Anyone here against tests on animals that cause them to suffer?

heliocentric said:
If you examine the rhetoric involved in animal research youre looking at the same lines of justification as states that have enacted genocide on a race/people.

Harsh words for someone who enjoys the benefits of animal research every time he falls sick.

I find theres offen a heavy tone of 'de-humanisation' or prehaps 'de-animalisation' (to use a more appropriate term) involved in animal testing, case in point one of the earlier posters refered to the animal she was testing on as an 'animal model'. Its not even a living creature anymore, its a thing, it, simulation etc.

Ignorance is bliss.

http://www.ahc.umn.edu/rar/MNAALAS/Models.html
What is a Model?
A model is something that resembles something else. A model of an airplane looks like the real thing, but may be smaller, less detailed, made of different materials, and may or may not be able to do everything a real airplane can. However, by studying that model, a person can learn a lot about airplanes. In fact, airplane designers make models of the planes they are building to test them before they make the actual airplane.

Like with airplanes, it is practical to make a model of a disease to learn about it and test treatments before attempting to diagnose and treat patients with the disease. There are many different ways to model a disease. Mathmatical or computer models are used to predict the way a disease may behave.

* Some normal or diseased tissues can be grown in a Petri dish and studied outside of the body
* Patients with the disease can be studied
* An animal that has a similar disease can be studied
* The disease can be induced in an animal

These last two are considered "animal models" of disease. Animals can be used as models of human disease or disease of animals. Examples of animal models include:

* Induction of cancer in a mouse to simulate cancer in a human
* Studying a genetic disease in a pure-bred dog that is similar to a human disease
* Transplanting an organ between 2 pigs

Scientists can then use the animal model to study the way the disease progresses and what factors are important to the disease process. The model can also be used to study disease treatment. This is done through the use of controlled experiments.
 
Anyone with a conscience would prefer an alternative to animal testing.
However when it comes down to medical research I don't think there is. But I do know this, anyone who has gone to a GP for some ailment and come away with a prescription for medication which they have duly taken is an advocate of animal testing. Not one person would refuse life saving treatment for a beloved child/sibling/partner on the grounds that it involved animal testing. I for one would rather a hundred rhesus monkeys died if it meant my seriously ill son could live (hypothetically speaking of course). Anyone who says otherwise is guilty of hypocrisy.
 
samcdkey said:
Harsh words for someone who enjoys the benefits of animal research every time he falls sick.
Sorry not a valid argument, you probably reap the handed down benefits of slavery or any number of atrocities everyday, that doesnt mean that you condone those actions by default.


Ignorance is bliss.
Sorry i dont see where in my statements you saw any ignorance, i fully understand what a model is and how it can be applied, and in this instance im illustrating the dangers of using that word as a tool in stripping a being of worth or value beyond what its being used for.
 
heliocentric said:
Sorry not a valid argument, you probably reap the handed down benefits of slavery or any number of atrocities everyday, that doesnt mean that you condone those actions by default.

And what are these benefits of slavery that we are reaping every day?

Sorry i dont see where in my statements you saw any ignorance, i fully understand what a model is and how it can be applied, i simply think the word can also be used a tool in stripping a being of worth or value beyond what its being used for.

Actually we use it ubiquitously in experimental designs and it was not invented for animals, so you are wrong. We begin with design models, work through cell models and animal models and end with a human model.

The model is the part of the experiment that is standardised and accepted as valid for testing that question, it has nothing to do with the animals per se. We also use statistical models for analysis of the results.

As for dehumanising, it is the same with working in medicine. One may faint at one's first surgery, but eventually one learns to function without falling apart regardless of personal convictions. It is a natural coping mechanism, it does not make one better or worse than another.
 
Last edited:
samcdkey said:
And what are these benefits of slavery that we are reaping every day?

Huh? You don't know? Golly, Sam, I was beginning to think that you were one of the truly smart ones here!?

Slave labor helped to build all of the great empires of the world, which in turn helped to create the leisure time necessary for the great minds of the world to create/invent the great tools of the world.

Can you name a great civilization that was NOT helped in its endeavors by slave labor?

Yes, I know this topic isn't about slavery, but....?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Huh? You don't know? Golly, Sam, I was beginning to think that you were one of the truly smart ones here!?

Slave labor helped to build all of the great empires of the world, which in turn helped to create the leisure time necessary for the great minds of the world to create/invent the great tools of the world.

Can you name a great civilization that was NOT helped in its endeavors by slave labor?

Yes, I know this topic isn't about slavery, but....?

Baron Max

Well I'm not certain we had slaves in India.
 
samcdkey said:
Well I'm not certain we had slaves in India.

Hmm, I think you did, Sam ....and some would say that you STILL have "slaves" there. What of the "Untouchables"? What's happening with them these days? ....and I'm not talking about the "official" version, but the reality?

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Hmm, I think you did, Sam ....and some would say that you STILL have "slaves" there. What of the "Untouchables"? What's happening with them these days? ....and I'm not talking about the "official" version, but the reality?

Baron Max

We had a Prime Minister who was an untouchable and we have reservations in schools, colleges and government careers rangung from 15-40%.

And the untouchables had fixed jobs just like the other castes. They were considered unclean but I don't think they were used as slaves (they would not be allowed to touch anything). Sad really, but its disappearing now. The joke is that now that the untouchables are converting to Islam and Christianity to escape the stigma of caste they have suddenly become most desirable in the Hindu mainstream who see 24% of the total untouchable population (castes and tribes) contributing to the 15% Muslims and 11% Christians and increasing their numbers.
 
Baron Max said:
Huh? You don't know? Golly, Sam, I was beginning to think that you were one of the truly smart ones here!?

Slave labor helped to build all of the great empires of the world, which in turn helped to create the leisure time necessary for the great minds of the world to create/invent the great tools of the world.

Can you name a great civilization that was NOT helped in its endeavors by slave labor?

Yes, I know this topic isn't about slavery, but....?

Slavery has two negative impacts on a civilization. The first is economic– slave labor is expensive and prone to revolt. It also doesn't produce as good as returns as labor you have to pay for.

The second is moral. Once a civilization reaches a certain point with a lot of thinkers and the like, people begin to realize that slavery and the morality of their culture are clashing. People being to see hypocrisy in what they preach and what they practice. This, of course, leads to more revolts.
 
samcdkey said:
We had a Prime Minister who was an untouchable and we have..........

Ahh, but, Sam, what about during the building stage of the Indian civilization? Say, back in the old days?

It's my uneducated opinion that slaves were present and helped build most, if not all, of the great civilizations of the world. I know of none that didn't use slaves (or damned close to it) at one time or another.

Baron Max
 
Roman said:
Slavery has two negative impacts on a civilization. ...

Sure, I agree. But then again, how long does it take for those negative effects to overwhelm the positive effects? Many of the great civilizations of the world had slaves for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years. The negative impacts didn't begin to cause problems for a long, long time.

Baron Max
 
With regards to the original question, I think animal testing is a necessary evil. Sometimes you just have to know something.

You know, it's funny people scream about animal testing but I don't hear much of anyone talking about the illigal experiments conducted on live human beings in parts of the world. What Nazi Germany did is still practiced behind closed doors, in hushed places.

There is something wrong with your value system if animals are as important to or more important than humans.
 
Baron Max said:
Sure, I agree. But then again, how long does it take for those negative effects to overwhelm the positive effects? Many of the great civilizations of the world had slaves for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years. The negative impacts didn't begin to cause problems for a long, long time.

I'm not sure.
Human civilization is speeding up, though. Things go faster. The decline of the Romans took hundreds of years, if not because everything went slower back then.
Thailand's economy pretty much crashed overnight. Same with a whole heap of once oil rich South American nations.
 
Animal testing makes my medicine cheaper. Animal cruelty would make it cheaper still.

And I don't like spending money.
 
Roman said:
Animal testing makes my medicine cheaper. Animal cruelty would make it cheaper still.

And I don't like spending money.

Not really actually. The price of medicine is inflated because of the monopolist position of most pharmaceutical companies.
 
If you value animal life as importantly or more importantly than you do human beings then you are a form of threat to other humans. Think about it: Civilization relies on mutual cooperation from all human beings inside it in order to function. That starts as far down as the humble trash sweeper and goes all the way up to the President.

If animals get a higher priority for preservation than the other members of your society, then you are not in heart participating in civilization. PETA and Greenpeace are great examples of this, particularly on their more extreme members. While stopping logging in South America is a good ecological goal, the problem is that stopping it outright, and directly interfearing in their trade creates hardship for those people and their families by taking away their source of income.

If we took PETA's known incidents of vandalizing Wendy's resteraunts to a higher extreme, say interfearing with the flow of supplies to the resteraunt (which is EXACTLY what Greenpeace does to loggers) then those employees are out their jobs. Now in America we have laws against that, but the point is made. In principal when you are so ademate about nature and animals that you value them higher than people (and on the worse side, hate people) then you become a threat to the other members of civilization.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Not really actually. The price of medicine is inflated because of the monopolist position of most pharmaceutical companies.

If the price of a cat didn't cost $250 in drugs to keep it happy, research costs would go down.

And I sort of get a kick out of knowing that something had to die so that I may live. That's why I love milk. These beasts are our slaves, we squeeze them until delicious liquid comes out, then we drink it. It's awesome when you think about it. Sit there with my glass of milk thinking "This came from an animal. An animal bred to secrete yummy substances for me." It's quite magical.
 
Roman said:
If the price of a cat didn't cost $250 in drugs to keep it happy, research costs would go down.

Not really. The pharmaceutical companies aren't really in the business for giving the consumer a fair price. They will charge whatever they can get away with. If they hold the patent it's a lot. If they made price deals with other pharmaceutical companies then it's a lot too.

And otherwise it is still a lot.

Needless to say cats do cost money, but interestingly I heard that most money spend by pharmaceutical companies doesn't go into research, but into advertisement. Although
1. they are usually not allowed to advertise.
2. Nobody knows where the money goes.

That said, the person who told me this was a Fin anf you can't really trust these communists if you are an american. Especially since all pharmaceutical companies want to do is make you better!
 
Back
Top