If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
We do test on humans, after rats and such, so whats your problem?
My problemS you mean, I have way too much really...
Don't know, just felt like being annoying today, probably cos I haven't had a spliff in days :banghead:
We do tests on human only if it is safe enough, I just think that's a bit pathetic as human are not ready to be tested in early stages as well.
At the end of the day if research are so important testing human at early stages could give good results when maybe it doesn't when tested on animals.
and i dont think a cure for cancer is worth torturing millions of animals for, although thats possibly more acceptable than the reasons the majority of animal vivisection is done for.
I have little sympathy for the people who get their cars blown up when they experiment on animals every day. Youve got to be a cunt to even want to go into that line of work.
so what about the families of people in that line of work, the families who get abuse and torturew every day, and they have nothing to do with animal testing
and by your reckoning, it makes the iraq war perfectly legal, as all they were going into do was kill thousands of iraqi's to stop saddam hussein killing them
its got bollocks all to do with the iraq war. keep on topic pls
Or you have to believe in scientific research, much of which is vital, or at the very least important.
I quite agree about unecessary animal testing, though I do have one suggestion.
If the ALF are so against animal testing, how about we start testing on ALF terrorists? Start with napalm, that should do the trick.
it has everything to do with it
you say because someone tests on animals, performs acts of cruelty on one of gods creatures (figure of speach im not religious), then its ok to cause terror and bomb their cars
much like it would be ok, to go bomb a country to smithering pieces of feckery, because the people of that country had a leader, who performed acts of cruelty on one of gods other creatures (humankind)
That's a bit harsh - do you think Banting and Best, the men who, through experiments on dogs discovered a treatment for diabetes that meant a diagnoses of diabetes wasn't a death sentence, were cunts?
That I agree with, if they want to defend animals so bad they can for sure offer themselves.
If a soldier gets shot during war, he signed up for the job, its his own fault.
but its not a innocent civilians fault he got carpet bombd though
If the people who got killed in the war were the politicians who made all the shitty decisions or just other armies who signed up to do it too, then i wouldnt have much of a problem with it.
people get away with things, when other people couldnt care less
having little sympathy for anyone who has just had their car blown up is a bit heartless to begin with, and then when everyone else starts thinking the same way, it becomes acceptable behaviour
Well maybe if everyone else start thinking it, but I don't think everyone does, most people have big sympathy for them. Unless 2 people = everyone...
And frankly do you really think sympathy of people they don't even know will make the all thing better for them? If something ever happend to you (let's hope not tho) do you think the will have a lot of sympathy for you?
you make a fair point,
but on the other hand im referring to just looking at a case of someone being unsympathetic towards a car bombing victim, without mentioning if its someone you know or dont know
Well here no one was hurt, so not having much sympathy for them is ok I think, but if they were killed then I guess the sympathy will go more to their family that had nothing to do with it and will for sure be hurt by the lost of their love one.
Do you take an ethical stance and not use modern medicine then?
thankfully i rarely take anything. Prefer more natural remdies if i can but im not saying i wouldnt use stuff if it was necessary. That doesnt mean I like the way it was made.
Im the same with animals for food tbh. I avoid factory farmed stuff, and i hate modern farming and the way people just think all animals are here for is to serve us, for us to test on and to eat when we feel like it, or if theyre cute then we can pet them too, but at the end of the day I still eat meat, and im not always as vigilant about meat and animal produce as id like to be. That doesnt mean i dont care though, and tbh, if someone who raised pigs and chickens in a factory farm got his car bombed I wouldnt shed a tear either.
If the medicine is there and i need it, ill use it, but i dont agree with how its been tested on - there are plenty of things i disagree with but i dont manage to boycott all of them - thats because of my weakness and general apathy as i get older, not because i think the companies are actually ok.
Theres a difference between me thinking the animal testers are arseholes and not shedding any tears for them, and me going w00t, kill them all.
Jack Straw is a right twonk though, whats he ever done for us? *disapeers into the back of a black van, aided by some burly governemnt employees*