What are your views on animal testing?

[Awol]

For cosmetics no, animals suffering for human vanity is not on. For medical experiments yes, most definitely.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I hope people here that are strongly against testing on humans are fully aware that testing on humans already goes on? Albeit voluntarily, which is what i agree with. I don't stand for mandatory use of murderers as test subjects but make them a deal, so to speak.

I'd also like to hear their opinions on stem cell research.

[kurtsimonw]

Are you? Who said that?

You know exactly what you implied snowy. Suggesting that wanting to use these on the worst criminals make him the lowest of the low.

Nobody mentioned those, they mentioned criminals. Have you got any idea how fast we would run out of murderes and rapists?

Even including the wrongly convicted who would end up taking their place. y to you. very often.

Well, a few mentioned the lowest of the low. I hardly think cyclists not wearing helmets fit this category. And no, we wouldn't run out of them quickly, because the intention is hardly to kill them now, is it?

I'm amazed some are making a big deal out of this. "OMG nooooo! we can't test cosmetics on murderers, just think how it will damage their rep in prison!" Jesus Christ.

[Chindie]

I hope people here that are strongly against testing on humans are fully aware that testing on humans already goes on? Albeit voluntarily, which is what i agree with. I don't stand for mandatory use of murderers as test subjects but make them a deal, so to speak.

I'd also like to hear their opinions on stem cell research.

I'm sure we're all aware of that.

The implication of what you were suggesting (because you neglected till now to mention a voluntary scheme...) was that it was to become part and parcel of a conviction for a crime. Do the crime, take your medicine/poison, literally.

Stem cell research is fine by me.

I'm amazed some are making a big deal out of this. "OMG nooooo! we can't test cosmetics on murderers, just think how it will damage their rep in prison!" Jesus Christ.

I think you'll find people's objections are more down to the fact that they feel it is wrong to view a person as a lab rat without their express say so, as was the implication of what has been said so far. Nothing to do with cred, more to do with morality.

[DanishVillan]

Are you? Who said that?

You know exactly what you implied snowy. Suggesting that wanting to use these on the worst criminals make him the lowest of the low.

Nobody mentioned those, they mentioned criminals. Have you got any idea how fast we would run out of murderes and rapists?

Even including the wrongly convicted who would end up taking their place. y to you. very often.

Well, a few mentioned the lowest of the low. I hardly think cyclists not wearing helmets fit this category. And no, we wouldn't run out of them quickly, because the intention is hardly to kill them now, is it?

I'm amazed some are making a big deal out of this. "OMG nooooo! we can't test cosmetics on murderers, just think how it will damage their rep in prison!" Jesus Christ.

Hmm, who is the lowest of the low after we wipe out murderes and rapists?

Or should we just stop science when there is a 10 year queue on those?

Edit: skipped the "not killing them" part too fast.

Yes, the intention would be killing them in some tests.

Yes, they would all be useless anyway, since they haven´t lived in a clinic environment.

[starsailor9774]

Are you? Who said that?

You know exactly what you implied snowy. Suggesting that wanting to use these on the worst criminals make him the lowest of the low.

Nobody mentioned those, they mentioned criminals. Have you got any idea how fast we would run out of murderes and rapists?

Even including the wrongly convicted who would end up taking their place. y to you. very often.

Well, a few mentioned the lowest of the low. I hardly think cyclists not wearing helmets fit this category. And no, we wouldn't run out of them quickly, because the intention is hardly to kill them now, is it?

I'm amazed some are making a big deal out of this. "OMG nooooo! we can't test cosmetics on murderers, just think how it will damage their rep in prison!" Jesus Christ.

Hmm, who is the lowest of the low after we wipe out murderes and rapists?

Or should we just stop science when there is a 10 year queue on those?

Birmingham City fans?

[DanishVillan]

Are you? Who said that?

You know exactly what you implied snowy. Suggesting that wanting to use these on the worst criminals make him the lowest of the low.

Nobody mentioned those, they mentioned criminals. Have you got any idea how fast we would run out of murderes and rapists?

Even including the wrongly convicted who would end up taking their place. y to you. very often.

Well, a few mentioned the lowest of the low. I hardly think cyclists not wearing helmets fit this category. And no, we wouldn't run out of them quickly, because the intention is hardly to kill them now, is it?

I'm amazed some are making a big deal out of this. "OMG nooooo! we can't test cosmetics on murderers, just think how it will damage their rep in prison!" Jesus Christ.

Hmm, who is the lowest of the low after we wipe out murderes and rapists?

Or should we just stop science when there is a 10 year queue on those?

Birmingham City fans?

Wouldn´t they be extinct by then?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

The implication of what you were suggesting (because you neglected till now to mention a voluntary scheme...) was that it was to become part and parcel of a conviction for a crime. Do the crime, take your medicine/poison, literally.

I ain't a Nazi.

Stem Cells is a weird one, in theory i'm all for it but part of me (probably the one that spent most of his life in catholic schools) thinks that those (potential) children don't have a choice between life or death, so what makes it right for us to choose for them?

As you say, voluntary is acceptable. But stem cells isn't voluntary? But then i presume you are of the belief that until a child is born (or past 24 weeks?) they are nothing but a pile of cells.

But back to my seemingly controversial stance, i'd rather we tested human drugs on humans than forcing them upon animals, but of coruse it should be voluntary.

[jonno_2004]

It's odd how this thread has descended into human testing.

[snowychap]

Are you? Who said that?

You know exactly what you implied snowy. Suggesting that wanting to use these on the worst criminals make him the lowest of the low.

Nonsense.

I didn't suggest that at all as I have categorically said I wouldn't view anyone as 'the lowest of the low'. It's not the way that I view people.

I have explained what I meant (regarding the arbitrary nature of the grouping).

If you don't believe me then that is your problem.

For the avoidance of doubt, though, I find the view that human beings ought to be forced into being subjects of experiments disgusting, depraved and beneath contempt.

If anyone holds that point of view then that's what I think of it.

I'm amazed some are making a big deal out of this.

Not as amazed as I am that some could actually be suggesting it and thinking that there is nowt wrong with their suggestion.

[snowychap]

But back to my seemingly controversial stance, i'd rather we tested human drugs on humans than forcing them upon animals, but of coruse it should be voluntary.

If of course it should be voluntary is your stance why would you limit it to murderers and any other useless scum filling the prisons? :?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

But back to my seemingly controversial stance, i'd rather we tested human drugs on humans than forcing them upon animals, but of coruse it should be voluntary.

If of course it should be voluntary is your stance why would you limit it to murderers and any other useless scum filling the prisons? :?

I'm against animal testing because i value an animals life as much as i value a humans. Animals do not get a say in whether or not they are used for testing and thus is should be ruled out completely (in my opinion)

Now, when it comes to murderers and rapists etc, i don't believe they should be given the compassion of which they obviously lacked when they ruined someone or a group of peoples lives. And as such i think testing on them would be more acceptable than it would be to test on a tax evader.

I don't believe in forcing these criminals into labs and pumped full of drugs no more than i believe forcing animals into labs and pumped full of drugs. I just think it would be more acceptable and useful if we tested on humans, and humans that have no part to play in a civilised society.

[DanishVillan]

Lots of animals get saved everyday because of those tests.

[snowychap]

Now, when it comes to murderers and rapists etc, i don't believe they should be given the compassion of which they obviously lacked when they ruined someone or a group of peoples lives. And as such i think testing on them would be more acceptable than it would be to test on a tax evader.

I don't believe in forcing these criminals into labs and pumped full of drugs no more than i believe forcing animals into labs and pumped full of drugs. I just think it would be more acceptable and useful if we tested on humans, and humans that have no part to play in a civilised society.

The point at the heart of what both Chindie and I have been saying is that if we don't afford these people the compassion which they didn't afford to their victims, we would become much like them. If you are happy to share that trait (lack of compassion) then that's up to you.

Again, as you don't believe in forcing people to do anything then why would you limit the 'choice' to only a specific group of people? :?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Again, as you don't believe in forcing people to do anything then why would you limit the 'choice' to only a specific group of people? :?

1.) they have longer sentences (generally), so bargaining would be easier.

2.) the tests are likely to be dangerous, so i'd rather it was this group of people suffered than anyone else.

However if you put money as an incentive, then you will see many more people cuing up to be tested as is already the case with some clinical trials.

[snowychap]

1.) they have longer sentences (generally), so bargaining would be easier.

So a society that depends on seeking out those in the least best bargaining position and exploiting that?

What kinds of bargain would you be seeking to make?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

So a society that depends on seeking out those in the least best bargaining position and exploiting that?

A capitalist society, you mean?

[snowychap]

So a society that depends on seeking out those in the least best bargaining position and exploiting that?

A capitalist society, you mean?

Though I can see what you mean it isn't quite the same, I don't think.

Surely a capitalist society is one which allows individuals the economic freedom to exploit others rather than one where society as a whole (or the state supposedly representing society) seeks to exploit some of its weakest members? That's some kind of utilitarian nightmare rather than our present capitalist one. :winkold:

[starsailor9774]

I don't think.

You said it............

[snowychap]

I don't think.

You said it............

If I 'don't think' in the way that you mean, it's only because I don't want you to feel lonely.