usually be seen in hideous
velour tracksuits. No socks.
-
My vet always says to me never give your dog human meds and vice versa. Also some drugs you can give to cats but not to dogs etc.
If this is the case i don't understand why we test human meds on animals???
We are genetically very different from say a rat, so how is judging the rats response going to help?
Am i being thick here? it doesn't make sense :dunno:
You are mistaken.
When it comes to DNA, it turns out there's not that much difference between mice and men.
Mice and humans each have about 30,000 genes, yet only 300 are unique to either organism. Both even have genes for a tail, even though it's not "switched on" in humans.
"About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," said Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts."
Source (http://articles.cnn.com/2002-12-04/tech/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome_1_human-genome-new-human-genes-genes-that-cause-disease?_s=PM:TECH)
Thank you. It all makes perfect sense now. Have dated several 'rodents' :2thumbsup:
-
See? Chav = nigger.