Animal Testing
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 11:10 am
by Earwicker_Archive
sparky wrote:Earwicker wrote:To be honest when i thought about it I totally overlooked the age thing. It wasn't and wouldn't be relevant to me.
There is an important distinction here: that babies can grow into teenagers and teenagers can grow into adults.
Dig it.
I wouldn't personally draw that distinction between baby and teenager, both still have their lives ahead of them - though regarding age I can see a stronger case to favour a child (including teenagers) over a very elderly person who has already lived much of their life. And that might supersede a relationship I might have with an old person.
Animal Testing
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 11:46 am
by Skronk_Archive
sphincter wrote:Don't you realise human testing can't take place without animal testing happening before a drug is passed on?
Don't you realize
it can take place without animal testing?
sphincter wrote:These drugs that are developed end up killing thousands upon thousands of animals, you think if humans took that place that you'd end up with many people coming up for the cause? Obviously not.
Oh, because people are too selfish, even to care about medicine, let animals suffer for it? That's why you would offer incentives, like paying people.
sphincter wrote:Yes, I mentioned a case where animal testing failed, I'm being straight up and not absolute like you-one test failed, yeah, let's stop all testing, that makes huge amounts of sense. I'm not black and white about the subject, I just believe and also understand that in the development of medicines, animal testing is absolutely needed due to the lack of other effective methods.
I'm not black and white about this either. I never said end testing, I just said stop animal testing. There's no reason to continue in this vein, you already know my stance, animals are not needed for a test that impacts humans.
There's a lack of 'other effective methods' because of the unwillingness to pursue other avenues, like human testing. Somehow it's immoral to test on humans, but it's alright to test on animals?
sphincter wrote:Yes, animal testing isn't about killing animals, I'm not saying millions of animals haven't and won't die, they have indeed-but the testing isn't about killing the animals, it's about studying the effects, short and long term, that the drugs have on the biological form. These tests are done over and over on various species in different quantities and forms. It's complicated, but once they're sure (who is) the drug won't make heads explode (haha, it's obviously more complicated than this) they can introduce the drug into human testing schemes for futher development.
How else would they study the effects on the organs? By asking them how they feel? How else would they consider the testing a success
without destroying the animals in question?
It is about killing them.
I guess the whole rationale in animal testing is "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs", right?
sphincter wrote:I've tried really hard here not to get personal with you, I've done OK.
I haven't gotten personal, either. It's just a lively debate.
Animal Testing
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 11:51 am
by sphincter_Archive
Skronk wrote:sphincter wrote:Don't you realise human testing can't take place without animal testing happening before a drug is passed on?
Don't you realize
it can take place without animal testing?
sphincter wrote:These drugs that are developed end up killing thousands upon thousands of animals, you think if humans took that place that you'd end up with many people coming up for the cause? Obviously not.
Oh, because people are too selfish, even to care about medicine, let animals suffer for it? That's why you would offer incentives, like paying people.
sphincter wrote:Yes, I mentioned a case where animal testing failed, I'm being straight up and not absolute like you-one test failed, yeah, let's stop all testing, that makes huge amounts of sense. I'm not black and white about the subject, I just believe and also understand that in the development of medicines, animal testing is absolutely needed due to the lack of other effective methods.
I'm not black and white about this either. I never said end testing, I just said stop animal testing. There's no reason to continue in this vein, you already know my stance, animals are not needed for a test that impacts humans.
There's a lack of 'other effective methods' because of the unwillingness to pursue other avenues, like human testing. Somehow it's immoral to test on humans, but it's alright to test on animals?
sphincter wrote:Yes, animal testing isn't about killing animals, I'm not saying millions of animals haven't and won't die, they have indeed-but the testing isn't about killing the animals, it's about studying the effects, short and long term, that the drugs have on the biological form. These tests are done over and over on various species in different quantities and forms. It's complicated, but once they're sure (who is) the drug won't make heads explode (haha, it's obviously more complicated than this) they can introduce the drug into human testing schemes for futher development.
How else would they study the effects on the organs? By asking them how they feel? How else would they consider the testing a success
without destroying the animals in question?
It is about killing them.
I guess the whole rationale in animal testing is "You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs", right?
sphincter wrote:I've tried really hard here not to get personal with you, I've done OK.
I haven't gotten personal, either. It's just a lively debate.
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.
Animal Testing
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 11:59 am
by Skronk_Archive
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.
Animal Testing
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 12:32 pm
by Boombats_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.
Sung to the tune of "last Train to Clarksville wrote:"Take the last dive to Dicksville,
endless mental masturbation,
I'll watch earwicker get shirty
as he's venting his frustration, sphincter blows,
oh no no no, oh no no no!"
Animal Testing
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 3:01 pm
by sphincter_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.
Yeah, you're right, you win.
Animal Testing
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:29 pm
by kenoki_Archive
as far as i can tell, almost everyone involved in this debate, including skronk, are equally involved in a circular, purely speculative, logic and none of these has adequate insight on the scope or practicality of the matter. instead everyone is working off of the idea that one or the other is more compassionate.
Here are the two most prominent hypotheticals seen in this discussion (sans questions of morality).
Hypothetical A) medical testing on animals is an absolute necessity (even if only supplemental) in our age until other methods are proven to be as, if not more, effective in understanding disease and treatment of those diseases all across the board.
a) in a world where scientists/researchers/medical professionals are wholly consumed with a genuine goodwill for mankind and a thoughtful reverence for all life - wherein animal testing is thought of as a necessary sacrifice rather than a means to an end, thus limiting its use to research worthy of the animal's suffering.
Hypothetical B) medical testing on animals is completely unnecessary in this age due to the advent of computer/medical technology and research, and analogous with sacrificing virgins to the volcano for the safety of the village.
a) should any animal be needed for testing this should be done on humans as a matter of streamlined practicality, efficiency and compatibility, as the sources of disease in other species, and its treatments, are completely dissimilar to our own and there is no measurable benefit in comparing the two.
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 - and thus arguments of morality and compassion ensue because we have little else to rely on.
of course if hypothetical B was true, we would all agree animal testing is ridiculous and anyone who disagreed would be on the quick path to hamster mutilation and serial killing. however, this is not the case. if hypothetical A were true, well, skronk and boombats would still be talking morals and the opposition would likewise respond with ridiculous what-ifs that could imply one is a baby-killer.
arguing the finer points of morality, scruples, ethics... truly - unlike the circulatory, respiratory, nervous and digestive systems - this is a human-specific function.
the boombats-skronk argument relies on the notion that any form of invasive animal testing for the benefit of man is cruel, unacceptable and unjustifiable - and justification is most certainly the key to this debate. as in hypothetical B, at times these claims are bolstered with the idea that animal testing has been completely outdated by computer technology and stem cell research.
skronk goes so far as to suggest science use cash incentive to lure human candidates for testing [not an original idea nor a particularly bad one, however should - hypothetically - people wholly supplant animals in medical testing we would be farming from the lower caste of society (see: plasma donors). thus raises the question/dichotomy of will vs. need, as in does one surrender will in the face of necessity].
parenthetical in mind, is that any more compassionate than 'saving the animals'? does the whole of man inherit the sin, in this case the poor? if your answer is yes, then i suppose this is left to a matter of opinion (and in mine, your's is fucked).
because i tend to fall in line with earwicker and (to my disgust) sphincter's general stance it's slightly more difficult to find a great deal of fault, as i believe both would be the first in line to say that if (and when) there is a better (realistic) method than animal testing in any specific area without posing a greater threat to our own kind, we should exhaust that method. that is the key to their debate. it is not that those for animal testing are just "into it" or could give (forgive the pun) a rat's ass about how or why this is done. regulation does apply, i think foremost. this aspect, however, gets lost to critics who would rather paint an image of animal testing (even in the most ideal situation) as cruel, baseless, and inconsequential to the furthering of our understanding of disease and its cures.
the subject of human testing: someone mentioned that unlike animals humans can react in a language we can understand and respect. for instance, "my side hurts," or "i have been vomiting." that would be helpful, for sure, in the case of side effects, but does not necessarily contribute to the entire process of wellness.
as with bunnies, mice and monkeys, these humans (who would initially be subjected to the most skeletal forms of beta testing outside of a computer model) would also be subjected to highly invasive procedures outside of CAT scans, X-rays, blood tests and MRIs - and you could not just use one person but, i would speculate, hundreds (and this is just for one type of disease, when there are countless) in order to ensure the safety of distribution to the masses. now of course, with our current FDA regulations and medical standards, safety is relative to diagnosis and recipient... but, i'm talking best case scenario.
so, to summarize my flaky post: there is really no end to this debate, which is what makes it so tricky and easy to butt heads. we all have an ideal picture, only a fraction of which is relevant to the world we live in... and there are a million ways to be reek of compassion on both sides, all at the expense of something or someone. so no one wins, until all our diseases are cured and no one/nothing has to die as a result of them.
Animal Testing
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:39 pm
by Skronk_Archive
Kenoki, I liked your post, but I have a problem with this:
kenoki wrote:.....skronk goes so far as to suggest science use cash incentive to lure human candidates for testing [not an original idea nor a particularly bad one, however should - hypothetically - people wholly supplant animals in medical testing we would be farming from the lower caste of society (see: plasma donors).....
I did not say or imply "luring" people to these tests. I said paid volunteers that know exactly what will happen to them, can voice their opinions, and be aware of what is going on.
kenoki wrote:...people wholly supplant animals in medical testing we would be farming from the lower caste of society (see: plasma donors).....
Yes, the majority of these people would probably be from poorer backgrounds, because, let's face it, the rich won't
need the money. It reminds me of what the Military does. This still doesn't exclude paid volunteers from being a reasonable alternative.
Animal Testing
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 5:04 am
by Earwicker_Archive
Sung to the tune of "last Train to Clarksville wrote:"Take the last dive to Dicksville,
endless mental masturbation,
I'll watch earwicker get shirty
as he's venting his frustration, sphincter blows,
oh no no no, oh no no no!"
Oh, dear.
this isn't even witty.
You do realise you've resorted to 'comedy' songs?
I think I can safely say you've lost your argument.
And yet, oddly, I feel sorry for you.
You are a sad, sad little man.
and you should read more.
and Skronk re this:
Skronk wrote:sphincter wrote:Don't you realise human testing can't take place without animal testing happening before a drug is passed on?
Don't you realize
it can take place without animal testing?
Would you mind proving to me that it can take place without testing? Please direct me to some information that proves that definitively enough that we should risk halting progress into finding cures for human diseases and conditions.
and please, if possible, don't point me toward a site where the contributors believe that monkeys and victims of the holocaust are equal.
Animal Testing
Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 5:07 am
by ThoraQ_Archive
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.
I doubt I have a point that hasn't already been addressed (again, I haven't read through, so I apologize for redundancy), but your argument was so inconsistent and poorly constructed that I couldn't contain my agitation while reading.
So, after a year and a half of browsing, I've popped my post cherry with with the burning anger elicited by your ridiculously speculative arguments.
I mean, seriously. How can you accuse Earwicker of attacking you personally, rather than your argument, and in the same post call him dumber than a lab rat? It's this bullshit, and not even the backwards belief you seem to hold that antibiotics and water can solve all of our problems, that is so infuriating.
Discuss things like a grownup. You started all of this when you attacked those who disagree with you with the uncompassionate accusation (I'll ignore the dog-fucking comment in your first post for now).
Fuck.
[edit: drunk spelling, not so great]