Display posts from previous
Sort by

Animal Testing

Leave em alone! They have rights too
Total votes: 9 (30%)
I want to be cured of currently incurable diseases and I think sacrificing a few animals for that is okay
Total votes: 21 (70%)
Total votes: 30

Animal Testing

111 by Earwicker_Archive
kenoki wrote:i don't believe either of the above two hypotheticals can be brought into the same ring - they are assuming we live in two separate worlds - neither of which have been wholly proven in this forum


I dig your post but would like to say that the onus of proof - regarding whether there are non-animal means of testing safely - rests on those who wish to stop the animal testing.

Animal testing has and is helping us progress and develop medicines and procedures, though sometimes it isn't useful - I don't think anyone is arguing with that(?)

But the non tester would have us stop this method - that we know works - for something that they seem to know but they ain't sharing how they know this with the rest of us.

If they prove to me there are alternatives that are as effective then I've been wrong all this time - I'll admit it - and they can gloat as much as they like about it.

Which'll probably mean we'll be treat to another 'amusing' Boombats song if he can fit into his cap and school shorts again.

Animal Testing

112 by Little Atlas Heavyweight_Archive
fuck you, assholes.

unless you're going to do something about any of this shit you can stuff your opinion up your ass.

and if you are going to do something, get busy and please keep your spam elsewhere.

it's fucked, it's shitty, it happens.

i bet you won't stop it. ever.

hey, look on the brightside though, this kind of behavior generally has a way of turning back and biting humans in the ass. so, just wait.

sorry i had to show my tail, this shit is just retarded. i know why i can't find something better to do with my time. i hope you guys got better excuses than mine.
somebody help me. i can't help myself.

Animal Testing

114 by Mark Hansen_Archive
Skronk wrote:
sphincter wrote:God above, it's hard to argue with people who can't grasp simple ideas.

I could carry on arguing against you, but I'd be making the same points and you'd carry on failing to understand them, or grasp the reality of the situation, what you're saying is on the edge of insanity, I'm not sure you fully realise what you're on about.


Alright, here's where you took a dive to dicksville.

If anyone is failing to grasp anything, it's you not being able to envision a test not involving animals.

I have no trouble "grasping the reality" of the situation. It's painfully obvious animals won't disappear from the cutting room table, like it's obvious you love circular logic. Neither of our opinions will be changed by this downhill discussion.

If you'd like to keep apologizing for the Status-Quo, go right ahead. There's no insanity on my end.


Just out of curiousity, what kind of tests, involving animal testing for medical reasons, are you talking about? I'm talking about testing for cures for diseases, such as cancer or aids.

I am well aware that there are alternative tests for things like corrosiveness, etc. In cases like that, you should be using the alternative test.

I guess I'm confused as to how you could conduct testing for drugs or procedures that cure diseases without having a living, breathing, organism involved in the test. At least as the starting point in the development of treatments for diseases.

If you're talking about test-tube testing on diseased cells or on germs, well yes, I'm sure there is some of that. But doesn't an actual living organism need to be involved at some point, to at determine the toxicity of treatments?

I am not trying to be a smart-ass, so please no put-downs or insults in your answer or answers.

Animal Testing

115 by John George Peppers_Archive
ThoraQ wrote:Jesus fucking Christ. I was looking forward to reading this topic because I generally regard most people on here as having intelligent, interesting, well-thought out opinions, but I couldn't get more than two pages into this before I was too distracted and pissed off over the emotional, illogical, insanely hypocritical nonsense posted by Boombats.

Animal Testing

116 by Skronk_Archive
Mark Hansen wrote:I guess I'm confused as to how you could conduct testing for drugs or procedures that cure diseases without having a living, breathing, organism involved in the test. At least as the starting point in the development of treatments for diseases.


Testing something in real-time would obviously have to involve a living, breathing test subject. My point is make that test subject a willing Human.

Mark Hansen wrote:If you're talking about test-tube testing on diseased cells or on germs, well yes, I'm sure there is some of that. But doesn't an actual living organism need to be involved at some point, to at determine the toxicity of treatments?


But is it right to destroy animals, countless numbers of them to find out?

Mark Hansen wrote:I am not trying to be a smart-ass, so please no put-downs or insults in your answer or answers.


You took an interest, that's what matters. No put downs.

Animal Testing

117 by sphincter_Archive
Skronk, what you're saying is hilarious.

These drugs are tested upon animals, thousands of which die because of said drugs being in early stages of development. You think it's a realistic idea to replace those animals with humans.

You think people will willingly snuff it for some money? '

'Here's a thousand notes mate, you might live, but you'll probably die, enjoy the cash'

Humans are already tested upon and they're paid quite well, but they aren't tested upon until the drugs have been tested to hell and back on animals, until they're relatively sure that the drugs won't make their faces melt etc, sometimes they get it wrong, when they do a huge news story blows up and human drug testing takes a blow, people become afraid of it again, more set backs. But you're right, if they used no animals and just humans that would be cool. Only the poorest of people would risk it in your reality and that certainly is a beautiful vision.

Good logic genius, you should run the planet.

Animal Testing

118 by Skronk_Archive
sphincter wrote:Skronk, what you're saying is hilarious.

These drugs are tested upon animals, thousands of which die because of said drugs being in early stages of development. You think it's a realistic idea to replace those animals with humans.

You think people will willingly snuff it for some money? '

'Here's a thousand notes mate, you might live, but you'll probably die, enjoy the cash'

Humans are already tested upon and they're paid quite well, but they aren't tested upon until the drugs have been tested to hell and back on animals, until they're relatively sure that the drugs won't make their faces melt etc, sometimes they get it wrong, when they do a huge news story blows up and human drug testing takes a blow, people become afraid of it again, more set backs. But you're right, if they used no animals and just humans that would be cool. Only the poorest of people would risk it in your reality and that certainly is a beautiful vision.

Good logic genius, you should run the planet.


If you respond like a child, so will I. Suck a fart from my ass.

The hilarious thing here is you consistently resort to attacking me, for what you see as a 'hilarious response'.

Also, I like the way you jump to these crazy conclusions about a drug that's not tested on animals will "make your face melt". If you have something real to say, stop with this nonsense.

Animal Testing

120 by sphincter_Archive
Yeah, I make personal attacks upon you because you're a fucking dolt. Notice how you can't argue back about your insane logic.

Isn't it funny when people reply to you when you call them a wanker on a messageboard saying you're detracting from the argument yet they fail to mention the argument, fail to come back.

Just call me a wanker back and make your point, that's how it happens, this is an argument between human beings not robots, sometimes we're nice and other times we add insults to our posts, if you don't like it then it's probably best you don't use the internet.

I agree adding 'cockface' to your post is pointless, but I'm not going to deny myself a natural reaction, when people say backwards other people react to it.

Anyway, fact is you're wrong.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 178 guests