|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Animal Testing
There is of course the big old debate of animal testing.
i am against it.
i expect lots of you are for it.
why should they be chosen to help US?
why not use the scourge of our race rather than harming random others.
so i put it to you, we experiment on rapists, murderers, conviocts you are without doupt guilty or hidious crimes.
what right to they have to life? they have taken life, so in my eyes rather than living of tax payers money, they forfit their rights.
so wshat are your thoughts?
i am against it.
i expect lots of you are for it.
why should they be chosen to help US?
why not use the scourge of our race rather than harming random others.
so i put it to you, we experiment on rapists, murderers, conviocts you are without doupt guilty or hidious crimes.
what right to they have to life? they have taken life, so in my eyes rather than living of tax payers money, they forfit their rights.
so wshat are your thoughts?
This is simple, as humans we tend to value human life more than animals. So testing on them doesn't make us feel as guilty.
| Vrythramax wrote: |
| This is simple, as humans we tend to value human life more than animals. So testing on them doesn't make us feel as guilty. |
well testing on other human beings goes against about 5 MILLION LAWS just because ppl have broken the law doesnt mean they deserve to go through testing sure ppl are against testing on animals but alot of those ppl and more would be against testing on human beings
I've seen films of animal testing, way too gross. I don't like it either, but you must admit, we all reap the benefits....doesn't make it right though. 
your right it isnt but would you rather have it be done on animals or human beings.
| The Master DCK wrote: |
| your right it isnt but would you rather have it be done on animals or human beings. |
as long as it isn't me!
sorry.
actually that is a little funny but when you do talk about this stuff it should always be serious i have been against animal testing for a long time but to do it on HUMANS is really inhumane
Testing on animal better than testing on human even though they are rapist or bad guys. However, i think that it's not good to do testing on any organism. All organism have their rights to live.
lets be serious on this... experiment as much as you like on animals cause if all those environmentalists out there are right about half their stuff we'll have a hand full of animals left soon enough so this is the time to do all experiments. After all, rapists, murders and convicts I'm willing to bet we'll have plenty of as long as humanity survives 
As long as i'm not an animal i don't care and as long as the testings go to a good cause
(but i guess i'm a person that wouldn't care a bit even if it wasn't for a good cause)
(but i guess i'm a person that wouldn't care a bit even if it wasn't for a good cause)
interesting question! I haven´t really thought about making medical testing on criminals. But I have to say that´s a very cool thought.
I´m one of those who beleave a rapist or killer has pretty much wasted his chance of beeing in the society, and I dont really want to pay for his cable TV and food in prison either...
So as long as the criminal is guilty it would be great! Only problem is that sometimes people get convicted even though they are not guilty...
But all in all the idea is quite good
I´m one of those who beleave a rapist or killer has pretty much wasted his chance of beeing in the society, and I dont really want to pay for his cable TV and food in prison either...
So as long as the criminal is guilty it would be great! Only problem is that sometimes people get convicted even though they are not guilty...
But all in all the idea is quite good
Pretty tough debate and a lot of side questions that need to be considered in such a topic.
Now, whether you choose animals or rapists, murderers, convicts, one point is for sure :
Experiences (medical in this case) have proven to be quite effective in healing contemporary sicknesses such as skin cancer, cardiac troubles, diabetic treatment and so on...
Of course, I resent all kinds of brutality whether they may affect animal or human beings but if no other alternative ways of healing people exist then what should be done?
Anyways, sickos dont have the right to take away one's live making them an emotional target for practitioners.
Now, whether you choose animals or rapists, murderers, convicts, one point is for sure :
Experiences (medical in this case) have proven to be quite effective in healing contemporary sicknesses such as skin cancer, cardiac troubles, diabetic treatment and so on...
Of course, I resent all kinds of brutality whether they may affect animal or human beings but if no other alternative ways of healing people exist then what should be done?
Anyways, sickos dont have the right to take away one's live making them an emotional target for practitioners.
Sounds fine to me, but how about we change 'convicts' to people on death row; that way it wouldn't matter: they're about to get the chair anyway.
Does it make it any better in moral terms killing another human being instead of animals? I mean arguably they aren't even sentient (not even a bit).
^What's the difference between humans and animals? and why does that difference entitle humans to life while objectifying animals?
Well, I'd like to point out they aren't sentient... or hardly at all. Actually putting that in perspective is like humans trying to figure out what being dead is like. It isn't like anything because you loose your sentience (ok, well... lots of theories but still let's stick with the simplest one). So I mean effectively that's what being an animal is like, dead, I guess. I mean I can only contemplate vaguely about this... I'm not for or against by the way, I just don't think it's any better torturing humans instead.
^but why not guilty humans instead of innocent animals?
i understand that this is going to sound bad but, i think its perfically fine to do animal testing. i mean, would you rather have a rat die or rather have a die? i know my answer is a rat and i hope that it is for most people. now you say "but its not MY relative". but it is someone's relative and someone has to love them. it would be horrible to kill people that other people love. people who think we should test on humans ARE inhuman.
this is just MY opinion. sorry if anyone finds it offenseve
this is just MY opinion. sorry if anyone finds it offenseve
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^but why not guilty humans instead of innocent animals? |
Well they are neither "innocent" nor "guilty". They are neutral, considering they are not really thinking for themselves. All these words are human words, from human perspectives. You can't apply them to animals. Ok it might be wrong to kill another living thing but... have you ever trod on a spider or taken up the weeds in the garden? Last time I checked they were living.
| Josso wrote: |
| they are not really thinking for themselves. |
Are you sure?
Yes, they're less intelligent, but they do think.
As for stepping on a spider (as per your example), I only do that to animals that trespass inside my house. Such a spider would be guilty of trespassing in my house, as stated by the sign saying that all trespassers will be shot (or otherwise killed). I maintain this policy to all species; so it's perfectly fair.
If I see a spider outside, where it belongs, I don't bother it (unless it first bothers me).
Interesting debate, I'm not sure a spider has the knowledge that is trespassing or even any kind of perspective of things like that. Or any perspective 
Who knows I guess... it all comes down to one thing in the end. Torture and kill animals or humans. What are most people going to choose? I didn't vote on the poll really. I'm in the middle.
Who knows I guess... it all comes down to one thing in the end. Torture and kill animals or humans. What are most people going to choose? I didn't vote on the poll really. I'm in the middle.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Are you sure? Yes, they're less intelligent, but they do think. As for stepping on a spider (as per your example), I only do that to animals that trespass inside my house. Such a spider would be guilty of trespassing in my house, as stated by the sign saying that all trespassers will be shot (or otherwise killed). I maintain this policy to all species; so it's perfectly fair. If I see a spider outside, where it belongs, I don't bother it (unless it first bothers me). |
one thing as the trespassing sign you need to get a new one "No Tresspassing. Tresspassers will be shot. Survivors will be Shot again." That sign hangs on my door 100% of the time my parents hate it but they let me keep it up. But still all those ppl that are naturists and all that that think it should be ppl proven guilty of a crime you have just been proven guilty of another crime. A law that states that no human being shall have its right to live in any manor and this is UNITED NATIONS LAW it goes for ALL COUNTRIES it doesnt matter if they are on deaths door. If they are about to get the chair i think they should be given the choice of medical testing and if they do survive it they can have life in prisonment instead of the death penalty but most states no longer serve the death penalty. there end of discussion if you ask me if you want to yell at me about my ideas then go ahead and pm me or email me at themasterdck@gmail.com your messages sent will be ignored and your address as spam if you send it to my email good day.
I disagree with many human rights where criminals often receive human rights when they shouldn't. I like that idea that rapists and murderers should be used to test on but in reality it is not going to happen. Great Idea though.
And to the post above, You should do what it says in your Sig.
And to the post above, You should do what it says in your Sig.
Look, even though they've done something bad... it doesn't mean they aren't still a person. They are being punished for it already, taking away someones human rights is reducing yourself to their standard in a way.
| The-Master wrote: |
|
And to the post above, You should do what it says in your Sig. |
Hey pal it isnt refering ot you
I don't think anything or anyone should be tested on unless they choose to be.
Isn't that the thing with testing on animals, its gross because they can't choose it, its humans taking advantage, how can that be okay to do to a rpaist or murderer. They are still humans, maybe if we showed them goodness they could be changed instead of showing them more bad which will just make them angrier and more likely to rape murder etc again and again!
I say... PEACE!
Isn't that the thing with testing on animals, its gross because they can't choose it, its humans taking advantage, how can that be okay to do to a rpaist or murderer. They are still humans, maybe if we showed them goodness they could be changed instead of showing them more bad which will just make them angrier and more likely to rape murder etc again and again!
I say... PEACE!
Better bunny than me. TRUTH.
i agree with vanilla here but then a bunny then me if there is a way that we could mabey create clones with no concious or sub concious it would be alot different
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^but why not guilty humans instead of innocent animals? |
perhaps they are just animals, however guilty hnman's bodies are used too...
There is nothing wrong testing on animals. I agree that animals should be protected too. But, a few lives here and there won't be a big deal.
In my eyes,i think i said this:
in killsing someone, yu give up your rights. why on earth should they deserve anything? other than a hole in the ground to die in.
in killsing someone, yu give up your rights. why on earth should they deserve anything? other than a hole in the ground to die in.
Humans are animals; what's the difference?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Humans are animals; what's the difference? |
Not much in that point of view.
But personally I´d prefer to see some rapist or murderer act as a test object rather than a inocent pet
well, in the vote i did pick rapetist and that, because of, they have played with anothers life, so why can't we play with thieres. anyway, i would not give a rapetist something as "could be dangerus" because , yes he ****** someone, but, he didnt kill them, maybe playing with his life should give him less time in jail, as well , in a sort of way, politicaly, would be bad, humanly POV , then it would be fine
the muders, can defentletly used, they did kill, they can do it again, i would probetly say, that them as have killed alot should be "test animals", would also be usefull to take somke as is juged to death, and drug him , if he is lucky, then he will die,
animals, well rats.. lol
the muders, can defentletly used, they did kill, they can do it again, i would probetly say, that them as have killed alot should be "test animals", would also be usefull to take somke as is juged to death, and drug him , if he is lucky, then he will die,
animals, well rats.. lol
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| ^but why not guilty humans instead of innocent animals? |
If you can't differenciate between a human who has commited a crime and an animal that has no concept of crime or punishment....maybe you belong in one of those classes.
Granted, HUMANS on death row are going to die, they wake evey morning knowing they are going to die....name me an animal with consciencious like that and I'll agree with you totally, to make it even easier, show me an animal that can use tableware.
 |