is animal testing wrong if they make the animal cuter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

Yes it is wrong to me. Just as l0om said it is wrong to beat your wife, but that was once acceptable. All it takes is for someone to believe it is wrong to THEM(me), and to start making a difference by becoming vegan, becoming an activist, etc. Year after year, more and more people are becoming vegan, and in this world that is "health" crazy, it won't surprise me that within the next couple of centuries, vegan will be the normal lifestyle, and eating meat will be close to obsolete.

The only people that will still eat meat, it thick skulled, close minded people, who think "meat is the way to go, cause my granddaddy said so", and people who still think they are "superior" to other animals.

---

sure and then it will be right, but right now, that's now how the world is, so to try and discuss it like there's some kind of universal acceptance just simply isn't true. In the world you're living in, you have to come to terms with the fact that your belief that something is wrong, doesn't mean that it is. But this rant doesn't really have anything to do with what I said. If you you're going to talk about what gives someone the right to do something, then explain to me what you're using to decide that? I've explained why I think I have the right to do certain things, but you've seem to ignore the question and just gone on some weird emotional rant that doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.

Quote:

---

Do you agree the saying that "if every bee in the world was to vanish, man would have less than 5(or some odd)years left to live". Thats my point, I believe that, even if it is somewhat not completely true(fact wise), the ideal of it is, that we need other animals to live, and not by eating them or testing on them. We need animals for natural things in life, example: pollination, plants, air.

But I don't believe in fucking with them.

---

Yes, but there's nothing natural about how bees are used to pollinate crops and certainly isn't vegan. Packing colonies up in trucks and driving them around the country is somehow natural to you? But uh, what does that have to do with what we're talking about?

Quote:

---

Just because something is a law, doesn't make it right. Otherwise you are stating that if you lived in the time period where it was LEGAL to beat your wife, you would've beaten your wife.

---

Uh. the law is a representation of what a society believes. What do you think the law is? Things that are legal are right, things that are illegal are wrong. As are most things in life, they're fluid. Things that were right at one point in time doesn't mean they always will. how do you decide and then enforce what's right or wrong? Or does what you think simply overrides that of EVERYONE else because you THINK you're right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsecx

sure and then it will be right, but right now, that's now how the world is, so to try and discuss it like there's some kind of universal acceptance just simply isn't true. In the world you're living in, you have to come to terms with the fact that your belief that something is wrong, doesn't mean that it is. But this rant doesn't really have anything to do with what I said. If you you're going to talk about what gives someone the right to do something, then explain to me what you're using to decide that? I've explained why I think I have the right to do certain things, but you've seem to ignore the question and just gone on some weird emotional rant that doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.




Yes, but there's nothing natural about how bees are used to pollinate crops and certainly isn't vegan. Packing colonies up in trucks and driving them around the country is somehow natural to you? But uh, what does that have to do with what we're talking about?



Uh. the law is a representation of what a society believes. What do you think the law is? Things that are legal are right, things that are illegal are wrong. As are most things in life, they're fluid. Things that were right at one point in time doesn't mean they always will. how do you decide and then enforce what's right or wrong? Or does what you think simply overrides that of EVERYONE else because you THINK you're right?

---

So you decide everything in your life you believe, on the law? You don't go, well that law is fucked up and I don't think that is right? Ever. You always do what "society" thinks is right? I wouldn't think you do, because you are straight edge, it is the given right by LAW to drink, but you choose not, why? Because you think it is wrong,....right?

So yeah, my opinion does run off of my emotion, just as the emotion that hitting women is wrong. Its not a "fact" that hitting women is wrong, its an emotional feeling/thought that makes hitting women wrong.

I'm not talking about packing bees up and using them. I'm talking about the natural life of a bee and pollination. I think it is wrong to do anything with an animal, like I have said before.

I'm not saying its necessarily universally accepted, but more and more people everyday are accepting the EMOTIONAL feeling that it is wrong to test/kill animals like we do. Such as the emotional feeling came about with hitting women, and now it is illegal. Someone didn't just wake up one day, without any emotion and go "HITTING WOMEN IS WRONG"(now I do obviously think it is completely wrong), but what makes it wrong? the fact that a girl isn't a guy? the fact that a girl has breasts? what makes it any different than hitting a man? exactly, emotion. So yes, I do run a lot if not all of my opinions on my emotions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by straightXed

well what is the crimainals motivation and reason? You seem to miss that element of my post, why is that? Besides as a part of society i feel the law is applicable to all and even if you robbed a bank to pay for your ill mothers life saving opperation i would think it was wrong to break the law so you are way off with your analogy anyway. If the society i was part of were to agree upon it being illegal to test on animals then the analogy might have more chance of working but its a legal practice. And i never suggested the middle point didn't matter rather that i believe you should consider the end result and the motivation behind why the middle point occurs before writing it off as barbaric and unintelligent. Because even though loomy has posted that it costs some money and some animals die he too has ignored that the motivation behind it all is to save lives and heal conditions that effect us all, it has made massive advances that neither you or loomy should consistantly want any part of. Hence your renouncement of medicince (which, incidently, i still believe will not be a life long thing). I do still feel that, whilst you obviously are passionate about remaining consistant in that notion, you could be doing more and it makes it rather hard to accept any argument you make when the inconsistancy is right there. Aside from chatting on here, what do you do to support your passionate stance against medicine tested on animals? If i was in a position to take a new drug that had been tested on animals and would potentially help rid me and all man and animals of a life threatening disease, what would your advice to me be?



I think you mean couldn't care less not could care less but what makes you think it means they are caring less, and what makes you think its about just my own life? This is exactly what you did before, you didn't factor in why they test on animals, its in order to make progress in medicine for everyone, to combat disease that potentially effects everyone and is doing so at an astounding rate, i am not without compassion for any animal but i am able to accept the losses involved in medical testing in the hope we can ultimately save more and more lives year on year.

As well as you becoming vegan you make me think you should follow jainism or something with statements you have made.

---

aren't you vegan? isn't being vegan and agreeing that animal testing is ok or a right technique for testing, hypocritical?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

So you decide everything in your life you believe, on the law? You don't go, well that law is fucked up and I don't think that is right? Ever. You always do what "society" thinks is right? I wouldn't think you do, because you are straight edge, it is the given right by LAW to drink, but you choose not, why? Because you think it is wrong,....right?

---

If I'm talking about what a person has the right to do, versus what I think is right, then yes it's based on the law, since that's why it's there. You don't seem to understand the difference. I don't have the right to stop someone drinking. I do however have the right to try and influence things so that at some point drinking isn't necessary. I don't have the RIGHT to enforce my personal morality on anyone else, that's what laws are for.

Quote:

---

So yeah, my opinion does run off of my emotion, just as the emotion that hitting women is wrong. Its not a "fact" that hitting women is wrong, its an emotional feeling/thought that makes hitting women wrong.

---

Yeah and that's great for people that agree with you. The problem happens on subjects like there were there isn't agreement. So how do you decide what's right then? Why would your opinion be more important than someone elses?

Quote:

---

I'm not talking about packing bees up and using them. I'm talking about the natural life of a bee and pollination. I think it is wrong to do anything with an animal, like I have said before.

---

How do you think crops get pollinated? Do you really think that there are all these bee colonies local to crops that just make that happen naturally? Dude, I really keep getting the opinion that you spout things that you don't really understand how they work.

Quote:

---

I'm not saying its necessarily universally accepted, but more and more people everyday are accepting the EMOTIONAL feeling that it is wrong to test/kill animals like we do. Such as the emotional feeling came about with hitting women, and now it is illegal. Someone didn't just wake up one day, without any emotion and go "HITTING WOMEN IS WRONG"(now I do obviously think it is completely wrong), but what makes it wrong? the fact that a girl isn't a guy? the fact that a girl has breasts? what makes it any different than hitting a man? exactly, emotion. So yes, I do run a lot if not all of my opinions on my emotions.

---

I like how you take this discussion from something not emotional to something emotional. We're talking about what gives someone the right to think something and you keep focusing on these weird things, like murder, like racism, like wife beatings. Things that no one would disagree at this day and age that it's right. Right now, what you're talking about is choosing human lives over animal lives or choosing animal lives over human. Right now you are choosing animal lives over human lives. I, and most people, think that human lives are more important than animals. you must too on some level since you keep ignoring the question about your mother. Your emotional arguments don't really hold any influence to anyone but you if you can't present them with a well thought out and supported argument. Right now all you have is "I think animals should be left alone and people should figure some other way out and if they don't then they should die, because i said so"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

aren't you vegan? isn't being vegan and agreeing that animal testing is ok or a right technique for testing, hypocritical?

---

your reading comprehension sucks.

and griffo is a vegan and has said in this tread that he supports animal testing where necessary.

Thanks for the compliment.

I do not think anybody should die because their opinion. I might think they are wrong, but I don't think they should die because of it. I base my opinion on my feelings, because I do not want nor do I care to look into how it is done, I see it being done, and that is enough for me to hate it. That is enough of a reason for me to think it is wrong. I don't need facts, I don't need numbers, or the law, or a percentage of society and how they feel. I'm saying that I myself think it is wrong, to hurt an animal. I think it would be wrong to test on my mother, I think it would be wrong to test on your mother, I think it would be wrong to test on any living species, and me seeing their suffering is enough for me to make that point. I'm also not forcing my opinion on somebody, however I will easily show my feelings on the situation.

I'm sorry that I'm not educated enough for you to give you all these statistics, or laws. I'm also sorry that I do not care what most of society does and or feels on a situation, because I'd rather live with my own feelings. I'm also sorry that I'm not sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

I do not think anybody should die because their opinion. I might think they are wrong, but I don't think they should die because of it. I base my opinion on my feelings, because I do not want nor do I care to look into how it is done, I see it being done, and that is enough for me to hate it. That is enough of a reason for me to think it is wrong. I don't need facts, I don't need numbers, or the law, or a percentage of society and how they feel. I'm saying that I myself think it is wrong, to hurt an animal. I think it would be wrong to test on my mother, I think it would be wrong to test on your mother, I think it would be wrong to test on any living species, and me seeing their suffering is enough for me to make that point. I'm also not forcing my opinion on somebody, however I will easily show my feelings on the situation.

---

That's all fine, except right now, something has to die. It's either going to be animals that are being used for medical testing, or humans that die because the research has been stopped. You being ignorant about how things work means that your opinion is an uninformed on and therefore doesn't hold as much weight as someone who has researched the subject, thought about and come to a conclusion that is supported by facts. You've just basically listed reasons why everyone should dismiss your feelings on the subject because they're not based on anything other than your emotions. You can't even answer why you think it's wrong to test on another species other than "because I feel it's wrong"

Quote:

---

I'm sorry that I'm not educated enough for you to give you all these statistics, or laws. I'm also sorry that I do not care what most of society does and or feels on a situation, because I'd rather live with my own feelings. I'm also sorry that I'm not sorry.

---

You should be sorry that your keep using the word ignorant when it really does apply to yourself. It really shows how much you really care about a subject that you don't even bother researching it to really understand the situation other than a surface understanding of animals die, animals dying bad. animal testing bad. hulk smash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsecx

That's all fine, except right now, something has to die. It's either going to be animals that are being used for medical testing, or humans that die because the research has been stopped. You being ignorant about how things work means that your opinion is an uninformed on and therefore doesn't hold as much weight as someone who has researched the subject, thought about and come to a conclusion that is supported by facts. You've just basically listed reasons why everyone should dismiss your feelings on the subject because they're not based on anything other than your emotions. You can't even answer why you think it's wrong to test on another species other than "because I feel it's wrong"




You should be sorry that your keep using the word ignorant when it really does apply to yourself. It really shows how much you really care about a subject that you don't even bother researching it to really understand the situation other than a surface understanding of animals die, animals dying bad. animal testing bad. hulk smash.

---

Maybe I should change my name to Hulk Smash.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsecx

I just told you, you just didn't like the answer.

---

answering a question with similar questions just to flip the sides is not an answer.. and definitely not the type of answers you seem to like... and also demand on anyone else..

Quote:

---

well no, it has everything to do with it. What gives you the right to do anything? The bad things in the world, if they're allowed in that place, the people doing them have the right. You may disagree with something like abortion, but that doesn't give you the right to stop someone from doing it. You think it's bad, most people think it's good, so what right do you have to stop it? How is your opinion more valid that someone elses? Why do you have the right to direct action, but the people you're acting against don't even though what you're doing is illegal and what they're doing is legal and accepted?

---

this is no argument at all... if something is bad in this world, it's our duty (or a right at minimum) to try to change it and make the world better.. if not - why the hell are we testing on rodents for over 40 years to get a cure for cancer even when we know that rodents do never get membrane affecting cancer (carcinom) like we do most of the time, just bone sarkomas? just to inprison them, exploit them, torture them, kill them? that would be even more twisted than it really is..

i'm not throwing bombs at labs, i don't do direct liberation actions, i'm not even burning circuses, would you believe that? i'm fighting with weapons that everyone is able to use. words. and i didn't dispute your right to have such a different approach on this topic for a second.. i'm not really forcing anyone to do anything except thinking. so the analogy with abortion is reeeally flawed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsecx

and how many lives were saved from those 25 million animal deaths? There have been 25 million deaths to HIV/AIDS alone. So how many lives do you think were extended due to animal testing? How many more people are alive today than wouldn't be, just from HIV/AIDS if testing hadn't been done?

---

HIV and AIDS is not the same thing.. anyway i honestly don't know.. you don't know and anyone else don't know.. what I know, is that more than 90% drugs that passed animal tests are discarded and never hit the market.. what I know is that (despite of what you said) we share only about 2 % of illnesses with other animals.. what I know about are 100000 death humans in 1994 due to toxic reaction to drugs that safely passed the animal tests.. is that even possible? yes, of course it is.. if we would count serious side effects, drugs on the market cause harm or even death of humans in more than 60% cases (another study says 4 of 10)... i should propably name some:

Practolol caused about 20 deaths and also caused blindness to more than 90 people after safely passing animal tests...
Opren killed 61 people and caused harm to thousands of others.. but was sucessfully tested on primates
Flosint is proved to be fatal to humans even if it passed the tests on monkeys, dogs and rats.

every year hundreds of thousands are killed worldwide due to prescription drugs. more 2 million hospitalized.. and 80% of stillbirths are due to these drugs...so, ok, what about flipping sides:

lemon juice is deadly poisonous according to animal tests (but botulin and arsenic is fine)
at least 50 drugs you can buy cause cancer to animals
if we would rely on animal tests solely, there would be no insulin, ritalin, and even penicilin.. none of these passes animal testing..

and what about thalidomide? thalidomide was a german drug for nightmares and it was declared as a safe sedative even for breastfeeding mothers as it was tested on thousands of animals.. what happened? ten of thousands babies born to mothers using thalidomide were born with dysfunctions and deformations.. and now, when the lucky ones who survived have children, they have the same deformations as their fathers/mothers..

so is it justifiable to kill 25 million animals A YEAR(!) to have results with this accuracy? wouldn't be wiser and safer for both humans and animals to use those 136 billions a year to try to develop a human body simulation than to keep injecting our own diseases to animals that react different or don't "catch" the disease at all?

or what about prevention? we're on sxe forum and we all realize that when you smoke for years, you'll have lung cancer some day (so why we're regularely testing cigs?).. this is also valid for many other diseases (not saying that for all even when some reports say that) - healthy lifestyle and prevention is the best "cure".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

aren't you vegan? isn't being vegan and agreeing that animal testing is ok or a right technique for testing, hypocritical?

---

Ok, you obviously missed my last post, when you address it you will see that i am clearly not vegan. I personally try to have consistancy with my actions and beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

Yes it is wrong to me. Just as l0om said it is wrong to beat your wife, but that was once acceptable. All it takes is for someone to believe it is wrong to THEM(me), and to start making a difference by becoming vegan, becoming an activist, etc. Year after year, more and more people are becoming vegan, and in this world that is "health" crazy, it won't surprise me that within the next couple of centuries, vegan will be the normal lifestyle, and eating meat will be close to obsolete.

---

Odd seeing as meat sales are up despite a recession...but then i am "health crazy" and eat meat which might be where a flaw lies in your theory.

But i did ask in an earlier post what action you actually take to coincide with your views...you mention activism and veganism, could you give more background on this in relation to you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

The only people that will still eat meat, it thick skulled, close minded people, who think "meat is the way to go, cause my granddaddy said so", and people who still think they are "superior" to other animals.

---

Do you believe that eating meat is honestly about being thick skulled? In your world view is there simply no superiority or do you believe that a righteous vegan human is superior to a meat eating one? Because i am unsure from this statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

So you decide everything in your life you believe, on the law? You don't go, well that law is fucked up and I don't think that is right? Ever. You always do what "society" thinks is right? I wouldn't think you do, because you are straight edge, it is the given right by LAW to drink, but you choose not, why? Because you think it is wrong,....right?

---

I personally accept that the law allows drinking but it is not mandatory, i don't find a need to and find the idea quite pointless but i am part of society and the law represents us as a whole. Straightedge is considerably minor and for the law to reflect straightedge and outlaw drinking would infringe upon masses and only compliment a minority...that is not really helpful. You and your belief is that of a minority, most people support testing...there are many who think its cruel but think the advance in medicine makes it justifiable. Then theres you who shuns medicine altogether, quite a minority really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

So yeah, my opinion does run off of my emotion, just as the emotion that hitting women is wrong. Its not a "fact" that hitting women is wrong, its an emotional feeling/thought that makes hitting women wrong.

---

Actually, legally speaking, it is a fact that it is wrong to hit someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

I'm not saying its necessarily universally accepted, but more and more people everyday are accepting the EMOTIONAL feeling that it is wrong to test/kill animals like we do.

---

Many balance out the emotion with the fact it is being used to further advance medicine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

Such as the emotional feeling came about with hitting women, and now it is illegal. Someone didn't just wake up one day, without any emotion and go "HITTING WOMEN IS WRONG"(now I do obviously think it is completely wrong), but what makes it wrong? the fact that a girl isn't a guy? the fact that a girl has breasts? what makes it any different than hitting a man? exactly, emotion. So yes, I do run a lot if not all of my opinions on my emotions.

---

Difference is there really doesn't seem to be an argument that much good comes from hitting a woman, hence me asking for the arguments for and against both wife beating and animal testing because one has positves as an end result and the other generally doesn't. I am aware the end result matters little to you and that medicine is not very important to you as you do not partake but i am hoping you can see it from a more objective standpoint.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lo0m

answering a question with similar questions just to flip the sides is not an answer.. and definitely not the type of answers you seem to like... and also demand on anyone else..

---

I told you what gave me the right, you just didn't like it. I also asked what you think gave you the right, which you apparently still can't answer.

Quote:

---

this is no argument at all... if something is bad in this world, it's our duty (or a right at minimum) to try to change it and make the world better.. if not - why the hell are we testing on rodents for over 40 years to get a cure for cancer even when we know that rodents do never get membrane affecting cancer (carcinom) like we do most of the time, just bone sarkomas? just to inprison them, exploit them, torture them, kill them? that would be even more twisted than it really is..

---

which is great, when everyone is in agreement about what makes something bad. Like for instance, right now, I and others here think your viewpoint would actually make the world a worse place. You somehow think that your personal morality is the universally right one, when most people don't agree with you.

Quote:

---

i'm not throwing bombs at labs, i don't do direct liberation actions, i'm not even burning circuses, would you believe that? i'm fighting with weapons that everyone is able to use. words. and i didn't dispute your right to have such a different approach on this topic for a second.. i'm not really forcing anyone to do anything except thinking. so the analogy with abortion is reeeally flawed...

---

but you support direct action, so it's not flawed at all. You're not against direct action. you wouldn't try and talk someone out it, and I'm sure you've done thing that support organizations that do it. Or are you going to take back what you said in the militant thread? And if you could, please answer specifically the following questions:

You think it's bad, most people think it's good, so what right do you have to stop it? How is your opinion more valid that someone elses? Why do you have the right to direct action, but the people you're acting against don't even though what you're doing is illegal and what they're doing is legal and accepted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lo0m

HIV and AIDS is not the same thing.. anyway i honestly don't know.. you don't know and anyone else don't know.. what I know, is that more than 90% drugs that passed animal tests are discarded and never hit the market.. what I know is that (despite of what you said) we share only about 2 % of illnesses with other animals.. what I know about are 100000 death humans in 1994 due to toxic reaction to drugs that safely passed the animal tests.. is that even possible? yes, of course it is.. if we would count serious side effects, drugs on the market cause harm or even death of humans in more than 60% cases (another study says 4 of 10)... i should propably name some:

---

One is the earlier stage of the other. And yet, you feel the need to state that but don't actually address the point. You completely dodge the point. So here's some things that are known:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN2430954320080725

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0701190435.htm

just look at the death rates from measels, mumps, polio, and tb since vaccines were created.

And you're going to tell me that the number of lives effected are somehow unknown? It's not that they're unknown, they're just way more numerous than you'd like to think about because it shoots your argument to shit.

Quote:

---

Practolol caused about 20 deaths and also caused blindness to more than 90 people after safely passing animal tests...
Opren killed 61 people and caused harm to thousands of others.. but was sucessfully tested on primates
Flosint is proved to be fatal to humans even if it passed the tests on monkeys, dogs and rats.

every year hundreds of thousands are killed worldwide due to prescription drugs. more 2 million hospitalized.. and 80% of stillbirths are due to these drugs...so, ok, what about flipping sides:

lemon juice is deadly poisonous according to animal tests (but botulin and arsenic is fine)
at least 50 drugs you can buy cause cancer to animals
if we would rely on animal tests solely, there would be no insulin, ritalin, and even penicilin.. none of these passes animal testing..

and what about thalidomide? thalidomide was a german drug for nightmares and it was declared as a safe sedative even for breastfeeding mothers as it was tested on thousands of animals.. what happened? ten of thousands babies born to mothers using thalidomide were born with dysfunctions and deformations.. and now, when the lucky ones who survived have children, they have the same deformations as their fathers/mothers..

so is it justifiable to kill 25 million animals A YEAR(!) to have results with this accuracy? wouldn't be wiser and safer for both humans and animals to use those 136 billions a year to try to develop a human body simulation than to keep injecting our own diseases to animals that react different or don't "catch" the disease at all?

---

You want an honest answer? I don't know. I'm not a scientist. I do however know that a lot of them are an awful lot smarter than you and me. I also know that there aren't exactly a load of scientists who are against animal testing for medical research. So, what makes you more qualified than them? Don't you think if they thought there was a better way, they'd use it? Also, why are you in denial that there are other things being done to decrease the number of tests done on animals such as computer modeling?

Quote:

---

or what about prevention? we're on sxe forum and we all realize that when you smoke for years, you'll have lung cancer some day (so why we're regularely testing cigs?).. this is also valid for many other diseases (not saying that for all even when some reports say that) - healthy lifestyle and prevention is the best "cure".

---

And an awful lot of things can't be prevented, especially when you don't know the causes. And how do you learn the causes? Research. It's fun circle, isn't it.