Poll: Right or Wrong?
Poll Options
View poll results: Right or Wrong?
I'm for it.
45 53%
I'm against it.
23 27%
I have no stance.
17 20%
Voters: 85.
Page 1 of 2
#1
Time to spark a juicy debate: What are your thoughts on animal testing?
It all makes sense
We're capable of beauty
Through sounds that make on cringe
The dogs only hear us now

#5
Animal testing is wrong
They always get all nervous and give the wrong answers.
Quote by J-Spoon
I did a forward roll into a backflip, caught the les paul and blasted out a face melting version of stairway to intimidate this mentally retarted kid on life support in a wheelchair that was trying to play it through an MG. What a loser.
#6
I only support animal testing if they're finding a cure for not using the searchbar
Gear:
Art & Lutherie Acoustic
Epiphone SG
Electro-Harmonix Little Big Muff
Electro-Harmonix Nano Small Stone
Vox AD30VT
#7
its just like human testing: the biggest damn stress causer in the world. animal homework should be outlawed as well.
Gear:
Fender Hot Rod Deville 2x12
Custom Built Guitar (made it myself)
PRS SE Soapbar II Maple
Fender Stratacoustic (Stolen! )
Digitech RP200
Boss MT-2
Roland Microcube
I like my stuff!
#8
I don't really think I can vote because although it's sort of animal cruelty, it's often for the greater good, so I'm not too sure.
Quote by SteveHouse
Also you're off topic. This thread is about Reva eating snowmen.
#9
Lots of us are alive now thanks to it.
Hell yeah.
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||

#10
animal testing is a necessary evil. that said, there should be standards for the treatment of test animals, and luckily there are.
.
..
...
I have no opinion on this matter.
#12
If thought it said anal testing...... ...

Ummm for certain stuff then why not, better then testing on humans i suppose
#15
I am for scientific research on animals because of:

Vaccines for: anthrax, chicken pox, cholera, diphtheria, influenza, hepatitis A and B, measles, mumps, polio, rabies, rubella, smallpox, tetanus, whooping cough, yellow fever

Medications: insulin, penicillin, streptomycin, pain killers, anti-inflammatory drugs, anticoagulants, chemotherapy

Devices: pacemaker, artificial heart, hip, knee

Procedures: angioplasty, transplant of heart, kidney, liver, cornea, many organs

etc.
#16
I am for animal testing. Simply because people have greatly benefited from it.
Quote by phatpat1724
I only support animal testing if they're finding a cure for not using the searchbar

Worst search bar joke ever? I think so.
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████
██████████████████████

You'll Never Walk Alone
#18
Quote by original=punk
If it's for humans, use humans.
they do... after its been proven safe on animals. else the drug could kill people in testing, and we wouldnt want that, now would we?
.
..
...
I have no opinion on this matter.
#19
Quote by Zugunruhe
they do... after its been proven safe on animals. else the drug could kill people in testing, and we wouldnt want that, now would we?

Sometimes there are loopholes in that, see Vioxx. Vioxx was tested safe on animals, but must have skipped proper human testing. It is no longer on the market..
#20
Quote by original=punk
If it's for humans, use humans.

people are an end, never a means to get there
#21
Horrible yet necessary.
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.
#22
I just don't know where i stand. On one side, If we test it on animals and something goes wrong then we have to put them down. On the other side, if we test on humans and something goes wrong then the testers could get sued for negligence. Surely you'd get better results using humans to experiment, but which life do we value more?

Just best for me to put no stance i think
Quote by J.R.R. Tolkein
All that is gold does not glitter; not all those that wander are lost.


Quote by CowboyUp
If a mute swears, does his mum wash his hands with soap?


Food for thought from AussiE
#23
It's always wrong to put a sentient being through pain or deprive it of possible future fulfilment for no good reason. I definitely don't think cosmetic testing is a good enough reason to do that, and although I'm not 100% sure, I am inclined to say that medical testing isn't compelling enough either, on the whole.

Click for a list of companies that don't test on animals, if you like.
#25
Medical testing on animals is definitely justified. Cosmetic testing, not so much.
Originally posted by TestForEcho
Badreligionrock is the man.

Quote by Pinky19
Badreligionrock you have the greatest avatar of all time. Rejected is the best video. Period.
#26
Quote by Mike!
Wow, UG really does hate animals.....Right on!

Wow, you really do hate humans.....Right on!
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||

#28
As long as they don't surgically install devices into them, or slaughter them. I don't really mind it...although it does seem a little mindless. It's not like we're going to use the products on the animals anyways, so we should probably test on more humans. Like for make-up.
#29
There is a reason animal testing takes place....
To improve medicine in most cases, which in turn improve health, and could save lifes, etc...
You could argue that everything dies in the end, and that animals deserve to live free, or whatever; but testing does enhance mankind, and I don't think it is wrong to encourage that...

Of course, there are also wrong usage of testing, which include torture of animals for wrong reasons, etc. But unless we find a way to improve medicine in another way, we have to stick with it (unless you want to test on humans, which in a way contradicts the whole "for the greater good of mankind" thing).
Unfortunately, medicines aren't perfect logic equations that one can be sure of without testing, mainly because not only logic is involved, but physical and chemical laws, environment, etc, so the only way to determine if a medicine is useful would be testing it with beings more similar to humans (chimps, etc)....
I don't know of any other way of verifying medicines, treatments, etc which doesn't involve trial and error (which in turn could cost a lot of lives)...

Cloning could be a way, and stem research maybe, but most medicines have to be used in mature mammals, etc, which don't include embryos....

IF we find a better way, we would switch I think...
#30
I'd rather an animal die testing products than a human being.

To quote a doctor I heard on an episode of Penn and Teller:

"All of the progress in medicine made in the last hundred years would be non-existent if not for animal testing".
#31
It has its place. Not for cosmetics. But its contribution to medical science is undeniable. It will continue to be useful, especially in genetics. If possible, alternatives should be used. Pain/discomfort to the animals involved should be minimised.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#32
Um, it's cruel to cause pain to anything that can feel it without a really good reason. Can you not see that? Your brain doesn't have to be developed in order to feel pain. What about humans with severely limited mental capacities, or babies? Would you say it's OK to hurt them because they don't 'know' what's going on?
#33
Quote by Mike!
Wow, UG really does hate animals.....Right on!


No, we just value the wellbeing of humans over that of animals.
#34
Pro animal testing for medical purposes only.
Sat in a lab, curing diseases. They actually LET me play with chemicals!
#38
Quote by rigiddigits
It's always wrong to put a sentient being through pain or deprive it of possible future fulfilment for no good reason. I definitely don't think cosmetic testing is a good enough reason to do that, and although I'm not 100% sure, I am inclined to say that medical testing isn't compelling enough either, on the whole.

Click for a list of companies that don't test on animals, if you like.


I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. 18 dogs were killed by Best and Banting, with the research they managed to pinpoint Insulin and have saved, or at least seriously benefitted the lives of several million people with it. If that isn't worth it, I don't know what is.
#39
In a world where we kill humans to solve problems I think animal testing is pretty low on the scale of things to be fighting against.
Quote by FrenchyFungus
Hey y'all!!! Me and my friend were over at her house. I we were wonder what guys think when they see a hot girl at the mall or whatever walk by. (We're both pretty as y'all would say "blonde" sometimes).


Quote by rabidguitarist
I just look like some homo.
#40
Curing diseases, etc. = Larger population = DOOM.

Against it.
Sunn O))):
Quote by Doppelgänger
You could always just sleep beside your refrigerator.

Guitar:
- Ibanez S670FM w/ JB
- Fender 'Lite Ash' Stratocaster
- Fender '72 Deluxe Telecaster
- Arbiter LP Jr. Doublecut
Amp:
- Laney VC15

'72 Tele Appreciation Group
RIP DIO
Page 1 of 2