is animal testing wrong if they make the animal cuter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

I agree with that completely. I know this might seem a little off the wall, but lets presume animals can speak and have an opinion. What would they say if we asked to test on them? They would tell us to fuck off.

So because an animal is "dumb" or not smart enough to make its' own decision, speak our language. So basically because were unable to communicate with an animal, that gives us the right to do whatever the fuck we want to them? Because we are stronger, unable to have an opinion, can hold them down, and do whatever we want to them, that makes it ok? That's like saying "its ok to rape someone", its the same thing, lets look at the facts here:

1. you're not caring for the opinion of the animal / victim of rape.

2. you're unwillingly doing something to the animal / victim of rape, without permission, nor caring to even wonder the opinion.

3. when you're done with the animal / victim of rape, you don't care what is left, what has been done, or what happens from there on.

4. etc.


P.S. When I say "animal / victim of rape", I'm listing 2 different things, in no way am I comparing them. What I'm comparing is the person causing the harm and what they are doing.

---

This is pretty ridiculous but when a person rapes what is their objective and ultimate goal? And what is the objective of laboritories testing on animals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

If I have the flu or anything, I generally stick it out. It sucks, but I do. Honestly. I believe thats why I never get the flu or anything anymore really.

---

You probably haven't been sick simply because you're in your 20s and not been around people who are infected not because you've somehow given yourself some kind of super immunity because you haven't taken medicine.

Quote:

---

It is wrong for a vet to help animals because that animal DID NOT and CANNOT ask for help, so it is not our obligation nor right to help them. We as humans WALK into the doctors office, agree and sign papers and pay, etc., to agreeing to get surgery. We help "our own kind", because we agree to, we can communicate with each other. What would you do if some huge thing that was smarter than you, could take control of you with their hands, and do tests and/or surgery on you, for their kind, without being able to communicate with you to ask you if thats ok, whether or not you need it. Just doing it for its' own needs and/or wants.

---

ok, so you think animals that are clearly suffering should be left alone? Do you also think the same for people who can't communicate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

I have severe Sleep Apnea. I stop breathing in my sleep over 50 times an hour, every hour, all night while sleeping, and everytime I stop breathing my mind wakes me up to get my body to start breathing again. Because of this, I get little to no sleep, I have taken a test on it, and am supposed to wear a mask that DOES fix this problem and helps me breathe. If I don't wear the mask I could die at anytime because I could stop breathing one night, and my mind could possibly not wake me up. However I do not use it, because I believe if I deal with the problem, and let my body do what it has to do, it will fix itself. If not, then my theory is proven wrong, but I've got used to it, and I feel that I can and will eventually overcome it.

Are you honestly also stating that in this day in age, in all honesty, with all the bullshit electronics, and research, and abilities to do things....are you saying its' unable to test things without using animals? I just don't believe it.

---

is this completely in contradiction to your statements in the other thread? You're clearly abusing yourself and are doing something that could very easily lead to your own death, so why aren't you bitching at yourself?

and yes, I am. I believe that people who are smarter than me and work in the field of science know a fuckload more about the subject than I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

What risks are too high? That we are gonna hurt our own kind? So that gives us the right to be ignorant and say, "well fuck that, lets just hurt an poor helpless innocent animal instead". Why test/kill an animal that can't have an opinion, that can't do anything about it, for that one reason? Just because its defenseless and can't have an opinion lets test on it, because testing medicines for our own life gain on our own people is "wrong", so lets be ignorant and do it on an innocent animal.

Another thing, why on mice? Why not a tiger, why not a lion? Why not something that can FUCK a human up,....EXACTLY! Point proven, we use innocent defenseless animals. Now I know someone might say "we could use a lion, just put em' to sleep, and go from there, but that would just cost more and take more time", but exactly my point. We use what is easiest for us, what is cheapest for us, what is defenseless, what is "ugly" and not cute, like we wouldn't use a bunch of chihuahua's to test on, which actually I'm sure they have, but you get my drift on what I'm saying.

---

So you have an issue with what animal is used? Perhaps the costs and practicalitys of testing on lions really don't make it an optimum choice, you seem aware of that so whats your point? You think it should be less discriminate against other animals? You think working with animals that give quicker efficiancy in results should not be in the for front and that what should be considered is every animal having a chance to be tested on? Its all nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

What risks are too high? That we are gonna hurt our own kind? So that gives us the right to be ignorant and say, "well fuck that, lets just hurt an poor helpless innocent animal instead". Why test/kill an animal that can't have an opinion, that can't do anything about it, for that one reason? Just because its defenseless and can't have an opinion lets test on it, because testing medicines for our own life gain on our own people is "wrong", so lets be ignorant and do it on an innocent animal.

Another thing, why on mice? Why not a tiger, why not a lion? Why not something that can FUCK a human up,....EXACTLY! Point proven, we use innocent defenseless animals. Now I know someone might say "we could use a lion, just put em' to sleep, and go from there, but that would just cost more and take more time", but exactly my point. We use what is easiest for us, what is cheapest for us, what is defenseless, what is "ugly" and not cute, like we wouldn't use a bunch of chihuahua's to test on, which actually I'm sure they have, but you get my drift on what I'm saying.

---

so who exactly should medical testing be done on and under what conditions?

See but high risk?Thats on us to risk what were trying to help us.Not on animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeyX

I have severe Sleep Apnea. I stop breathing in my sleep over 50 times an hour, every hour, all night while sleeping, and everytime I stop breathing my mind wakes me up to get my body to start breathing again. Because of this, I get little to no sleep, I have taken a test on it, and am supposed to wear a mask that DOES fix this problem and helps me breathe. If I don't wear the mask I could die at anytime because I could stop breathing one night, and my mind could possibly not wake me up. However I do not use it, because I believe if I deal with the problem, and let my body do what it has to do, it will fix itself. If not, then my theory is proven wrong, but I've got used to it, and I feel that I can and will eventually overcome it.

---

That doesn't make sense and is medically invalid. Not treating an illness or an issue isn't going to eventually cure it. I know this because my dad has sleep apnea. Do you have a driver's license? because eventually they will suspend your license if you don't start wearing that mask, because it is dangerous for you to be driving if you aren't getting any REM sleep.

Your body isn't some magic vessel that evolves to fix itself. If you had a disease, your body isn't going to fix it because you decide not to treat it. If that were the case, nobody would ever be sick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Edge hwc

See but high risk?Thats on us to risk what were trying to help us.Not on animals.

---

Do you eat meat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Edge hwc

See but high risk?Thats on us to risk what were trying to help us.Not on animals.

---

Its inpractical and we would not advance at anywhere near a rate that would make it worth doing and we'd all still be painting x's on peoples doors. Further more the risks not only benifit humans, animals get sick and treated too. Cue ridiculous notion that we should leave animals to rot and die as they can't communicate a need or want for medical advances!

I never said let them rot,if were trying to help them then im for it.But i got the notion that this about testing on animals to help us.I know out there are many ways on find cures an other things to help us then testing on animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam Edge hwc

I never said let them rot,if were trying to help them then im for it.But i got the notion that this about testing on animals to help us.I know out there are many ways on find cures an other things to help us then testing on animals.

---

Ok, then please, be my guest...show me what other methods give the same level of results and advancement that testing on animals does...if there really is such a method then i would like to know in order to get behind it.

And if you are for the advancement of vetinary medicine then are you saying that its ok to test medical advancement intended for animals on animals? And that anything for humans should only be tested on humans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rodrigo

OH MY GOD!
LIEK OH MY GOD!1!!ONE

YOU JUST DISCOVERED THE TRUTH! AND WHILE YOU WERE POSTING!

i just thought it was because mice shared the 99% of their genes with humans... but i guess i was wrong and it was all because they are smaller and defenseless.

and did you see the mice? it was blue a supercute!

---

Thanks for the sarcasm.

Whatever the reason doesn't give us the right to test on animals for our own benefit.

I don't care if its "cute" or not, an animal is not a item to me, its not a new shirt, or new shoes, or something I think looks good or is "cute". An animal is another living thing that needs to be respected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by straightXed

So how do ill babies communicate that they are ill and want help, is it wrong to help them?

---

No, because that is our own kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by straightXed

So you risk your life for what is comming across as a really arogant moral stance yet you are prepared do ridicule and lay into your sister for controlling the fate of her life based on a mental ill health. Do you actually feel happy being such a complete contradiction in everything?

And if you believe there are ways to do the types of testing that is done on animals electronically perhaps you can point to it and give a brief insight on how that would work?

---

To me, I don't feel I'm risking my life. And my sisters life and my families lives will always be more important to me than my own life will ever be. So I guess thats a contradiction...?

So are you really trying to argue the point that we aren't far enough advanced to do testing without using animals? ....come on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rodrigo

so whats nature, acording to you?
why a lion killing for survival is different from us killing to survive?



so you do know if we can test stuff withouth hurting anybody?
cause if not, you're just talking out of ignorance and trying to prove a point just because you assume the technology is developed.

you seem extremely judgemental of human race, and i dont share that opinion. sure we have a shitload of flaws as a society. i dont know if you're lazy and money driven, according to you, you are and that shows for why you dont really investigate stuff.

the not caringpart... Ed already answered that with the babies post.



that just seems lazy, keep eating meat then and keep being a hypocrite i guess...


...and have fun dying of an illness

---

I believe its how we kill animals that is wrong in a sense. I think it is natural to kill an animal using only yourself, your bare hands, just as any animal does, but not weapons that don't even give the animal a chance.

I guess it is out of ignorance, because no I'm not a scientist, but I just can't believe that we wouldn't have the technology yet to test things on animals, but we have all this other amazing technologies in the world.

I'm not lazy or money driven in the least. I think you might have not understood me. I'm not lazy what so ever in anyway. I'm not money driven in the least, money is a way of getting by in this world to me, because I have no other choice but to live that way. I hate money in every aspect of the word, its all debt to me, but thats another conversation to me.

With the babies post like I said, they are our kind, to me that is our obligation to take care of them, WE brought them into this world. We didn't bring other animals here, they aren't our kind, not our job to help or not help them, nor test on them.

I mean this was only supposed to be a debate and conversation but seeming how you want to come at me and say shit like "have fun dying of an illness", wow...respectful there.