i'm for it for true medicine, not for cosmetics or dishwashing liquid.

kenoki wrote:animal testing for cosmetics and vanity products is a definite no-no in my book. animal testing to fight diseases such as cancer is fine by me. there are plenty of people who lead healthy lifestyles and end up with terrible (theoretically genetic) diseases, of which water, vitamins and surgery will not cure. i guess you could say these people should just die, boombats, i guess... but i don't find that very compassionate at all. if giving up my beloved dog to testing, who the very thought of dying makes me cry a little bit, would save a family member's life... i wouldn't think twice about giving hank the cow dog up, and i would never regret that decision.

when i think about animal testing i invariably end up thinking about linda mccartney (who i could otherwise give two shits about) and when she was going through her cancer treatment. as you know, she gave most of her life to animals rights issues, was a vegan, and completely against animal testing. in the end she had her doctor lie to her and say certain treatments were not tested on animals because, in the end, her life was more important to her. i don't think that's selfish. she ended up dying anyway, but lots of other good people undergoing the same treatment have not.

boombats, i empathize with your stance, but cannot agree.

I hear you Kenoki, but you can't just trade your dog in for cancer treatment. It takes many years to develop various medicines, so it's not like Linda McCartney's treatment (which as you say, failed) was the result of anything she could have refused or approved. They didn't throw a Rhesus monkey in a blender and dump it in her IV.

As far as picking my statement about people dying as not compassionate, it's not up to me whether people live or die. It is up to me and all of us whether we procreate like hairless rabbits, and it is up to us whether we support companies that test on animals.

I do feel for people languishing in hospitals because some company poisoned their drinking water, but fuck there are too many people. Before you say it, yes there are also too many cows, pigs, chickens and sheep, as well as lab rats. Eating/testing on them is not keeping the population down though, it's keeping it on the rise. But all the treatments that keep people alive also keeps them in hospitals, paying crazy bills that sap their families' resources when they're going to die eventually anyway. Go gracefully I say.

Ultimately though I think that doing anything against another living thinking creature's will is suspect. Yeah I walk my dog on a leash though he'd prefer to run in the street, but this protects him from being crushed under a truck. I don't feed him slurry and mine gold from his disdended bowels, which is analogous to the practices of the phameceutical giants.

Boombats wrote:As far as picking my statement about people dying as not compassionate, it's not up to me whether people live or die.

But the world is over populated so let everyone die of potentially curable diseases if it means some bunny rabbits get a chance at life too.
Thanks for suggesting your monopoly on what compassion is then presenting this as your position.

Boombats wrote:Ultimately though I think that doing anything against another living thinking creature's will is suspect.

So mice now are 'thinking creatures' with a 'will' are they?

So which is it Boombats - the little girl or the dog?

cjh wrote:With clear scientific purpose, rigorous controls, having them effected as humanely and as sparingly as possible and making the results and methods transparent and open to scrutiny I think a good case can be argued in favour of them.

I am concerned for animal welfare and think their lives worthy of our respect but given the stakes and the recorded benefits I would say I'm cautiously in favour of it.

Exactly what he said.

I'm a vegetarian, but ultimately I value human beings more than I value animals.

I have met people who claim that an animal's life is equal to a human's; I can't fathom this viewpoint.

Boombats wrote: I do feel for people languishing in hospitals because some company poisoned their drinking water, but fuck there are too many people.

You seem to be suggesting, in order to avoid the implications of your argument, that all diseases are caused by technology and industry.

Not only is this obvious nonsense (not requiring links or anything) it sounds to me like you are blaming the victims of ecological crimes for the crimes they are the victims of on account of the fact that we're all humans and therefore all to blame for the shit in the water supply.

But fuck it - there are too many people eh?

= not compassionate

I have done drug tests before on the basis of, If they test on animals, Yeah sure it may work for them, but a human is an entirely different type of species.
If something I have done in my testing works, that would be awesome.
If you are going to test on animals, test them for cures for animals ONLY!

IMO

ant man bee wrote:I remember a someone saying "if hooking a monkey's head up to a car battery will find a cure for AIDS, I only have one thing to say: Black is negative and red is positive."

denis leary?

Little Atlas Heavyweight wrote:

ant man bee wrote:I remember a someone saying "if hooking a monkey's head up to a car battery will find a cure for AIDS, I only have one thing to say: Black is negative and red is positive."

denis leary?

Sadly, I think this is correct...

Earwicker wrote:

Boombats wrote: I do feel for people languishing in hospitals because some company poisoned their drinking water, but fuck there are too many people.

You seem to be suggesting, in order to avoid the implications of your argument, that all diseases are caused by technology and industry.

I can see how if you pick at this little side comment I made that you would come to that conclusion. This was a tangent I went on for a second and not the central element of my arguement. If you wish to pick at it I will respond: yes much illness is a result of human mistake. Smoking, pollution, radiation, whatever. Follow THIS LINK for a timely thread re: animal testing AND the way humans hurt themselves. No I am not saying that people deserve it. You WANT me to seem like I am saying that, so you can attack ME, because you can not sucessfully attack my central arguement. You are attempting to discredit ME (see below for further yellow journalism) because you haven't said one thing that adresses my real point: that given the option of animal vs non-animal testing, the person who chooses to test on animals is a heartless fuck (or at least lazy and ignorant). Answer me that, or shut the fuck up (and change your avatar to a vivisected dog).

Earwicker wrote:

Boombats wrote:As far as picking my statement about people dying as not compassionate, it's not up to me whether people live or die.

But the world is over populated so let everyone die of potentially curable diseases if it means some bunny rabbits get a chance at life too.
Thanks for suggesting your monopoly on what compassion is then presenting this as your position.

Nope that's not what I said. And of course you like to say "bunny rabbits" as if I'm a drooling retard from Of Mice And Men. Clever.

Earwicker wrote:

Boombats wrote:Ultimately though I think that doing anything against another living thinking creature's will is suspect.

So mice now are 'thinking creatures' with a 'will' are they?
So which is it Boombats - the little girl or the dog?

You're such an asswipe. The choice is NOT "little girl vs dog." It NEVER was. You're just loading your statements to sound like I'm a babykiller who has a lab rat fetish. Fuck you.

Hang your daughter and my dog over a bridge and ask me which one to drop. Then I'll answer your loaded question.

And I bet a lab rat finds its way out of a maze before you do. All mammals are thinking creatures with a will. Some have less sophisticated nervous systems. I won't lie, I don't think a rat gives a fuck whether a human lives or dies. However that's what makes us human, our ability to protect or harm based on who we are. I am a protector of life. What are you?

Rachi wrote:I have done drug tests before on the basis of, If they test on animals, Yeah sure it may work for them, but a human is an entirely different type of species.
If something I have done in my testing works, that would be awesome.
If you are going to test on animals, test them for cures for animals ONLY!

Good point.

Little Atlas Heavyweight wrote:

ant man bee wrote:I remember a someone saying "if hooking a monkey's head up to a car battery will find a cure for AIDS, I only have one thing to say: Black is negative and red is positive."

denis leary?

I thought it was Bill Hicks.

Earwicker wrote:
So mice now are 'thinking creatures' with a 'will' are they?

Yes, Mice aren't automatons in any sense. They may be rodents, but they can think, and solve problems.