Skronk wrote:

sphincter wrote:... to them, man kind isn't as concerned with animal life as it is with human life...in general!

That's the problem. As much as Man would like to separate themselves from the animal kingdom, we should be looking out for more than ourselves.

We're the people we are not the people we aspire to be, few people live what they preach on these topics. I agree though, we should be looking out for the entire planet, but you have to be realistic.

sphincter wrote:I'd like to say many of the pro-testing scientists believe that no other method is as effective as animal testing apart from human testing, which they do, but it doesn't reel in the numbers it needs to make progess quickly enough. Other methods are being developed upon but aren't funded enough really, those methods will take years to surface, for now the race is on to develope these drugs that save lives, people make their choices based upon priorities, to them, man kind isn't as concerned with animal life as it is with human life...in general!

Remember that many of these scientists are paid by an industry that profits off the status quo testing system. Same as the scientists who said fossil fuel was the only way to go, until everybody jumped on the renewable/green bandwagon. The medical/oil industries don't want to change their ways.

sphincter wrote:It's not my own idea? How is that supposed to be a bad thing? The idea of right and wrong is not yours so sorry, you can't use that, and none of the English language either, please make up new words with new meanings thank you. It doesn't matter if the idea is mine or Jesus Christs, if I think it's right then I think it's right, it becomes part of my opinion.

I can concede that arguement. Still I get fumed when I hear real people say shit that comes from media pundits.

sphincter wrote:My argument is- how can anyone support the death of animals to boost their BBQ and then come against it when it's death/testing upon has the purpose of developing medicines to save lives?

That's not the arguement, nor has anyone here made that point. Again it sounds like typical bafflement and obfuscation that I've heard from right-wing blabbermouths (not making any accusations mind you).

EDIT:

sphincter wrote:We're the people we are not the people we aspire to be, few people live what they preach on these topics. I agree though, we should be looking out for the entire planet, but you have to be realistic.

Looking out for the entire planet IS realistic.

Boombats wrote:

sphincter wrote:I'd like to say many of the pro-testing scientists believe that no other method is as effective as animal testing apart from human testing, which they do, but it doesn't reel in the numbers it needs to make progess quickly enough. Other methods are being developed upon but aren't funded enough really, those methods will take years to surface, for now the race is on to develope these drugs that save lives, people make their choices based upon priorities, to them, man kind isn't as concerned with animal life as it is with human life...in general!

Remember that many of these scientists are paid by an industry that profits off the status quo testing system. Same as the scientists who said fossil fuel was the only way to go, until everybody jumped on the renewable/green bandwagon. The medical/oil industries don't want to change their ways.

sphincter wrote:It's not my own idea? How is that supposed to be a bad thing? The idea of right and wrong is not yours so sorry, you can't use that, and none of the English language either, please make up new words with new meanings thank you. It doesn't matter if the idea is mine or Jesus Christs, if I think it's right then I think it's right, it becomes part of my opinion.

I can concede that arguement. Still I get fumed when I hear real people say shit that comes from media pundits.

sphincter wrote:My argument is- how can anyone support the death of animals to boost their BBQ and then come against it when it's death/testing upon has the purpose of developing medicines to save lives?

That's not the arguement, nor has anyone here made that point. Again it sounds like typical bafflement and obfuscation that I've heard from right-wing blabbermouths (not making any accusations mind you).

EDIT:

sphincter wrote:We're the people we are not the people we aspire to be, few people live what they preach on these topics. I agree though, we should be looking out for the entire planet, but you have to be realistic.

Looking out for the entire planet IS realistic.

See, pro-scientists are just industry puppets, but anti are obviously reliable sources of information. This is also a common argument. Well, I have two friends that work at the local science park, both of which work for a company that link drugs companies to commercial industry, both of which have worked in animal testing, neither of which are payed to tell me anything. But these are just two people with two opinions, I'm not saying it's pure fact.

I know my argument about eating animals isn't the central point, it's just another topic, linked from it, something I think is relevant here. It wouldn't be right to bring it up in the 'ten perfect albums' thread.

Yeah, looking out for the entire planet is realistic, it's looking like a large portion of the planet is starting to take global pollution and global warming seriously, although not everyone, but I actually think this is part of looking out for the planet. Trying to develope drugs to save lives, everything you use to help you when you're ill, if you're ever in hospital and they use medicine to help cure you of your problem...they've all been tested on animals in their development.

sphincter wrote:

Skronk wrote:

sphincter wrote:... to them, man kind isn't as concerned with animal life as it is with human life...in general!

That's the problem. As much as Man would like to separate themselves from the animal kingdom, we should be looking out for more than ourselves.

We're the people we are not the people we aspire to be, few people live what they preach on these topics. I agree though, we should be looking out for the entire planet, but you have to be realistic.

Realistic how? Throwing the towel in before the match starts? Just because we've been destroying creatures in the name of profit, doesn't mean that it's the only avenue to "better" our own lives.
There's this cognitive dissonance in our society, where two incompatable areas try to live side by side. Making life better at the expense of killing is truly doublethink.

The same goes for scientists that develop newer, more deadlier arms, all the while excusing their actions in the name of "peace".

sphincter wrote:See, pro-scientists are just industry puppets, but anti are obviously reliable sources of information. This is also a common argument.

I never said that. If you want to set up a straw man with my face on it, then go outside.

sphincter wrote:Trying to develope drugs to save lives, everything you use to help you when you're ill, if you're ever in hospital and they use medicine to help cure you of your problem...they've all been tested on animals in their development.

See my statements above on what it takes to save someone's life.

The technology caues the sickness, then treats it at great expense. Maybe people should just die! All the really old people that I know have lived for 90 plus years because of healthy lifestyles. When they died it was fast. The sickly bloated diseased fuckers are crowding the health care system. I know this is a bit tangential but no more so than your "should people eat animals" tangent.

This argumentative thread on whether animals should be used as laboratory test subjects or not might could be redirected toward the Let Us See Your Pet thread, no?

Interesting answers might result.

There's something very wrong with this thread. No one is calling anyone an idiot, a twat, a stooge for the man, a self-righteous bubblehead, etc., as a way of advancing their argument.

Don't you guys know how to debate? WTF????

Hansen, you ignorant slut.

Boombats wrote:Hansen, you ignorant slut.

Boombats, you pointy-headed, pie-in-the-sky ignorant fuckstick. Is your brain made of congealed oatmeal?

There, isn't that better?

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.