Poll: right or wrong?
Poll Options
View poll results: right or wrong?
Right
82 48%
Wrong
90 52%
Voters: 172.
Page 1 of 5
#1
I never really paid any attention to animal testings but after watching this video (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pDxEpiybtIE) I started to think whether animal testing is wrong or right...what's your opinion?

Alternatives for animal testing from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_animal_testing
"There's Jimmy Page, the greatest thief of American black music who ever walked the earth."
-Homer Simpson
Last edited by blues-guitarist at Mar 18, 2008,
#2
Wrong.

We can test on cloned tissue and such right?

Plus tests on animals can't be conclusively applied to humans.

So it's unethical, useless, and there's an alternative.
Quote by aaron13
well i get on the net and chat with hot chicks alot.
most of them want to see me naked.. and they are over 18..
#4
I think it's wrong. No, I'm not a PETA supporter or anything, but things that work on animals aren't always going to work on humans. It's a stupid idea.
It all makes sense
We're capable of beauty
Through sounds that make on cringe
The dogs only hear us now

#5
It's wrong.
I'm the same as I was when I was six years old
And oh my god I feel so damn old
I don't really feel anything
#6
If it's meant for a human then let a human test it!
Schecter C1 Classic
Fender Vintage -57 Ri Stratocaster
Fender Blues JR w/ 12"Cannabis Rex
Mad Professor Sky Blue OD
Wampler Ego Compressor
TC Electronics Stereo Chorus/Flanger
#7
Quote by StreetLight3989
It's wrong, how would you feel if somebody took you and put you in a lab and started testing drugs on you?
Stoned

but seriously, it's wrong

and chat
*-)
Quote by Bob_Sacamano
i kinda wish we all had a penis and vagina instead of buttholes

i mean no offense to buttholes and poop or anything

Rest in Peace, Troy Davis and Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis and Eric Garner and Mike Brown
#8
Quote by StreetLight3989
It's wrong, how would you feel if somebody took you and put you in a lab and started testing drugs on you?

But they're just animals, we eat animals, plus it helps develop medicides which helps humans<----That's not my opinion but that's something that someone for it would say
"There's Jimmy Page, the greatest thief of American black music who ever walked the earth."
-Homer Simpson
#9
I'm all for it. I'd rather find out the effects on monkeys and such than myself.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will know peace." - Jimi Hendrix
#10
If we don't test things on animals, how is veterinary medicine going to advance?
#13
right.

If anyone out there wants extreme experimental medical procedures performed on them, I'm sure they'll let you take the monkey's place.
Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.


-Jimi Hendrix-

Quote by CodySG
You know you're in the drug thread when you see pictures of squash and "tuna nigga!" when you click the page.
#15
95% of the animals used are rats, guinea pigs etc. It is horrible in some cases however I will personally kill thousands of rats and guinea pigs to cure one deadly disease to save people.
Death Cube K

Quote by primusfan
i know an old lady who supports abortion because it's generally low-class black women getting it performed and for her the less inner-city black kids (or blacks in general) there are, the better.

Oh Damn
#16
Quote by gallagher2006
Wrong...but I guess there aren't any more "humane" alternatives, are there?


Yeah, cloned tissue.
Quote by aaron13
well i get on the net and chat with hot chicks alot.
most of them want to see me naked.. and they are over 18..
#17
Start human testing.
I'm sure there are millions dumb enough to apply
Last edited by Sunny Afternoon at Mar 18, 2008,
#18
its the only way we can advance in stuff, but still some of the stuff they do is really cruel
My Gear
Fender 72 Tele Deluxe
Behringer GM108
Austin Boot-Heel Cutaway
Dunlop Original Crybaby
Boss DS-1 Distortion
Peavey Valveking 112

Quote by mikeman
Everyone can relate to food or taking dumps but nobody sings about it.
#19
Animal testing is 100% necessary for testing the toxicology of drugs before they can be used in humans.

That's a law.

Anyone want to put their hand up and take a pill that is potentially lethal?

No animal testing = no new medicines.
#20
Quote by Sunny Afternoon
Start human testing.
I'm sure there are millions dumb enough to apply

No worries, they already do.

And I agree with animal testing. It's a necessary evil in my book.

╠═══════╬═══════╣

Solder fume huffer σƒ τλε τρπ βπστλεπλσσδ

╠═══════╬═══════╣

Electronic Audio Experiments
#21
I would do it for some money, a sandwich, and free unlimited health coverage.


Just in case shit happens.
Quote by herby190
Every thread I've seen you in has been a complete success. Yay you!

Quote by theking182
i'm voting for GNiCk89. i just like how he speaks TO me, not AT me.

Quote by \m/Angus\m/
Yea, Sublime is a great band. You have an Underoath icon, so I think your opinion doesn't matter.
#22
Quote by Hobolad
Yeah, cloned tissue.

cloned tissue doesn't metabolise a drug at all in the same way as oral or blood administration, therefore isn't a useful test.
#23
It's not really a question of wrong or right. Any idiot can tell you it's wrong. But that doesn't mean it can't be necessary. Obviously, with advancements in medical technology, animal testing could become unnecessary, but until that's perfected it will remain.
Jackson KVX10
Epiphone EB-3

Bugera 6260
Laney Supergroup Mk 1
Marshall VS100RH
Laney LX412A

Bad Monkey
Crybaby
Metal Muff
Fish N Chips
#24
It's sure as hell better than human testing.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#25
Quote by freedoms_stain
cloned tissue doesn't metabolise a drug at all in the same way as oral or blood administration, therefore isn't a useful test.


It's as useful as testing on animals is to finding out the effects on humans.

I mean come, you test on an animal, and whatever the result is you can't trust it- so eventually you have to find out what happens with people, one way or another. Where's the use of a test whose results you know you can't trust?
Quote by aaron13
well i get on the net and chat with hot chicks alot.
most of them want to see me naked.. and they are over 18..
#26
Quote by Hobolad
Yeah, cloned tissue.


Ridiculous. Organ systems in the body interact in complex ways. Cloned tissue is useless in all but the most simple of cases.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#27
Quote by Hobolad
It's as useful as testing on animals is to finding out the effects on humans.

I mean come, you test on an animal, and whatever the result is you can't trust it- so eventually you have to find out what happens with people, one way or another. Where's the use of a test whose results you know you can't trust?
You're overestimating the difference between the results.
#28
Quote by Hobolad
Yeah, cloned tissue.


You make absolutely no sense at all. You do know in order to clone something you need a living embryo. Testing on a living rat embryo is the same as testing on a living rat.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will know peace." - Jimi Hendrix
#29
Quote by Flying Couch
You're overestimating the difference between the results.


In plenty of cases there are substantial differences. You can only find out if there's a difference after a human has been subjected to a substance- so where's the use of animal testing?

You make absolutely no sense at all. You do know in order to clone something you need a living embryo. Testing on a living rat embryo is the same as testing on a living rat.


I disagree that's it's the same- but this ain't a subject I'm an expert on so don't expect a coherant argument

I never said animal clones- human tissue can be used, you can clone from cells and create organs and such without the need for killing anything.
Quote by aaron13
well i get on the net and chat with hot chicks alot.
most of them want to see me naked.. and they are over 18..
Last edited by Hobolad at Mar 18, 2008,
#30
Quote by RedSox_o4
You make absolutely no sense at all. You do know in order to clone something you need a living embryo. Testing on a living rat embryo is the same as testing on a living rat.


+1.


and on a side note, he has the pear as his avatar....can he do that?
Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.


-Jimi Hendrix-

Quote by CodySG
You know you're in the drug thread when you see pictures of squash and "tuna nigga!" when you click the page.
#31
Quote by Hobolad
In plenty of cases there are substantial differences. You can only find out if there's a difference after a human has been subjected to a substance- so where's the use of animal testing?


Straw man. Pointing out a possible flaw in drug testing does not discredit animal testing, which has been responsible for some of the most significant discoveries in the past century.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#32
If killing a hundred thousand rats to find a cure for cancer saves potentially billions of humans, then yes.

no argument.

however, animal testing for cosmetics is wrong.
#33
Quote by Hobolad
It's as useful as testing on animals is to finding out the effects on humans.

I mean come, you test on an animal, and whatever the result is you can't trust it- so eventually you have to find out what happens with people, one way or another. Where's the use of a test whose results you know you can't trust?

A mouse is 98.9% genetically similar to a human

If something has major adverse effects on a mouse it's sure as hell likely to have adverse effects on a human.

The results are never taken as 100% trustworthy, but they are "indicative".

Plus it's possible to genetically engineer a mouse so it has an identical receptor to the human version.
#34
Quote by RedSox_o4
You make absolutely no sense at all. You do know in order to clone something you need a living embryo. Testing on a living rat embryo is the same as testing on a living rat.

I beg to differ.

Scientists have had some success with reverse-differentiation of differentiated somatic cells into Embryonic stem cells which could be used to create sheets of cloned tissue, but they're of zero value for drug testing.
#35
If there's the slightest amount of difference it's void, useless.

And people seem to think I said animal clone embryos and such. With a sample you can now clone human organ tissue, which would surely be more useful?

EDIT: Not whole organs though, apparently.

Still- testing on animals is unreliable and as far as I'm concerned unethical.
Quote by aaron13
well i get on the net and chat with hot chicks alot.
most of them want to see me naked.. and they are over 18..
#37
Cloned tissue can never show you the effects of medication on a whole organism. So I don't consider it a real alternative to animal testings, as it cannot replace the animal, but rather serve as an additional method of testing that will hopefully spare the guinea pigs some pain.

And whoever said the human bodies can't be compared to the ones of rats:
No sh*t, Sherlock?
Nobody ever said that everything that works on rats works on humans. But quita a lot actually does. Any drug on the market has been tested on humans, but the rats had to take it first. They serve as an indicator only. They are used because you don't want to find out if a drug is potentially deadly by testing it with a human.

Quote by Mistress_Ibanez
For drugs I can understand it, but not for testing makeup and skin products.


+1
Nothing to add.
#38
Quote by Hobolad
If there's the slightest amount of difference it's void, useless.
Except not.

Seriously, what the hell? You're asking for perfection.
#39
Quote by Hobolad
If there's the slightest amount of difference it's void, useless.

And people seem to think I said animal clone embryos and such. With a sample you can now clone human organ tissue, which would surely be more useful?


It's not "void" or "useless", though cloned organ tissue most certainly is. We can genetically engineer animals that are identical to humans in ways that benefit our testing. Regardless, the statement that animal testing is useless is contradicted by the entire history of science.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#40
Of course the thought of it is down right horrible; but I don't know how we could do this any other way?
Page 1 of 5