| Author | Message |
|---|
DIE! DIE! DIE!
Bleeding on the Floor
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1067 | August 21st, 2008 at 06:50pm
Well obviously, animal testing works, otherwise, those so called "cheeper" alternatives would be used. Large companies care most about making money, so if animal testing wasn't effective, it wouldn't be used. |
spiderpig-
Really Not Okay
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 725 | August 26th, 2008 at 05:24am DIE! DIE! DIE!:Well obviously, animal testing works, otherwise, those so called "cheeper" alternatives would be used. Large companies care most about making money, so if animal testing wasn't effective, it wouldn't be used. yes, you are very right.
poor animals...
well, if they're gonna kill animals, they should atleast replace it with the same kind... uhm.. 5x more!
that's better..
i hope they don't give the animals some..
SLOW. PAINFUL. DEATH.
who would want that anyway..? |
G Way
Jazz Hands
Age: 30
Gender: -
Posts: 335 | September 6th, 2008 at 01:19pm Nikki.:Half and half. If it's for searching for a disease cure, use the animal. But if it's for something stupid and not very usefull, don't harm the poor animal.
Yeah, but you don't know that the drug that worked on the animal will work on the human. |
IceHog69
Bulletproof Heart
Age: 31
Gender: -
Posts: 25232 | September 6th, 2008 at 01:25pm Disenchanted Parade:Nikki.:Half and half. If it's for searching for a disease cure, use the animal. But if it's for something stupid and not very usefull, don't harm the poor animal.
Yeah, but you don't know that the drug that worked on the animal will work on the human.
it might, and I personally would rather be safe than sorry. I would rather some mice died than some people.
Rabbits, apes, monkeys, dogs, i don't agree with testing on them, because they are too human almost. Rats and mice breed like anything, because in the wild, many of those will be killed off, so I think it's a more accurate representation of life., almost.
I think seal clubbing is just wrong. If you have to keep the seal population down, use a gun, and do it quickly, don't beat it to death slowly. |
Lovesick Melody.
Bulletproof Heart
Age: 83
Gender: Female
Posts: 25760 | September 6th, 2008 at 11:54pm
^^
Humans breed like anything too.
And it isn't a more accurate representation of life, because the mice are killed off in a very unnatural fashion.
Why shouldn't we use animals that are "too human"?
|
What the Frank!?
Motor Baby
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 927 | September 7th, 2008 at 12:41am animal rights all the way.
i don't need a rabbit to test my shampoo. |
Mindfuck
Always Born a Crime
Age: -
Gender: Female
Posts: 5614 | September 7th, 2008 at 02:28am ChipmunkOnKetamine:Rabbits, apes, monkeys, dogs, i don't agree with testing on them, because they are too human almost. Rats and mice breed like anything, because in the wild, many of those will be killed off, so I think it's a more accurate representation of life., almost. That logic is lost on me.
Given half a chance, any animal would "breed like anything". The only reason why it seems like mice and rats are able to breed more is because the gestation period for rats and mice is less than that of a dog, monkey or human etc. (and FYI, rabbits breed 'quickly' as well. Ever heard the saying "to breed like a rabbit"...?)
And I don't understand the "too human" comment. Can you explain some more?
I personally think It's kind of contradicting to say you're only for animal testing if it's only on some kinds of animal. You either you are or you aren't, in my books. Of course, I am preempting others will disagree and say it's not black and white like that.
But at the end of the day, companies are mainly going to test on animals based on economic reasons. Rats and mice tend to be more economically expendable than, say, apes. |
no face.
Awake and Unafraid
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 13483 | September 7th, 2008 at 07:54am violent threat.:aren't animals different from humans?
so, why is ''anti-age wrinkle cream'' being tested on them?
couldn't animals be allergic to certain stuff we aren't to?
It's confusing me.
It's just wrong.
All animals feel pain, they feel lonely.
have you seen what some animals end up like by just testing Mars Bars..or...Skittles on them?
the cosmetics are tested on animals first to see the biggest reactions, if no reactions appear, then they go through the process of testing it on about 100 humans seeing if they react.
I don't find it fair because they don't really have a choice but would you rather an animal die or a human? Imagine all the money that would be wasted on legal fees for a human if they did die? it'd be ridiculous.
|
hardcore poser
Killjoy
Age: -
Gender: -
Posts: 85 | December 22nd, 2008 at 12:04am  I am TOTALLY for animal testing because :
1. Most people eat animals practically every day (if you are not vegetarian, basically). If we can eat them to fill one stomach that could have been filled with soy or something, why can't we test on them to save many many lives ( as far as the physical suffering, a lot of the places that raise animals for meat are not very humane)?
2.The death of an animal may cause the animal physical pain, but the death of a human causes a large ripple effect of emotional pain to the loved ones of the human, on top of the individual's physical pain.
3. A human can contribute to society, where as domesticated animals are comforting and loved by people, they are not likely to discover the cure for cancer.
To me, animal testing seems very logical.
However, needlessly torturing the animal in the meantime is a big no-no. If they are possibly going to give their life for us humans, we need to treat them nice when they are alive. This should go for the meat raising places too. |
Mindfuck
Always Born a Crime
Age: -
Gender: Female
Posts: 5614 | December 22nd, 2008 at 01:21am hardcore poser:
1. Most people eat animals practically every day (if you are not vegetarian, basically). If we can eat them to fill one stomach that could have been filled with soy or something, why can't we test on them to save many many lives ( as far as the physical suffering, a lot of the places that raise animals for meat are not very humane)?
2.The death of an animal may cause the animal physical pain, but the death of a human causes a large ripple effect of emotional pain to the loved ones of the human, on top of the individual's physical pain.
3. A human can contribute to society, where as domesticated animals are comforting and loved by people, they are not likely to discover the cure for cancer.
To me, animal testing seems very logical.
However, needlessly torturing the animal in the meantime is a big no-no. If they are possibly going to give their life for us humans, we need to treat them nice when they are alive. This should go for the meat raising places too.
What about testing on animals for cosmetics? That includes makeup, moisturiser, shampoo and conditioner, hair gel, etc. That doesn't save our lives and it isn't helping "the cure for cancer", as you said. Are you all *cheer cheer yay yay* for that too? |
Kaede
Bleeding on the Floor
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 1359 | December 22nd, 2008 at 06:18am MyChemicalCourtney:I hate any form of animal cruelty. If I had my way people that burn animals with like ciggys should be put through the same thing. That may make me seem really evil but its something I feel very strongly about. Fair enough if its testing to beat cancer or something but if its for cosmetics and stuff that aint right. Im not vegetarian cos Im a very fussy eater but I dont eat KFC cos I heard what they do to their chickens  Oh and hunting sickens me to the bone. Im not even going to try and type on how much I hate hunting.I mean the type of hunting for sport and fur,teeth and stuff. So yeah I hate animal cruelty =)
Thats exactly how I think and feel.
Personally, it just makes me cry to see animals suffer so much. Eg. Like those battery hens that live in cages for the sake of producing eggs. Its cruel indeed. This is why I never buy cage eggs. |
hardcore poser
Killjoy
Age: -
Gender: -
Posts: 85 | December 23rd, 2008 at 02:23pm Mindfuck:hardcore poser:
1. Most people eat animals practically every day (if you are not vegetarian, basically). If we can eat them to fill one stomach that could have been filled with soy or something, why can't we test on them to save many many lives ( as far as the physical suffering, a lot of the places that raise animals for meat are not very humane)?
2.The death of an animal may cause the animal physical pain, but the death of a human causes a large ripple effect of emotional pain to the loved ones of the human, on top of the individual's physical pain.
3. A human can contribute to society, where as domesticated animals are comforting and loved by people, they are not likely to discover the cure for cancer.
To me, animal testing seems very logical.
However, needlessly torturing the animal in the meantime is a big no-no. If they are possibly going to give their life for us humans, we need to treat them nice when they are alive. This should go for the meat raising places too.
What about testing on animals for cosmetics? That includes makeup, moisturiser, shampoo and conditioner, hair gel, etc. That doesn't save our lives and it isn't helping "the cure for cancer", as you said. Are you all *cheer cheer yay yay* for that too?
What I meant about the cure for cancer was that the humans who are testers that die may have gone on to do something really great with their life if they had lived. But, if we don't want testers to die, we would have to leave products untested. Imagine a little girl that dies because her shampoo poisoned her. Who is to say she wasn't going to do something great with her life?
Since we probably don't want anything to die, the only solution seems to be not to use products. It may sound okay, but I don't think I'm ready to stop washing my hair with shampoo. I could see cutting down on unnecessarys like eyeliner and perfume and stuff, though.
I don't think animal testing is RIGHT, I just don't think it should be STOPPED. |
Mindfuck
Always Born a Crime
Age: -
Gender: Female
Posts: 5614 | December 23rd, 2008 at 05:46pm hardcore poser:What I meant about the cure for cancer was that the humans who are testers that die may have gone on to do something really great with their life if they had lived. But, if we don't want testers to die, we would have to leave products untested. Imagine a little girl that dies because her shampoo poisoned her. Who is to say she wasn't going to do something great with her life?
Since we probably don't want anything to die, the only solution seems to be not to use products. It may sound okay, but I don't think I'm ready to stop washing my hair with shampoo. I could see cutting down on unnecessarys like eyeliner and perfume and stuff, though.
I don't think animal testing is RIGHT, I just don't think it should be STOPPED. Animal testing for cosmetics isn't wholly necessary, though. This is why a lot of people don't support cosmetics testing on animals.
Animals aren't the only way of testing cosmetics 
There are several countries in Europe which have already outlawed animal testing on cosmetics. Alternatives to it include using cultured cells, and microdosing. Both don't use animals to test on.
Plus, cosmetics testing on animals doesn't always give the accurate results, and a lot of companies who test on animals treat them cruelly unnecessarily. |
hardcore poser
Killjoy
Age: -
Gender: -
Posts: 85 | December 24th, 2008 at 12:30pm Mindfuck:hardcore poser:What I meant about the cure for cancer was that the humans who are testers that die may have gone on to do something really great with their life if they had lived. But, if we don't want testers to die, we would have to leave products untested. Imagine a little girl that dies because her shampoo poisoned her. Who is to say she wasn't going to do something great with her life?
Since we probably don't want anything to die, the only solution seems to be not to use products. It may sound okay, but I don't think I'm ready to stop washing my hair with shampoo. I could see cutting down on unnecessarys like eyeliner and perfume and stuff, though.
I don't think animal testing is RIGHT, I just don't think it should be STOPPED. Animal testing for cosmetics isn't wholly necessary, though. This is why a lot of people don't support cosmetics testing on animals.
Animals aren't the only way of testing cosmetics
There are several countries in Europe which have already outlawed animal testing on cosmetics. Alternatives to it include using cultured cells, and microdosing. Both don't use animals to test on.
Plus, cosmetics testing on animals doesn't always give the accurate results, and a lot of companies who test on animals treat them cruelly unnecessarily.
You know, I did a little research on this and the cultured cells stuff sounds really cool! At first I was under the impression that it was very expensive, and did not provide accurate results, but I just found out that the opposite is true and that it is cheaper and more accurate than testing on animals, and on top of all that great stuff NOTHING HAS TO DIE! sorry but that kinda rocks! Why doesn't everyone use it? It seems the most logical solution so far.
As far as the microdoseing though, it only has a 70% correspondence record between its self and full testing (30% of the times microdoseing gave a thumbs up on a product when full testing gave a thumbs down.) It seems to me that with this method, products might have to be tested both ways anyways, due to inaccuracy. But, if we could find a way to make it more accurate, there would be hope in it.
Seriously, you just swayed my opinion, and you have no idea how many hours my friends spent trying to do that with "But look into this puppy's eyes!" stuff. Thank you for the enlightenment  |
questionable content
Always Born a Crime
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 5604 | December 26th, 2008 at 12:49pm If microdosing is cheaper, why don't companies use that instead of animal testing? |
John St. John
Shotgun Sinner
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 7145 | December 26th, 2008 at 07:01pm always:If microdosing is cheaper, why don't companies use that instead of animal testing?
I honestly dont know what microdosing is, but perhaps its more widely available or easier to use.
By the way, im not supporting the use of animal testing, im just trying to throw up some reasons why. |
questionable content
Always Born a Crime
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 5604 | December 26th, 2008 at 07:13pm ^ Maybe
but really, if it's cheaper and more ethical, you would think that companies would use that instead. Animal testing definitely has advantages over microdosing in some way; otherwise animal testing would be a thing of the past. |
Mindfuck
Always Born a Crime
Age: -
Gender: Female
Posts: 5614 | December 26th, 2008 at 07:33pm Well, it is a thing of the past for some countries (companies too maybe?). I just wish more countries would follow suit. Even if non-animal testing experiments were more expensive, I'd prefer companies use them rather than test on animals. I think unnecessary testing is awful full stop.
hardcore poser: You're welcome 
I'm glad you were enlightened. |
girl interrupted.
Salute You in Your Grave
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 2792 | December 27th, 2008 at 11:40am
animal testing, especially for cosmetics, seems silly to me.
if we can buy non-tested products already that are safe - why do we still need testing?
if it's drugs, i can kinda see why we'd need some tests before we test on humans,
but i didn't know about the cell thingy, and if we can do that - why not?! it's cheaper, apparently,
and nothing dies!
btw. animals feel emotional pain too.
all mothers, human or cow, pig, dog, whatever - have an instinct to protect their babies.
[i got this from PETA2. and i've heard that they twist and exaggerate, but they can't make
entirely false claims with no backing.]
|
it's all happening
Salute You in Your Grave
Age: 31
Gender: Female
Posts: 2038 | January 7th, 2009 at 11:22pm Out of curiosity...
What do you guys think about using animals for educational purposes?
Here's the background behind that question: There's a school for health professions in my city and, in class, they dissect animals more often than your average high school. This I am perfectly okay with-- they're gonna be our future doctors, so they should be amply trained with real beings.
But something I recently saw from one of the students made me completely sick. For science fair, a boy decided to take newts (three or four) and raise them for a few weeks. From what I could tell by the pictures he posted on facebook(why?!), he let them get comfortable with their surroundings and then took a knife and cut off one of each of their legs while it was still alive (he posted those pictures too), and saw how each responded in different settings.
Personally, this kind of thing makes me sick.
What's your take? |
