Hot Button Topics (religion, politics, sports)

Started by Simonorged, January 23, 2013, 11:38:01 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Chocofreak13

March 13, 2013, 02:11:14 pm #375 Last Edit: March 13, 2013, 02:14:16 pm by Chocofreak13
i'm gonna sit back and wait for the shitstorm to dispense. only until everyone has had their say can we move on without clusterfucking it up.

*kicks back and munches on popcorn*


Simonorged

March 13, 2013, 02:36:20 pm #376 Last Edit: March 13, 2013, 02:38:39 pm by Simonorged
good point.*gets shield*
Simon was here :P<br />

NejinOniwa

RE:ANIMAL TESTING
The critters are going to die sooner or later anyway. Why not let them do some good for science while they're at it?

Naturally, one should avoid obviously cruel and painful experiments when possible, but some things are worth that price.
YOU COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS

stewartsage

Well said Nejin, as usual.  It doesn't strike me as terribly useful or appropriate to use animals for things like cosmetics, but even procedures like vivisection have uses.

Bella

Thirding Nej. Until there's a better way to run experiments (for instance, testing on lab-grown organs or something of the like) animals will have to do.

This is probably gonna sound dumb, but I've always wondered - what possible use DOES vivisection have, anyway? Why not wait until the animal dies and do an autopsy, or perform exploratory surgeries while it's alive? It's never made sense to me.

stewartsage

It's really a leftover of when surgeons performed operations in front of students in a classroom setting.  It allows the doctor/biologist/etc. to see all the organs functioning inside the body.

Chocofreak13

i'm against most forms of animal testing, considering that 99% of the stuff tested on them is for humans, and can just be tested on humans anyway. drug trials are a great way for some people to make money, meaning that everyone benefits: the animals don't get tested on (considering some of the sick stuff i've heard of, this is a MAJOR plus in my book), the scientists get their data, and people get more sources of income.

of course, in the cases when it physically CAN'T be tested on humans (very rare, but possible), animals are a logical next step. but did we REALLY have to launch Kudryavka into space? wouldn't an egg or some thermal sensors or something have worked just as well?

Penti-chan

I don't really like the idea of animal testing, but there are some cases where there's no other option

alfonso_rd_30

yes, Animal testing is and should be as Nej said...

NejinOniwa

Quote from: Chocofreak13 on March 13, 2013, 11:39:12 pm
i'm against most forms of animal testing, considering that 99% of the stuff tested on them is for humans, and can just be tested on humans anyway. drug trials are a great way for some people to make money, meaning that everyone benefits: the animals don't get tested on (considering some of the sick stuff i've heard of, this is a MAJOR plus in my book), the scientists get their data, and people get more sources of income.

of course, in the cases when it physically CAN'T be tested on humans (very rare, but possible), animals are a logical next step. but did we REALLY have to launch Kudryavka into space? wouldn't an egg or some thermal sensors or something have worked just as well?

You have to remember the scope of animal testing is MUCH, MUCH bigger than just drug tests. And sure, there are plenty of those that could be done on humans starting at a certain level, and some of them are. But what about the gazillion various project on, say, stem cells? Gene splicing, bone marrow cloning, et cetera? There's so much progress to be made that we can't even begin to touch on if we don't have things to test our ideas on - and we sure can't use humans for that, or the bloody humanitarians would have a field day with us.
YOU COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS


Chocofreak13

@nej: see, you underestimate my capacity for caring here. i could never hurt an animal. but humans are a different story. humans i could care less about. >>;

NejinOniwa

Humans are animals as well, K. The only difference is that humans can make civilization progress. Non-sapients, not having a civilization, can't. That's all that really matters.
YOU COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS

Chocofreak13

and, as sentient beings, we can consent to the tests we may put out upon one another. animals, not being able to speak our language or understand our customs, cannot. while they may be subject to experimentation within their own societies, being subjected to the experiments of another, which they are not part of, isn't right.

NejinOniwa

In the face of progress, consent is only a bonus. Many things would've remained unknown if we limited ourselves that way. Besides, we are the apex - us using the lesser creatures in the food chain to our own benefit is only part of the natural cycle, even if it's not only eating them.
YOU COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS