Is this necessary?

[ QUOTE ]


Don't the dogs deserve a life too?
Who says they are less entitled to one?

[/ QUOTE ]

indeed - we humans think we are so special that we can maim, torture, kill and terrify animals because we consider it 'our right' - because we consider animals beneath us, unworthy of respect and compassion if it means we might lose out on something.

people can justify anything - 'think of the children' - 'what about the man with the burnt face' - 'what if you are ill' - well, what if YOU are a dog being carved up? how do you think YOU would feel then?

you make me sick
 
Sorry Hippyned, I don't understand your reply, why do I make you sick?
confused.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I find it interesting how you say an article should make us think. It is up to each individual how they think about something. Otherwise, the process is known as brain-washing I belive...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry - not wanting to brain wash - you are free to think whatever you like. How would you have preferred me to have phrased it?

[ QUOTE ]
And you say that until a safe and humane alternative is found, we will continue to see articles like this. So is the article all important?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nooo, I was merely pointing out that until we come up with a better alternative, this debate will continue.


[ QUOTE ]
Because you are actually not that sure what goes on in practice, but you, personally, don't like the idea of it and how you think it affects our "furry friends" as you earlier described them, somewhat emotively.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have opened a debate, whilst airing my own personal views on the subject. You may consider them to be emotive views, I don't. I just have views.

[ QUOTE ]
You know, I think people who make it well nigh impossible to carry out animal testing in this country are actively promoting cruelty by driving testing abroad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair point, indeed.

[ QUOTE ]
and I wouldn't for one moment describe them as my "furry friends").

[/ QUOTE ]

You call them what you like...

[ QUOTE ]
Theres cruelty to animals all around us which is much less high profile and goes unchecked.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes, I agree. That doesn't have to stop us pointing out other kinds of cruelty though, does it?

[ QUOTE ]
Domestic pets kept in unsuitable environments with insufficient exercise, simply for people's amusement. Why don't you go and tackle some of the cruelty to animals you can actually do something about, instead of something so high profile and fashionable.

[/ QUOTE ]


I think all animal cruelty should be tackled and find it surprising that you seem to think it offensive that I have drawn the attention of a group of animal-lovers to something that is happening in the animal world, about animals.

[ QUOTE ]
But that will involve a lot more than reading articles (and yes, I have taken effective steps to end animal cruelty on several occasions myself).

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for you.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I find it interesting how you say an article should make us think. It is up to each individual how they think about something. Otherwise, the process is known as brain-washing I belive...

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry - not wanting to brain wash - you are free to think whatever you like. How would you have preferred me to have phrased it?

I would have said "the article suggests" or similar. The way you phrase it is very leading - it suggests the answer int he question, which made me instantly defensive and think that you were not interested ina proper debate but in promoting your own personal agenda...

[ QUOTE ]
And you say that until a safe and humane alternative is found, we will continue to see articles like this. So is the article all important?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nooo, I was merely pointing out that until we come up with a better alternative, this debate will continue.

But who cares if we see articles like this or not? What came first, the chicken or the egg? Because in this case, animal cruelty certainly came first.


[ QUOTE ]
You know, I think people who make it well nigh impossible to carry out animal testing in this country are actively promoting cruelty by driving testing abroad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair point, indeed.

And a vitally important one. It is much more sensible to work towards enusring the best possible standards for animal testing in a country such as Britain, where the laws and regulations make it possible to do so, rather than driving it abroad where increased animal cruelty will be the result. what is more important, the personal consciences and guilt complexes of a number of animal rights protesters, or actual animal cruelty?

[ QUOTE ]
Theres cruelty to animals all around us which is much less high profile and goes unchecked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree. That doesn't have to stop us pointing out other kinds of cruelty though, does it?

I actually think it very harmful to over-emphasise one form of animal cruelty at the expense of other more widespread ones.

I think all animal cruelty should be tackled and find it surprising that you seem to think it offensive that I have drawn the attention of a group of animal-lovers to something that is happening in the animal world, about animals.

But by over -emphasising animal testing, you are taking the debate and interest away from the more mundane but more widespread forms of animal cruelty. And are people not capeable of forming their own judgements over what to direct their attention to, without your assistance?

[ QUOTE ]
But that will involve a lot more than reading articles (and yes, I have taken effective steps to end animal cruelty on several occasions myself).

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, well, the doing is an awful lot more hard than the saying, but some people just get quietly on with it, rather than starting debates. Its not easy, tackling people who are being cruel to their animals, but I have been one that has spoken out, I have rescued one pony and helped several others, and cats too. I often wonder what actual contact animal rights protesters have with animals, and if they do have animals of their own, how their treatment stands up to assessment? Didn't LACS own a deer forest which was notorious for the appalling health of the deer in it? Would'nt a bit more basic practicality not go amiss rather than fancy rhetoric?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think nowadays the use of animals in these 'experiments' is of little or no use to humans in all honesty. They are not close enough to humans in their genetic makeup to make it worthy at all as far as I'm concerned.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you rather surgeons practiced new techniques on people? Would you rather we went back to the days when a heart problem was an automatic death sentence? Hell - EVERY medical advance of the last couple of hundred years was ONLY possible because of animal testing (despite the amount of 'experimentation' done on humans by Mengele it is doubtful whether ANYTHING useful was produced!)

[ QUOTE ]
As far as saving human lives by firstly experienting on animals I don't see that as justified either. Diseases and illnesses are always going to be around. If you 'cure' one there will always be another. I am not a strong believer in IVF either. It has a place but too many people turn to it and noone ever seems to question whether maybe that person isn't able to have a baby for a reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you or a close friend or relative is ill, you would decline ALL medical treatment?? Because EVERY drug available has been tested on animals! I recall the first Chief Exec of the League Against Cruel Sports quit when his wife was diagnosed with cancer and his 'colleagues' gave him grief about the fact that the treatment she was given was so tested!! He was supposed to just watch her die in furtherance of animal rights! (It wasn't their wives that were dying!)

And to suggest that women who have trouble getting pregnant are not entitled to help is one thing - suggesting it's their own fault or they wouldn't be fit parents (which is the implication) is cruel and thoughtless in the extreme .......getting pregnant is something some very UNFIT parents manage easily, so NOT being able to get pregnant proves NOTHING about a person's suitability to BE a parent!

I hope you never have to put your morals to the test!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry Hippyned, I don't understand your reply, why do I make you sick?
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, it wasn't directed at you - was directed at people who advocate animal testing
 
and just for the record - my father died of cancer - they pumped more drugs into him than you could shake a stick at - he is still dead

I prefer the more natural approach to healing, and there are plenty of people who prefer that approach too, not only to avoid worshipping at the alter of the pharmaceutical companies but also to avoid taking products that have been tested on animals.

it may come as a shock to you, but most pills and potions do naff all, we, as a species, have been consumed by our own arrogance and greed and are driven to make more pills in the vain attempt to prevent the inenvitable - and animals suffer greatly to indulge our fears.
 
Can I just state I never suggested someone who was not able to get pregnant would not be a good parent or anything along those lines at all. My point was the fact I believe in the whole 'mother nature' and there is a reason for something happening or not happening. It may not seem fair/right but I still think there's a reason for it.

I have asthma and all sorts of allergies that really I probably shouldn't be here and maybe in some ways in the big scheme of things I should not have survived cos, should I have children then i will quite possibly pass on my genetic 'defects' as they were - is that fair then? I think sometimes we do take medical science too far and create more diseases and illnesses as a result sometimes.

I also think this dog experiment is/was wrong as with todays computers and simulated medical 'environments' iI think these studies could be carried out on smaller, individual cells without actually causing harm to any animal/human. I do believe some 'scientists' actually enjoy causing this sort of suffering in the name of science!

That is MY opnion to which I believe i am entitled to!
 
There is only so much that can be done using cell / tissue culture, at some point you need to use a multi-organ system to see how whatever it is you're doing reacts with, say, the immune system.
How many scientists do you actually know? And how many of them enjoy causing suffering to animals? The vast majority of scientists who work with animals do so in the interests of preventing disease and suffering in humans and other animals.
The difference between 'scientists' and the general public is that if a random member of the public is found to be neglecting their pet mice or causing them to suffer they will get a slap on the wrist, if that. If a scientist is found to be doing the same to the lab animals in their care they are more then likely to end up in prison.
 
sunflower is quite right. good points well presented. and as i said in answer to the OP, i am not convinced the picture is telling this particualr story. look carefully at the picture. if it is after the OP, how come the maarkings on both dogs match on both sides of their faces, no colour variations though they are differnt colours. and no swelling and no sign of the other stiches needed. the human who had this op looked like she had gone through a windscreen initially.
we should remember the source of this info before getting over emotional.
 
[ QUOTE ]
and just for the record - my father died of cancer - they pumped more drugs into him than you could shake a stick at - he is still dead

I prefer the more natural approach to healing, and there are plenty of people who prefer that approach too, not only to avoid worshipping at the alter of the pharmaceutical companies but also to avoid taking products that have been tested on animals.

it may come as a shock to you, but most pills and potions do naff all, we, as a species, have been consumed by our own arrogance and greed and are driven to make more pills in the vain attempt to prevent the inenvitable - and animals suffer greatly to indulge our fears.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you were diagnosed with cancer, you would rather sniff essential oils and hum to yourself than be given drugs whose efficacy has been tested and proven? We all die in the end, of course we do, but the length of a life can be prolonged with drugs when you have a disease like cancer. I used to work with someone who had/has a brain tumour. Without those drugs that "do naff all" she would have died two years ago. As it is, she is back at work, back out socialising, feeling well and looking good. She will never be free of it completely and it will come back, but if it allows her a few more healthy years then why is that a bad thing?

Tell me which you would prefer - to die slowly and painfully of an illness, or to be given a drug which will alleviate your symptoms and most probably prolong your life?

Have you never even taken Paracetamol? Every drug is tested on animals. Before you condemn as all as cruel and vain, take a look at your life and tell me absolutely categorically that you have never taken anything made by one of those companies you so despise....
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and just for the record - my father died of cancer - they pumped more drugs into him than you could shake a stick at - he is still dead

I prefer the more natural approach to healing, and there are plenty of people who prefer that approach too, not only to avoid worshipping at the alter of the pharmaceutical companies but also to avoid taking products that have been tested on animals.

it may come as a shock to you, but most pills and potions do naff all, we, as a species, have been consumed by our own arrogance and greed and are driven to make more pills in the vain attempt to prevent the inenvitable - and animals suffer greatly to indulge our fears.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if you were diagnosed with cancer, you would rather sniff essential oils and hum to yourself than be given drugs whose efficacy has been tested and proven? We all die in the end, of course we do, but the length of a life can be prolonged with drugs when you have a disease like cancer. I used to work with someone who had/has a brain tumour. Without those drugs that "do naff all" she would have died two years ago. As it is, she is back at work, back out socialising, feeling well and looking good. She will never be free of it completely and it will come back, but if it allows her a few more healthy years then why is that a bad thing?

Tell me which you would prefer - to die slowly and painfully of an illness, or to be given a drug which will alleviate your symptoms and most probably prolong your life?

Have you never even taken Paracetamol? Every drug is tested on animals. Before you condemn as all as cruel and vain, take a look at your life and tell me absolutely categorically that you have never taken anything made by one of those companies you so despise....

[/ QUOTE ]

if i was diagnosed with cancer I would choose different methods of healing myself, yes - of which there is a lot of documented evidence of success - research it yourself - I did a lot of research when my father was dying.

If you wanna take pharmaceuticals that is YOUR choice - I can pour scorn over it as much as I like - If I think you are stupid and mislead I will say so.

Of course i have taken pills over my lifetime - as a child I had no choice and as a younger adult I was ignorant - now i have more information and knowledge about the subject, my personal choice is to refuse pharma. I am not perfect, but at least I am trying to educate myself and make informed choices instead of blindly swallowing all the bullshit without researching things for myself first.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Of course i have taken pills over my lifetime - as a child I had no choice and as a younger adult I was ignorant - now i have more information and knowledge about the subject, my personal choice is to refuse pharma. I am not perfect, but at least I am trying to educate myself and make informed choices instead of blindly swallowing all the bullshit without researching things for myself first.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what makes you say I haven't researched things for myself first? You are very quick to jump to conclusions when you don't know me. You know nothing about my background - I worked in science for years and although I'm not at the bench anymore, I still have close connections with science and with pharma.

So don't tell me I am uneducated and "blindly swallowing" anything. I very rarely take any sort of drug. I couldn't even tell you the last time I took a painkiller. I don't believe pharmaceuticals are the answer to everything but they have their place and are useful. We wouldn't need half the drugs on the market if people looked after themselves in the first place (think obesity drugs, drugs to stop you smoking, anything that people seem to think can take the place of leading a healthy life...don't get my on my soapbox about that, it's a whole different conversation
wink.gif
)....
 
[ QUOTE ]
[I am not perfect, but at least I am trying to educate myself and make informed choices instead of blindly swallowing all the bullshit without researching things for myself first.

[/ QUOTE ]
In that case you might also like to educate yourself about what animal research actually involves as you clearly have no idea.
You may chose not to take products that have been tested and proven to be efficacious and that is your choice but your sweeping statements about people "blindly swallowing all the bullsh*t" and your comments about the "sick" people who carry out research on animals show how blinkered you truly are.
 
I care not how blinkered you consider me to be - I think the same of you - you won't change my mind - I have made my point clear. Animal testing is abhorrent, ad no matter how much people try to justify it, it will remain abhorrent till the end of time and beyond.

and I am as quick to jump to conclusions as the rest of you of you are. It is laughable really - the difference is that I don't care about any of you, or your opinion of me - I would choose animals over humans any day.

Animal testing is EVIL & ABHORRENT - and nothing will change that. I refer back to humans making me SICK.
 
perhaps then you think that the drugs we use for treating animals dont get tested or that we shouldnt treat animals either.
also tested are many household and beauty products and IMO unless you are living in a tree house in the mazon chances are you are benifiting from animal testingof some sort. i think it is a nessecary evil and as long as the animals are properly cared for i can live with much better than the hypocracy of those who are so anti as they swallow a paracetaol or wash their hair with shampoo or use washing up liqid on their dishes all of which are examples of common products originally tested on animals let alone s sunflower said earlier millions of medical applications which cant be computer simulated.
 
Animal testing is EVIL & ABHORRENT - and nothing will change that. I refer back to humans making me SICK.

just in case you missed it the first time.
 
Perhaps you should care about these people and their opinions- if you could put forward reasoned, logical thinking as to why animal testing is unnecessary, then you could persuade them not to use it. Passion for a cause is admirable, but not if you close your mind and refuse to listen to any other view-point- this then becomes blind faith and rather undermines your integrity.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Animal testing is EVIL & ABHORRENT - and nothing will change that. I refer back to humans making me SICK.

just in case you missed it the first time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you wear make up? Use hair products? I presume you wash your hair with shampoo and use shower gel? Whilst I don't agree with it, a fair amount of what goes into those products will have been tested on animals.

Do you take a contraceptive? If not, have you used condoms? The spermicide and lubricants on them are likely to have been tested too.

Lucretia made a good point - unless you are living in a tree house in the Amazon then in your every day life you are likely to be using items that have been tested on animals. Until you can categorically say that you have checked EVERYTHING you eat, drink and use in your daily life, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Would you rather we were living in the dark ages with no treatments for many diseases, and that people diagnosed with cancer were left to die horribly and slowly? Because without animal testing that is where we would be.

I just hope that you never fall ill and that these principles you are so quick to spout are put to the test....
 
[ QUOTE ]
It is laughable really - the difference is that I don't care about any of you, or your opinion of me - I would choose animals over humans any day.

Animal testing is EVIL & ABHORRENT - and nothing will change that. I refer back to humans making me SICK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you have a personality disorder, and this is simply your latest obsession in its grasp. Therefore, of course you will have these sorts of reactions when other people disagree with you. It is telling that you cannot see that your approach has the opposite effect from that which you presumably intend - nor do you seem to be able to do anything to correct that error. Calling the majority of the human race who disagree with you or are merely undecided names hardly imbibes your debate with credibility.

I reiterate what I said earlier. If I thought I had been indirectly responsible for even one animal being killed or suffering in animal rights testing, or fur farming, or any of those currently fashionable "causes" to a greater degree of cruelty abroad than if that practice had remained in a more regulated regime such as in the UK, I would not be able to live with my guilt. I am sure more animals are skinned alive in China now that there is virtually no fur farming in the UK. How can so called animal rights activists live with that and what are they doing about it? How dreadful do you think it is for an animal to be skinned alive? At least if fur farming happened in this country, it would be heavily regulated and that would not happen. And I sincerely hope that animal testing does not go the same way.
 
Remember that these so called "animal rights" activists are the same that, if they can get into an animal facility, would happily set all of the animals "free". These are animals who have never lived in an environment outside of a lab and who couldn't know how to feed themselves, find shelter, or look after themselves.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Sounds like you have a personality disorder, and this is simply your latest obsession in its grasp.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for the diagnosis Dr, do i owe you anything for that - maybe I should rush down to the pharmacy and get me some of those little pills you all love so much - dang, why didn't i think of that before? Life is solved by taking pills - wwoooooooooooo

you plum
 
[ QUOTE ]
Calling the majority of the human race who disagree with you or are merely undecided names hardly imbibes your debate with credibility.

I reiterate what I said earlier. If I thought I had been indirectly responsible for even one animal being killed or suffering in animal rights testing, or fur farming, or any of those currently fashionable "causes" to a greater degree of cruelty abroad than if that practice had remained in a more regulated regime such as in the UK, I would not be able to live with my guilt. I am sure more animals are skinned alive in China now that there is virtually no fur farming in the UK. How can so called animal rights activists live with that and what are they doing about it? How dreadful do you think it is for an animal to be skinned alive? At least if fur farming happened in this country, it would be heavily regulated and that would not happen. And I sincerely hope that animal testing does not go the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well said
 
[ QUOTE ]
Remember that these so called "animal rights" activists are the same that, if they can get into an animal facility, would happily set all of the animals "free". These are animals who have never lived in an environment outside of a lab and who couldn't know how to feed themselves, find shelter, or look after themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know, I don't think that is sensible either. But passions do run high in these kind of situations.
 
Re LizLowe - 'strict ethical and moral codes in place'? That doesn't stop people breaking them! And I'm not sure what passes for ethics in science, sometimes.
 
I don't like it and find it distasteful to say the least.

That said I do believe in animal reserch for medicine (definitely not for food, cosmetics or other purposes). Felt a bit sick the other day when the television said they tested the effects of outer space on the body by throwing dogs out of space craft.

However I don't want the UK to be a testing free zone, as its highly regulated and I wouldn't want all testing to be pushed away to the grottier corners of the earth where we can forget our dirty little secret.

I would punish animal rights activists, as no one should have live or work in terror and its these idiots that are driving companies to less restrictive countries. It's like the fur farms, where everything was highly regulated and relatively humane, animals are now skinned alive in places like China.

That said I agree with Henryhorn, use the criminals for testing, as at least they would finally be making a valid contribution to society and much better than animals as you get feedback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top