What are your views on animal testing?

[snowychap]

Fair enough and I've understood what you've said about testing on humans etc... Not trying to shape things here, but would you feel any different to the death penalty if a dear member of your family was murdered by someone? What about war criminals committing genocide?

Do the circumstances matter to you or is it just a straight NO to the death penalty altogether?

A straight and unequivocal no.

[snowychap]

Ooh a spelling mistake.... how very bad of me.

It all leads to an end.

I'm not that disappointed: having seen your other posts, I wasn't expecting any better.

Read my post again...... I conveyed that if other people see something between the lines in your posts that they take it a certain way then you immediately go on the offensive with "where did i say that" .... but you did the same to me.

Actually, I generally defend my position against those whom I feel have read something in what I have said, which is unjustifiable.

I think it is perfectly justifiable to question what is behind what anyone says. It is incumbent on people to justify what they say, though.

In what I think this is about the third follow up post, I have questioned the point about being 'liberal'.

That didn't make it into your apparent conversion to skepticism.

[Chindie]

I said i agreed with a couple of policys hardly makes me Adolf Hitler does it.

And yet you still would agree with a party defined by it's racism. Thats the only reason to agree with that party, if you buy that rubbish. No other reason.

Agreeing with a policy or two in no way makes me a racist,

You'd vote for the BNP, would you?

Then you are a racist.

As I've said, again and again, the BNP are defined by it's racism. There is no reason to vote for them if you disagree with that viewpoint.

I actually go further than that - theres no reason to view anything associated with the party in a good light, be it in the polling station or like we are discussing here and now, because you are effectively promoting a racist organisation. It's a position that is indefensible.

[DanishVillan]

I would take you any day, Snowy!

It´s a time to be proud to be black amongst the white sheeple.

Huh??? :confused: :wow:

Haha sorry

I thought you used the black sheep expression in UK as well.

To be the black sheep = to be strange, different etc. compared to the "normal" people or white sheeps.

Only this time the "normal" people are manipulated, easily feared (like sheep)zombies who swallow any headline at face value. Sheeple.

Mostly talking about my own little turned facist country but goes for most.

And we are supposed to be enlightened and educated...

Here is a conspiracy theory to laugh at:

Why is it anyone who doesn't share the views of a Liberal or Socialist is deemed to have been "manipulated"or "will "swallow any headline at face value"?

Lowest of the low for experiments is a nice headline.

People who buy into it always have this bemused face, when suddenly that is themself.

Prefer to call that manipulated to stupid.

[starsailor9774]

I said i agreed with a couple of policys hardly makes me Adolf Hitler does it.

And yet you still would agree with a party defined by it's racism. Thats the only reason to agree with that party, if you buy that rubbish. No other reason.

Agreeing with a policy or two in no way makes me a racist,

You'd vote for the BNP, would you?

Then you are a racist.

As I've said, again and again, the BNP are defined by it's racism. There is no reason to vote for them if you disagree with that viewpoint.

I actually go further than that - theres no reason to view anything associated with the party in a good light, be it in the polling station or like we are discussing here and now, because you are effectively promoting a racist organisation. It's a position that is indefensible.

Agreeing with a policy is not voting for someone......

and yyour second comment is ridiculous, if the BNP promised to double tge number of police on the beat i would agree with that policy, it doesn't mean i would vote for them, or i am racist.

Talk about moving the goalposts......

[starsailor9774]

I would take you any day, Snowy!

It´s a time to be proud to be black amongst the white sheeple.

Huh??? :confused: :wow:

Haha sorry

I thought you used the black sheep expression in UK as well.

To be the black sheep = to be strange, different etc. compared to the "normal" people or white sheeps.

Only this time the "normal" people are manipulated, easily feared (like sheep)zombies who swallow any headline at face value. Sheeple.

Mostly talking about my own little turned facist country but goes for most.

And we are supposed to be enlightened and educated...

Here is a conspiracy theory to laugh at:

Why is it anyone who doesn't share the views of a Liberal or Socialist is deemed to have been "manipulated"or "will "swallow any headline at face value"?

Lowest of the low for experiments is a nice headline.

People who buy into it always have this bemused face, when suddenly that is themself.

Prefer to call that manipulated to stupid.

Maybe it's you that have been manipulated by papers you read.

[bickster]

Can we cut the crap here and get the topic back on topic please, someone saying they agree with a couple of policies of the BNP neither makes them a supporter of said party nor a racist and I haven't read all the topic so I have no idea how it got to that stage but thats way off the topics intention. Back on topic please and less of the childish bickering, thanks

[Wainy316]

If all people are equal no matter what, then what right do we even have to put them in prison?

[Awol]

If all people are equal no matter what, then what right do we even have to put them in prison?

If humans all begin life in theory as equals, then doing wrong to another individual automatically forfeits that equality and lowers you from that plain. You are then punished by being jailed - or not depending on whether the judge is a total arse.

[Wainy316]

If all people are equal no matter what, then what right do we even have to put them in prison?

If humans all begin life in theory as equals, then doing wrong to another individual automatically forfeits that equality and lowers you from that plain. You are then punished by being jailed - or not depending on whether the judge is a total arse.

Yes I know, I am just curious of the opinions of the people who have been saying that all humans are equal despite what offence(s) they may of committed.

[mjmooney]

Inn Before the Loch.

[Awol]

If all people are equal no matter what, then what right do we even have to put them in prison?

If humans all begin life in theory as equals, then doing wrong to another individual automatically forfeits that equality and lowers you from that plain. You are then punished by being jailed - or not depending on whether the judge is a total arse.

Yes I know, I am just curious of the opinions of the people who have been saying that all humans are equal despite what offence(s) they may of committed.

They are certainly equal enough not to be tested on in lieu of animals. Unless it's Ian Huntley, in which case plaster him in L'oreal and chuck him in the lifers wing.

[leviramsey]

To those who are advocating testing on the convicts, I believe a few of you have said that they'd be compensated volunteers.

If they're compensated volunteers, why limit it to convicts, at least if you're compensating them monetarily?

And if you're talking about testing on murderers, then why would they accept any monetary compensation? They've got three square meals a day and a roof and a bed for the forseeable future. I don't know what the jails are like in the UK, but I don't think the warden is going to let them set up an HDTV with Sky+ and a Bluray player in the cell. In short, they're not going to need any money until they get out, and if we're talking about murderers, rapists, etc. that's a looong way off in the future.

Now, the only compensation that I can see resulting in any sort of realistic response rate is increasing the chances of release, and that's the only type of compensation that would justify distinguishing between convicts and non-convicts.

But at the same time, does it make any sense at all to release someone just because they had cosmetics sprayed into their eyes? Is that truly discharging a debt to society? Even if L'Oreal is paying the government for the test subjects, is that compensation going to be enough to compensate for letting a murderer back out onto the streets?

Now, maybe you're talking about medical testing, not cosmetic testing. There surely is a lot of gain for society in, say, finding a cure for AIDS, but now you're talking about giving a convict AIDS and seeing if he gets cured (or alternatively not being able to find a cure for AIDS until somebody with AIDS kills somebody).

[Awol]

I don't know what the jails are like in the UK, but I don't think the warden is going to let them set up an HDTV with Sky+ and a Bluray player in the cell.

Haha! Radio's, TV's, Playstation's...

I'm not even joking.

[Awol]

I don't know what the jails are like in the UK, but I don't think the warden is going to let them set up an HDTV with Sky+ and a Bluray player in the cell.

Haha! Radios, TV's, Playstations...

I'm not even joking.

[MrWeedMcGrass]

Absolutely against it , its just not right.. especially Chimps and other higher Mammalians , they are sentient..I am against any kind of Animal testing , but in some cases it can be justified by the results..

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

To those who are advocating testing on the convicts, I believe a few of you have said that they'd be compensated volunteers.

If they're compensated volunteers, why limit it to convicts, at least if you're compensating them monetarily?

I wouldn't compensate them with money, but you get closer to the point with...

Now, the only compensation that I can see resulting in any sort of realistic response rate is increasing the chances of release, and that's the only type of compensation that would justify distinguishing between convicts and non-convicts.

That is what I meant really, enchancing their chances of release. But as you rightly said some of these people do what they do because they come from a highly unstable life, thus institutionalistion is best for them. However improving their living conditions by say, releasing them into a more relaxed environment than a prison, may be a better way forward.

Although I'm not a policy maker, nor a politician so when people are going into outrageous depth when it comes to the actual specifics behind the idea I put forward, I don't care enough/don't know enough about how the prison service works to provide the answers. Twas but a point of view which seemingly opened a can of worms

But at the same time, does it make any sense at all to release someone just because they had cosmetics sprayed into their eyes? Is that truly discharging a debt to society? Even if L'Oreal is paying the government for the test subjects, is that compensation going to be enough to compensate for letting a murderer back out onto The Talentless Small Heathen?

Word filter aside Cosmetics can **** off in general. If they want to test products they can find their own volunteers. And noone can justify having a murderer released just because they had some make up slapped on. 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.

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.

[CMduck]

Depends on what type of animal it is really, and what they're testing. If what they're testing could save human lives, and possibly the animals, then go ahead but cosmetics can get stuffed.

[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....

[MrWeedMcGrass]

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....

I did , no problems in admitting it.. I am a Hindu Brahmin and I was taught to be a vegetarian since i was little.. All life , especially evolved , sentient life should not be exploited , simple as that...