What are your views on animal testing?

[Guest Ricardomeister]

I am one of the 14 and I have been a vegetarian for 22 years now. As I explained earlier, I do not think it is morally justified plus there are several alternatives to using animals. On a moral basis, nobody has ever managed to give me a convincing argument as to why a human life should be valued more than any other animal (obviously excluding close friends/family). For me, every living creature should have the same right to a natural life and that is why I see myself first as a citizen of planet earth rather than a citizen of the human race.

[MrWeedMcGrass]

I am one of the 14 and I have been a vegetarian for 22 years now. As I explained earlier, I do not think it is morally justified plus there are several alternatives to using animals. On a moral basis, nobody has ever managed to give me a convincing argument as to why a human life should be valued more than any other animal (obviously excluding close friends/family). For me, every living creature should have the same right to a natural life and that is why I see myself first as a citizen of planet earth rather than a citizen of the human race.

My views exactly, nicely put.

[leviramsey]

What i was taking about was medical tests, against strictly human diseases. To me this makes more sense because a.) your testing on the species that suffers from the diseases and b.) I have no doubt in my mind that using a human to test on will be far quicker than using hundreds of rats.

Still you're talking about giving someone a deadly disease (does the utility of finding a cure that doesn't save a life justify releasing a murderer?) and if the test succeeds they get released (if it fails, they die). That someone is, effectively, a slave (or perhaps an indentured servant is the better term, assuming that they're actually guilty) and therefore doesn't really have operative free will....

To digress, I understand that my viewpoint offends those that see themselves morally objected to the idea of using a human to test on (despite the fact it already happens, and despite the fact we do a lot worse to people) but i'd appreciate if you didnt call me a sociopath.

...forcing someone at gunpoint (which is what essentially every offer in the context of criminal justice is) is absolutely sociopathic, IMO.

If the shoe fits...

And I have no objection to those who give informed consent arising from free will being test subjects.

[Gringo]

I'm very surprised that 14 people have said they wouldn't test on animals under any circumstances to be honest. I'm guessing all of them are vegetarians....

This whole hypocisy thing that's been going on from page 1 - anyone who is not a vegan and votd for anything other than testing anything on all animals falls into the hypocirsy criticism - why are some animals more cuddly and precious than others - why should we test on rats - why is ot OK to take milk, leather and meat from the cow, but not stick maskara in her eye - why do we talk about humanely killing animals when we make their lives so unbearable - we've made you live in a pen/cage too small for you all your life, but are going to humanely slaughter you so we can eat you - cheers. So no one who falls within the two extremes highlighted at the top are in any position to accuse the no's of hypocrisy - it doesn't come in sizes.

[briggaman]

I'm very surprised that 14 people have said they wouldn't test on animals under any circumstances to be honest. I'm guessing all of them are vegetarians....

This whole hypocisy thing that's been going on from page 1 - anyone who is not a vegan and votd for anything other than testing anything on all animals falls into the hypocirsy criticism - why are some animals more cuddly and precious than others - why should we test on rats - why is ot OK to take milk, leather and meat from the cow, but not stick maskara in her eye - why do we talk about humanely killing animals when we make their lives so unbearable - we've made you live in a pen/cage too small for you all your life, but are going to humanely slaughter you so we can eat you - cheers. So no one who falls within the two extremes highlighted at the top are in any position to accuse the no's of hypocrisy - it doesn't come in sizes.

I'm of the opinion that anyone who has voted no to any testing at all and isn't a vegetarian is a hypocrite. Simple as that.

I don't see how someone could say (for example) that animals shouldn't be tested on in the case of a life saving drug. However, they would soon enough shove that animal into their mouth as a piece of meat.

If they are vegetarians then fair enough. Yet I really don't see the difference between eating an animal and using it for testing out drugs, being that they are both as bad as each other (to the animal). In both cases the animal could die. Infact, it could be argued that it is worse to eat an animal, being that in testing there is no guarantee of death.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I'm of the opinion that anyone who has voted no to any testing at all and isn't a vegetarian is a hypocrite. Simple as that.

And i'm of the opinion that humans are hypocrites and full of contradictions and anyone who likes to take this moral highground by calling other people a hypocrite is only making themselves look foolish.

[briggaman]

I'm of the opinion that anyone who has voted no to any testing at all and isn't a vegetarian is a hypocrite. Simple as that.

And i'm of the opinion that humans are hypocrites and full of contradictions and anyone who likes to take this moral highground by calling other people a hypocrite is only making themselves look foolish.

Good for you. It's each to their own at the end of the day. However, I'm not trying to take any moral highground. I have backed up what I have said with a valid point on the last page.

The fact is that testing on animals is just as bad as eating them. There really isn't any argument against that, unless you look into specific cases. This is why I have come to the conclusion that people saying a straight no to the question proposed in this thread must be vegetarians. If not, then I do believe they are being hypocrites. I'm not trying to be nasty or anything. I just don't see how people could eat meat and then criticise testing anything on animals. I could understand if they criticised testing certain things on animals. However, to say that testing on animals altogether should be stopped, whilst they continue to eat meat just doesn't add up to me.

If I look foolish then so be it. This matter certainly won't change my life as I'm more interested in winning the LC.

[Gringo]

I'm very surprised that 14 people have said they wouldn't test on animals under any circumstances to be honest. I'm guessing all of them are vegetarians....

This whole hypocisy thing that's been going on from page 1 - anyone who is not a vegan and votd for anything other than testing anything on all animals falls into the hypocirsy criticism - why are some animals more cuddly and precious than others - why should we test on rats - why is ot OK to take milk, leather and meat from the cow, but not stick maskara in her eye - why do we talk about humanely killing animals when we make their lives so unbearable - we've made you live in a pen/cage too small for you all your life, but are going to humanely slaughter you so we can eat you - cheers. So no one who falls within the two extremes highlighted at the top are in any position to accuse the no's of hypocrisy - it doesn't come in sizes.

I'm of the opinion that anyone who has voted no to any testing at all and isn't a vegetarian is a hypocrite. Simple as that.

That is half of exactly what I have said.

You either go wholesale testing and eat meat, or go none at all and be vegan. Anyone who sits between those two poles and still criticises someone else who sits between those poles are as hypocritical as those they target.

[edit].....[/edit]

[Vojskovoda]

I've never understood the weirdo's who say "I eat meat but I don't believe animal's should be tested on etc..." then why are you eating meat you dumbass?! I thought harming animals were so bad, hence your argument will sound stupid when you say I eat meat... which is essentially in your eyes the highest form of cruelty because the animal has died. It's such a massive contradiction it's actually quite hilarious.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I've never understood the weirdo's who say "I eat meat but I don't believe animal's should be tested on etc..." then why are you eating meat you dumbass?! I thought harming animals were so bad, hence your argument will sound stupid when you say I eat meat... which is essentially in your eyes the highest form of cruelty because the animal has died. It's such a massive contradiction it's actually quite hilarious.

Now seriously this baffles me.

Can it simply, i mean really simply, just get through your head the idea that killing animals for food is the natural order of things and thus acceptable.

Filling them full of drugs to battle diseases we give them is not, i repeat not, natural and to me it is simply a step to far.

BTW, the condescending tone in your posts is wank.

[Vojskovoda]

I've never understood the weirdo's who say "I eat meat but I don't believe animal's should be tested on etc..." then why are you eating meat you dumbass?! I thought harming animals were so bad, hence your argument will sound stupid when you say I eat meat... which is essentially in your eyes the highest form of cruelty because the animal has died. It's such a massive contradiction it's actually quite hilarious.

Now seriously this baffles me.

Can it simply, i mean really simply, just get through your head the idea that killing animals for food is the natural order of things and thus acceptable.

Filling them full of drugs to battle diseases we give them is not, i repeat not, natural and to me it is simply a step to far.

BTW, the condescending tone in your posts is wank.

Awh, I'm sorry my condescending tone in my posts are 'wank' :cry:

Simple question: why don't you just be a veggie then, that's natural too you know. Anyone could go vegetarian if they wanted too and could live life perfectly fine. So, what it your views on people killing animals for their fur or skin? That can be deemed natural too if it's your only source of clothing. Why isn't it natural to test animals if you eat them? That's where the contradiction lies chap and if testing on animals can potentially save human lives I am not sure how you can be against animal testing.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I've never understood the weirdo's who say "I eat meat but I don't believe animal's should be tested on etc..." then why are you eating meat you dumbass?! I thought harming animals were so bad, hence your argument will sound stupid when you say I eat meat... which is essentially in your eyes the highest form of cruelty because the animal has died. It's such a massive contradiction it's actually quite hilarious.

Now seriously this baffles me.

Can it simply, i mean really simply, just get through your head the idea that killing animals for food is the natural order of things and thus acceptable.

Filling them full of drugs to battle diseases we give them is not, i repeat not, natural and to me it is simply a step to far.

BTW, the condescending tone in your posts is wank.

Awh, I'm sorry my condescending tone in my posts are 'wank' :cry:

Simple question: why don't you just be a veggie then, that's natural too you know. Anyone could go vegetarian if they wanted too and could live life perfectly fine. So, what it your views on people killing animals for their fur or skin? That can be deemed natural too if it's your only source of clothing. Why isn't it natural to test animals if you eat them? That's where the contradiction lies chap and if testing on animals can potentially save human lives I am not sure how you can be against animal testing.

[kurtsimonw]

Awh, I'm sorry my condescending tone in my posts are 'wank' :cry:

Simple question: why don't you just be a veggie then, that's natural too you know. Anyone could go vegetarian if they wanted too and could live life perfectly fine. So, what it your views on people killing animals for their fur or skin? That can be deemed natural too if it's your only source of clothing. Why isn't it natural to test animals if you eat them? That's where the contradiction lies chap and if testing on animals can potentially save human lives I am not sure how you can be against animal testing.

I think you'll find you're contradicting yourself, pal.

You spend the whole post going on about how it's fine to kill animals for food, clothing, etc. because it's natural... so we should be able to test on them to develop drugs? In case you didn't know, drugs are hardly natural, so how that has any relevance to the previous 2 I have no idea. (The fact you feel killing animals for food being natural is pretty much laughable in any case).

[snowychap]

...I thought harming animals were so bad, hence your argument will sound stupid when you say I eat meat... which is essentially in your eyes the highest form of cruelty because the animal has died.

Why is killing something the 'highest form of cruelty'?

What nonsense.

If you want to talk about the cruelty of factory farming in order to obtain meat products then you might have an argument.

[MrWeedMcGrass]

Humans do not NEED to consume meat , we do fine on a vegetarian diet as long as we take adequate protein.Lions , Tigers , Wolves etc are carnivores , they do not have the digestive system to derive any nutrients from a vegetarian diet. Killing other animals for food is 'natural' for these creatures , not humans.I have nothing against those who consume meat , I just do not believe in the 'Justifications' offered by some meat eaters. If you are a meat eater , fine , don't go about saying its the 'natural order of things' because its not.

[Sie]

Humans do not NEED to consume meat , we do fine on a vegetarian diet as long as we take adequate protein.Lions , Tigers , Wolves etc are carnivores , they do not have the digestive system to derive any nutrients from a vegetarian diet. Killing other animals for food is 'natural' for these creatures , not humans.I have nothing against those who consume meat , I just do not believe in the 'Justifications' offered by some meat eaters. If you are a meat eater , fine , don't go about saying its the 'natural order of things' because its not.

We have all the evolutionary traits that define our consumption of meat as natural behaviour for humans and being omnivores with a choice does not suddenly make humans consuming meat an unnatural act. Humans doing so, despite your objections, is indeed 'the natural order of things'.