Pretty sure that's not what they mean when they say animal testing, bro.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Thank you for this. I can't believe how stupid some people are to not know torturing animals isn't ok.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

what would you suggest doing then? and there's a difference between testing and torturing

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, there really isn't. You must be clueless to the hellish things they do to the animals.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Or maybe you're clueless?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, I am very informed on animal issues. I know the things they do to them. Maybe get a, heart if you don't care, or a brain if you don't know what happens in labs.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Trish stop trying to piss people off with your unrelated topics. "get a brane dumass!1 >://" You have no idea how to debate if that's seriously what you're resorting to. Link us to some of these issues you're apparently such an expert in. Also pay attention to Jimi. He knows what he's talking about.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There is nothing good about testing on animals."resorting to"? I didn't even start debating. I never said I'm an expert. I said I'm informed. We have laws about how livestock are to be treated, also. Do people follow it? Not often. Just because under heavy surveillance they managed to behave while using animals doesn't impress me. I've been told by chemists, biologists and others animal testing is inadequate and unnecessary. I think tying to pretend it's for good purposes is sickening. Much testing is just for the Hell of it. "hey let's give them this and see if they live" "let's cut thus off and see what happens" "let's try swapping, their heads""let's see if mice would rather orgasm or eat" so stop with the bullshit. It's cruel, evil, hellish wrong, and people IN THE FIELD say so. But maybe true experts are wrong, too?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

In History and Social studies, we only get two out of a possible six for only reading the source that support your claim. Everyone has acknowledged how animal testing is sometimes wrong, but very often it's as humane as possible.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Trish, what do you suggest as the alternative?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There are many alternatives that do not utilize living animals. Also, as I have stated, the overwhelming majority of experiments upon animals are not remotely necessary to begin with.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Ok, if there are many alternatives can you name some?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well, Trish, the way I see it is if you really gave that many shits, then volunteer to be the animals. Save the rats, and you can volunteer to all those experiments you're talking about.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Today, I did some of my own research into PeTA's 'alternatives'. Nearly all of them are computer programs. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you need to test on the animal itself to find out what makes it 'tick'? What's the code for enzyme reaction? What's the logarithm for metabolism?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I think their alternatives are supplements. Like instead of saying," let's put this drug in the monkey and see what happens" they'll say," let's put this drug in a monkey and see if XXX happens" In theory, it would reduce the number of animals needed because the scientists know what to look for. Also, if the program gives lots of bad stuff, the product may not be tested at all.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm almost certain they already do that. They formulate hypothesis' then act on them. It would be a HUGE waste of resources to go "lemmie slap this monkey with acid and take some photos, for shits, giggles, and SCIENCE!"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

There is oh so much humans don't know about everything, even the way living beings work. Life it self is so detailed and complex that I would bet that the most advanced programming language available wouldn't be able to accurately simulate the tests. Nearly all of the people complaining and campaigning for the environment just criticise and don't offer solutions because they can't.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's why they can only be used as supplements.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How is this post downvoted? Just because we can overcome other animals does not mean that we should test on them. If it's for the greater good, okay, that's different. But clearly we are destroying this world, and we should diminish the suffering these animals must take.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

How are we destroying this world...?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Wolverine, I want it to be known that the question you just asked is one of the most absurdly stupid questions I have ever bore witness to being asked. It's not my style to say that without explanation, but I don't even know where to begin. How about you go for a fucking walk and see for yourself the immense destruction we are inflicting on this planet.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Mike, you're awesome

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Haha, I probably should have put more explanation behind my question. I didn't mean for it to be a stupid, I'll retry... In my area, there is not much, I live next to a forest and a pond and a few other houses. I do not live in the city, so I don't see what most other people would, now would you kindly give me an explanation as to what we're destroying? Preferably without cursing...

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You are still generating waste and you most likely use non-clean energy, so you're still burning coal, filling landfills, and polluting in general. I don't see much destruction around my area, but that doesn't mean we are not clean.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

While I don't like animal testing for medicine, I get why it's necessary. But the amount of animal testing that goes on for superficial reasons is ridiculous- every shampoo, perfume, mascara, soap, detergent, even bleach and more that you use was probably tested on animals. Despite the fact that most of these companies already know the basic effects of their products, or have the option to create better products that don't require testing. All people need to do is buy animal friendly products only and soon enough companies will be forced to be more humane. It's not like it's asking a lot sincea lot of good mainstream products are cruelty free and they could easily look up friendly companies online, and yet most don't think 'it's worth their time'. I don't get how people can be like that.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Animal testing AT ALL is not necessary. There are many many different alternatives, but science chooses animals because it's cheap and they can't protest it. In this world, money comes before animal rights simply because humans are too stupid to comprehend their languages and thus "animals can't speak".

by Anonymous 11 years ago

This is why people are paid to test products. But that's more expensive and sometimes they might not get enough subjects. Which I guess is why we test on animals.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Did you just call humans stupid because they don't know what a dog is saying when it barks?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Uh...we do test on humans...after the animals. And if you want to put us on the same playing field as animals then why should anything be different? What species acts more out of preservation for another than for itself? When bugs invest a house they don't think "this is so invasive and destructive of animal rights." When a shark eats someone they don't think "this is the cold-blooded murder of animals...I'll become a vegan." And when animals eat our crops they don't think "Well this is so unethical; we are eating what is meant for humans, not us." The entire ecological system consists of species working off of each other and doing what it needs for its own good. I say humans fit the description fine and there is no reason to lower ourselves below the bar.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Except that we're so much stronger, and that makes us like bullies. We have the mental capacity to understand that our invasion on such a large scale can wipe multiple species out, but they don't. Most of the logic regarding this topic doesn't make sense, but I can still see their point.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

We're human. Naturally we're not going to test stuff on our own species. If otters took over the world one day or something, they would subject their own species to testing either.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Obviously we aren't animal testing enough with all the side effects from medication and all the recalls and deaths and such

by Anonymous 11 years ago