|
Post by chica on Apr 29, 2005 15:27:13 GMT -5
yeah it is
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on Apr 29, 2005 15:31:02 GMT -5
But at least animals will forget things faster than humans. Few animals have better memories than us humans, but even if they did, humans tend to write things down.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 29, 2005 15:33:42 GMT -5
yeah and that just sux cuz it brings the memories of sadness back.
|
|
|
Post by Hawker on Apr 29, 2005 21:31:41 GMT -5
I WOULD RATHER SEE YOU DEAD THAN ANY ANIMAL!!!!!!!!!!!! it is inhumane. sometimes what comes up as a side effect to any animal (A RAT!) may not be a side effect in humans! do you know some of the ways they test animals??? okay I did a report on it and the pictures I found were so sad and these animals were dying just for us! how selfish can we be? My dad does research on animals. For what? For multiple sclerosis or MS which is a serious brain disease. Do I think its right? Of course, hes trying to put an end to a extremly deadly disease that affects many people. For serious things like this, yes, animal testing is good. But for more trivial things, no it is not.
|
|
|
Post by chica on Apr 29, 2005 21:33:47 GMT -5
yes but does your dad also know that some side effects that may happen in rats or whatever poor helpless creature he is testing on, don't occur in humans? and vis versa. a rat could not react to a drug or whatever but when a person takes it they could have serious side effects.
|
|
|
Post by KiddoFreak on Apr 30, 2005 0:12:23 GMT -5
Of course he does, it's his job. Do you know that something that happens to one human, may never happen to another? Its all relative, and it is often very beneficial to medicine. I've noticed something else, too. Animals have never started a civilization. Huh, if humans aren't superior, than how have we developed so much over the years? Honestly, I think that each species has to use its own strengths to survive, humans get thought. We use these thoughts to scientificly figure out answers to problems, animals don't. Humans have been able to curb things like rabies, small pox, the plauge, Richard Nixon. I don't see animals impeaching their leaders. Normally I just read about bloody power struggles. I have done a number of reports on medical testing, and this is what I think: cosmetic testing is horrible, in every way. Medical testing is good, in almost all cases. Even if something else happens to the animal, humans have used thought to learn something new. Even if the animal is mutilated, humans may have learned something. See, all of those pictures of the vivisected animals never bothered me. I guess I have a scientific mindset. P.S.: Monkey: well have you herd god say that? huh? (about animals being human's slaves.) Look in the book of genesis, when God tells adam that hte animals are his to rule.
|
|
|
Post by Azan on Apr 30, 2005 9:33:35 GMT -5
Yes kiddo put it in a good way, there is always chance for error, animal testing only shortens the chance of an error in human life. Look in the book of genesis, when God tells adam that hte animals are his to rule. Ahh but interpreted it also means that man must watch and look after all animals, never letting them come to harm as a group (basicaly never kill an entire species), but then again animal testing wont be the extinction of lab rats.
|
|
|
Post by Umbrafire on Apr 30, 2005 12:40:56 GMT -5
Look in the book of genesis, when God tells adam that hte animals are his to rule. i agree with the other things you said, but I don't think that god specifically said that animals were meant to serve us.
|
|
|
Post by chica on May 1, 2005 20:05:03 GMT -5
grrrrrr god I don't think ever said that. and anyway we are basically here to serve them. well, the domesticated ones at least. but yeah I agree that putting lipstick on a rabbit is not cool or putting mascara in a rats eye but what about all the other stuff that basically kills them from having medicine's in their eyes and other body parts? doesn't that bother you?
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 1, 2005 20:11:31 GMT -5
Not really. I wathced a thing on channel 2 today about saving the environment, and at one point they were worried that a chemical in the water was causing mutation and killing these frogs.
So what they did was they took some frogs, and they exposed half of them to the toxin in question to see what would happen. The ones exposed became mutated, thus proving that the chemical was resonsible.
My point is that animal testing in this way can be beneficial. These few frogs were poisoned so that us humans could have a better understanding of how to help the frogs as a whole. Of course, you still have to argue whether its right to test drugs on animals for human benefit.
|
|
|
Post by chica on May 1, 2005 20:33:27 GMT -5
yes I agree it is beneficial to the frogs but that's testing frogs with frogs not humans with rats! why can't we just use humans to test humans stuff? it would work out so much better and what's the difference between taking a cute fluffy bunny's life and taking a human's that would actually help out more?
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 1, 2005 20:36:11 GMT -5
you are against killing people for killing, but you are in favor of killing people for medicinal research?
|
|
|
Post by chica on May 1, 2005 20:37:49 GMT -5
no! well yes if it is an alternative for killing cats. or dogs I guess. what if we got the murderers and tested on them? that would solve justified punishment for murderers and no animal testing altogether
|
|
|
Post by Lobstrosity on May 1, 2005 20:42:15 GMT -5
but I bet a lot of that stuff would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, and we all know how much the liberals hate that. I would think it would be a great idea, but the protesters would go crazy trying to put a stop to it.
Also, just so you know, we don't do lab research on dogs or cats.
|
|
|
Post by chica on May 1, 2005 20:45:17 GMT -5
yeah but still what about the cute bunny rabbits and the monkey's you are talkilng about babies who don't have a chance what about these animals who don't have a chance? they just get gunk put into their eyes and ears and mouth until they die. isn't that cruel punishment? well not even punishment!
|
|