[Debate] Animal Testing

[LogicnoJutsu]

Get the unemployed and criminals of society to sign a waver and do shit on them. Were bound to get a super-hero or villain at one point.

 

[End of Days]

Well we eat them so might as well test on them which would in most cases serve a higher purpose than just filling the stomach.

 

[DroGGz0r]

I 2nd this. Wait isn't Kim Jong Il dead? Don't you mean Kim Jong Un?

Same shit, different caster...

 

[BlacLord™]

i agree...

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

If we're going to play that game, why don't we list hundreds of thousands of pictures where humans kill every other animal including their own kind, on earth by the millions? And actually, that's a police dog in training to protect others.

Dogs attack to defend themselves and the ones they care about from harm; people attack for that, but more so for their own personal gains. Dogs are also generally more forgiving than people.

 

[Umari Senju]

funny how cruel humanity is against against each other....

some person would prefer to spend $5 on food for a stray dog than give a dollar to a homeless guy.

Probably because unlike humans, dogs don't screw each other over for ridiculous things like money. They're loyalty is absolute and unwavering even when abused.

Humans can't boast the same thing....not all of us anyways. There is a price that comes with high intelligence.....

 

[Mahesvara]

It's unethical, but its necessary unfortunately.

 

[Anduril]

Reading some of the responses on this thread, I feel sorry for Mankind.

 

[Sasuke2]

Of a higher intellect and awareness of events...

By that logic it should be absolutely fine to experiment on people with inferior intellect and retards.

 

[BlacLord™]

By that logic it should be absolutely fine to experiment on people with inferior intellect and retards.

That's not what I'm saying at all so stop trying to twist my words.

Point is, people make better test subjects because they are fully aware of what is happening and so, they are exposed to less stress.

 

[1Told]

Get the unemployed and criminals of society to sign a waver and do shit on them. Were bound to get a super-hero or villain at one point.

and all the ones whom are going to die anyway, they can be useful for everybody for once in their lives!!!

also, you can chose to give your organs and your body to help medical students after your death, why not being a guinea pig?

Well we eat them so might as well test on them which would in most cases serve a higher purpose than just filling the stomach.

not everybody is a meat eater, eating meat is a choice just like vivisection and both are huge business and not necessary for us.

If we're going to play that game, why don't we list hundreds of thousands of pictures where humans kill every other animal including their own kind, on earth by the millions? And actually, that's a police dog in training to protect others.

Dogs attack to defend themselves and the ones they care about from harm; people attack for that, but more so for their own personal gains. Dogs are also generally more forgiving than people.

intelligent, gentil et avec une conscience qui fonctionne à la perfection, je pense qu'on a trouvé l'homme idéal

It's unethical, but its necessary unfortunately.

it's abuse plain and simple, just like breeding and no it's not necessary except for the soulless people making huge money with it.

Reading some of the responses on this thread, I feel sorry for Mankind.

why?
dare to explain?

By that logic it should be absolutely fine to experiment on people with inferior intellect and retards.

i think your brain is out of order, you are mixing speciesism and eugenism when the subject is about abusing other species as a business.

 

[BlacLord™]

intelligent, gentil et avec une conscience qui fonctionne à la perfection, je pense qu'on a trouvé l'homme idéal

You must be registered for see images

Je suis flatté. XD

 

[Sasuke2]

i think your brain is out of order, you are mixing speciesism and eugenism when the subject is about abusing other species as a business.

I simply said that humans too are animals and his response was "but of a higher intellect and awareness of events"
I thought that's his justification for why it's okay to experiment on non-human animals, while it's not okay do to the same on people.
If the justification why it's okay to harm other animals are lesser intellect and awareness, then humans with lesser intellect and awareness should be allowed to be experimented upon as well.

 

[Transcendence]

Completely against it. Who are we to play God and decide the fate of these animals lives just for our own gain? There's millions of disgusting criminals who get to live normal lives, eating 3 square meals a day and sleep on a bed every night who don't deserve it, and we're testing on poor animals? Pathetic. Plus, we would know the effects of whatever we're testing with full certainty because we'd be testing on humans in the first place.

 

[Zexion~]

Its arrogant to play god with another race, if were going to test why not test those who already have the disease within our own race? Its only right that if we choose to commit these sort of things that we do it on those of the same race, animals who have nothing to do with us or anything related to the sickness shouldn't have their lives halted just to help us. Nothing states that the joy they get in life is any different from ours

 

[SayWhat21]

well i find it horrible

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

I wrote an essay for school defending it but in the end it made me sick. I think half the time they do animal testing it is pointless and twisted. Also, a lot of the people in that field are abusive pricks, which makes sense because anyone with a heart wouldn't be able to handle the job.

Pro animal testers argue that we use animals because they are so similar yet they say it isn't wrong to do because they are different. They just contradict themselves.

I agree that it is necessary but for most purposes it is not and it is not done with enough limitations.




Interesting fact (a bit unrelated): PETA euthanize around 90% of the animals they save even though they are all about animal rights.

 

[Disquiet]

Well we eat them so might as well test on them which would in most cases serve a higher purpose than just filling the stomach.

I love this answer. It challenges the logic of some of the opposing arguments, unless they're a vegetarian or vegan of course.

 

[1Told]

I wrote an essay for school defending it but in the end it made me sick. I think half the time they do animal testing it is pointless and twisted. Also, a lot of the people in that field are abusive pricks, which makes sense because anyone with a heart wouldn't be able to handle the job.

Pro animal testers argue that we use animals because they are so similar yet they say it isn't wrong to do because they are different. They just contradict themselves.

I agree that it is necessary but for most purposes it is not and it is not done with enough limitations.




Interesting fact (a bit unrelated): PETA euthanize around 90% of the animals they save even though they are all about animal rights.

PETA is a business, they are not saving animals but they are making a lot of money using them and the empathy humans naturally feel for them.

I love this answer. It challenges the logic of those who say it's cruel and thus prefer humans instead, unless they're a vegetarian or vegan of course.

if people had to kill with their bare hands and teeth the animal they want to eat, eat it entirely and not only clean meat with no blood coming from a shop, they would turn vegetarian pretty fast.

also without tools/weapons humans are pitiful hunters (meaning we are not supposed to eat meat as much as we do and not all meat) or we are failures as a specie which is not the case.
we have no claws, no fangs, our digestive system is weak af to digest meat unlike carnivore like cats or omnivore like dogs, biology don't lie but humans do...and it's gonna kill them.

humans are vegetarian by nature, certain kind of meat is useful when we don't find enough food just like our distant primate cousins eat birds, bugs, fish and eggs when greens and fruits are missing.

 

[Pumpkin Ninja]

I love this answer. It challenges the logic of some of the opposing arguments, unless they're a vegetarian or vegan of course.

One is essentially torture while the other isn't. Although one can argue that the way they treat and kill animals in slaughterhouses are torture as well but that needs to change too.

 

[Disquiet]

if people had to kill with their bare hands and teeth the animal they want to eat, eat it entirely and not only clean meat with no blood coming from a shop, they would turn vegetarian pretty fast.

also without tools/weapons humans are pitiful hunters (meaning we are not supposed to eat meat as much as we do and not all meat) or we are failures as a specie which is not the case.
we have no claws, no fangs, our digestive system is weak af to digest meat unlike carnivore like cats or omnivore like dogs, biology don't lie but humans do...and it's gonna kill them.

humans are vegetarian by nature, certain kind of meat is useful when we don't find enough food just like our distant primate cousins eat birds, bugs, fish and eggs when greens and fruits are missing.

@Bold, so you're saying because the process is tasked to the machines/tools, humans don't worry about it. I don't see how that changes anything, since the average person isn't going to be conducting the test themselves. If anything, it's showing a similarity between scenarios, not a difference.


@Underlined, I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, merely sharing an idea, or trying to argue a hypocrisy cultivated by pleasure vs human biology.

One is essentially torture while the other isn't. Although one can argue that the way they treat and kill animals in slaughterhouses are torture as well but that needs to change too.

Right, but then the argument would be that humans should be totrured instead of the animals that we're already killing. That moral doesn't seem "wicked proofed" either. It's essentially saying the loss of their life is insignificant, since the only consideration is to make their death for human consumption more bearable.

Though again, it really depends on your opposing argument.