Home Politics & Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Animal Testing

12357

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    1,000%
    As a brief aside, and having just watching Grumpy Old Men on TV, I should say at this point that there is no such thing as 1,000 percent - per cent meaning out of one hundred. I might allow 'A hundred and ten percent' in the name of hyperbole but I really get annoyed when people say they gave 200% effort etc.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    As a brief aside, and having just watching Grumpy Old Men on TV, I should say at this point that there is no such thing as 1,000 percent - per cent meaning out of one hundred. I might allow 'A hundred and ten percent' in the name of hyperbole but I really get annoyed when people say they gave 200% effort etc.
    so do i,old chap!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Still if researchs are that important testing humans at early stages even if risks are high would give more chance of finding cures that might not be found if tested on animals... unless researchs are not that important after all...
    Are you volunteering?

    If not, I think you've defeated your own argument.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why does everyone keep asking if I eat meat, did you read all the post in here...
    no i didnt,but do you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    As a brief aside, and having just watching Grumpy Old Men on TV, I should say at this point that there is no such thing as 1,000 percent - per cent meaning out of one hundred. I might allow 'A hundred and ten percent' in the name of hyperbole but I really get annoyed when people say they gave 200% effort etc.
    You're lucky- I was going to say 10,000% :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    You're lucky- I was going to say 10,000% :p
    Phew. ;)
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,225 Skive's The Limit
    Drug testing on animals benifits us, you can't deny that. That's enough for me.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    Drug testing on animals benifits us, you can't deny that. That's enough for me.

    exactly!

    thats enough for most people.

    i'd love to see a life threatening situation with an animal rights activist, refusing treatment because the drugs they were using to save their life were tested on animals.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mad Mac wrote:
    exactly!

    thats enough for most people.

    i'd love to see a life threatening situation with an animal rights activist, refusing treatment because the drugs they were using to save their life were tested on animals.
    most of the medication on offer will have to be refused by nioman then ...people like him should vbe volunteering to be tested on ...then i for one might just listen to his arguments.
    epilepsy drugs ...cancer drugs ...psyciatric drugs ...are just three of the very powerful kinds of drugs that have made animals suffer and die ...it could have course been people who went mad ...suffered and died.
    these drugs are nnow in daily use ...thanks to a few monkeys and rats.
    good enough for me ...and i should imagine ...the millions of people bennefiting . ./
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I genuinely believe that all animals should be burned alive.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kentish wrote:
    Are you volunteering?

    If not, I think you've defeated your own argument.

    Did I ever said researchs were important... No I haven't... those who think they are so damn important should otherwise they have defeated their own argument... Do researchs, don't, I don't care... but don't say the are so damn important if you are not ready to volonteer... I have never said they were important to me...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Mad Mac wrote:
    no i didnt,but do you?

    Yeah I do actually... Not agreeing or not thinking the same way everybody does, doesn't mean i don't... but you should that would stop you from askingme question I have already replied to in that thread...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    most of the medication on offer will have to be refused by nioman then ...people like him should vbe volunteering to be tested on ...then i for one might just listen to his arguments.
    epilepsy drugs ...cancer drugs ...psyciatric drugs ...are just three of the very powerful kinds of drugs that have made animals suffer and die ...it could have course been people who went mad ...suffered and died.
    these drugs are nnow in daily use ...thanks to a few monkeys and rats.
    good enough for me ...and i should imagine ...the millions of people bennefiting . ./

    But how many of million if not billions could bennefit from few thousands humans life lost... you can not deny that by testing human at early stages we could find cure that couldn't be found if testing animals only at early stages... And you can't deny that sometmes testing animals at early stages only will create drugs that with release to the market will be unsafe for human... those are facts of science, not of my imagination... why do you think some scientists do such tests on humans at early stages... not for the pleasure of torture but to try to find cure they know they could find if testing animals instead...
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,225 Skive's The Limit
    Drug research saves lives and the the safest way to test a drug is to to test it on animals first - then on humans - then it can be considered for general use. You can't argue that. I don't get this 'early stages' crap.

    If you have a medical condition and you want to treat it with drugs then research is imporatnt to you.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    Drug research saves lives and the the safest way to test a drug is to to test it on animals first - then on humans - then it can be considered for general use. You can't argue that. I don't get this 'early stages' crap.

    At early stages there is tests that could give negative result on animals that could be positive on humans, which means be doing such we could find cure we couldn't find if testing animals at early stages. It is safiest to use animals only yes, but by doing such we will miss some humans only treatment.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But how many of million if not billions could bennefit from few thousands humans life lost... you can not deny that by testing human at early stages we could find cure that couldn't be found if testing animals only at early stages... And you can't deny that sometmes testing animals at early stages only will create drugs that with release to the market will be unsafe for human... those are facts of science, not of my imagination... why do you think some scientists do such tests on humans at early stages... not for the pleasure of torture but to try to find cure they know they could find if testing animals instead...

    I understand your argument. However, you have already said in other places that if it is a choice between an animal and a human life, the human life should be saved not necessarily because it is worth more, but because that human life has more emotional meaning to the human themselves and everyone around them (ie. their friends and family).

    Therefore, human testing should not be done in the early stages because although in some rare cases a drug may be discovered that works on humans and not on animals, for every human killed/harmed by early stage drug testing there would be a family and friends etc very strongly affected by this, and the rest of humanity would also be effected emotionally and psychologically by human testing in the early stages. So, if you believe that human life should be saved above animal life because of perceived worth of human life to other people, then you should not be in favour of early human testing.

    You've said before that you don't care about anything dying - I find this difficult to believe. Fair enough you've said you'd eat human flesh, but if you really don't value life at all AND believe that all life is equal, then you would see nothing wrong with slaughtering your pet or your child in order to eat them, just because you felt like it. Is this the case?
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,225 Skive's The Limit
    At early stages there is tests that could give negative result on animals that could be positive on humans, which means be doing such we could find cure we couldn't find if testing animals at early stages. It is safiest to use animals only yes, but by doing such we will miss some humans only treatment.

    So your not against animal testing as such, just more in favour of risky human testing. Who should be these volunteers, seeing as you feel so strongly why not lead by example?
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,225 Skive's The Limit
    Durg testing on animals is a good indication of how dangerous a drug might be.
    Nobody of sound mind is test a brand new drug straight out the lab. Unless you'd be willing to do this yourself, I don't know how you can argue this is a good idea.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    So your not against animal testing as such, just more in favour of risky human testing. Who should be these volunteers, seeing as you feel so strongly why not lead by example?

    I don't feel strongly about researchs, never said that, I am just saying that if people believe so strongly in researchs and are not ready to accept humans testing at early stages, then they don't really think reserachs are essantial and are not ready to do everything to find cures to everything... I have never said I wanted to find the cures of everything, but every one else seems to think so, but they keep saying I should volonteer, but why would I volonteer for those who believes researchs are damn important when I don't... I am just stating science facts... it is a fact that doing early stages human testing could find cures we couldn't an other way... it is not my imagination or it is not me saying that researchs are important and that it must be done...
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,225 Skive's The Limit
    it is a fact that doing early stages human testing could find cures we couldn't an other way...

    Thankfully it aint going to happen - nobody of sound mind would volunteer so non argument.

    This is about animal testing and whether you think it's acceptable. I believe it is becuase it saves human lives and that's enough for me.

    And if you are willing to take drugs for any medical condition you may get - then drug research does matter to you - whether you see it or not.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    FireFly85 wrote:
    I
    Therefore, human testing should not be done in the early stages because although in some rare cases ?
    in some rare cases ...In some rare cases!

    this fucking nut job keeps talking millions.

    he says one thing ...then he says another.

    he doesn't care about research i think he is now saying ...but is obviously willing to take the medicines.

    he thinks we who are for animal testing ...should volunteer ourselves for testing :eek2:
    and can't understand why we think the people against animal testing should be on the table.

    guys a fucking nutjob if you read through this thread.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    FireFly85 wrote:
    I understand your argument. However, you have already said in other places that if it is a choice between an animal and a human life, the human life should be saved not necessarily because it is worth more, but because that human life has more emotional meaning to the human themselves and everyone around them (ie. their friends and family).

    If you want, to try to explain my view, it is worth more because of its sentimental and feelings value, for what it represent, but not because it has more right to life than any other living forms... I know it's not an easy psychology to understand and don't ask for people to agree with me, it is just how I see life...
    FireFly85 wrote:
    Therefore, human testing should not be done in the early stages because although in some rare cases a drug may be discovered that works on humans and not on animals, for every human killed/harmed by early stage drug testing there would be a family and friends etc very strongly affected by this, and the rest of humanity would also be effected emotionally and psychologically by human testing in the early stages. So, if you believe that human life should be saved above animal life because of perceived worth of human life to other people, then you should not be in favour of early human testing.

    I am not in favor or against any tests, they can test animals or humans, I couldn't care less... of course testing humans at early stages will affect their familly and friends, but it still doesn't cange the facts that few thousands tested and who diead for since and few others thousands affected is not worth the billions of live that could be save... my only point is to show that humans testing at early stages could bennefite to the world too... not that we should or must do it...
    FireFly85 wrote:
    You've said before that you don't care about anything dying - I find this difficult to believe. Fair enough you've said you'd eat human flesh, but if you really don't value life at all AND believe that all life is equal, then you would see nothing wrong with slaughtering your pet or your child in order to eat them, just because you felt like it. Is this the case?

    I don't as long as I don't have any emtional attachment to them, I think I have made it clear that I understand feelings from one human to an other and why a human life can be more important, I have never said I had no feelings for the one I love and that I wouldn't care if they die... So yes I will have a problem doing such because I love them and not because they have more right to life than any other living forms or myself... I would give my life for my girl, her son and our baby...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I've been testing myself with drugs for a good few years and I can honestly say it's done me and those around me the world of good. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote:
    And if you are willing to take drugs for any medical condition you may get - then drug research does matter to you - whether you see it or not.

    As a matter of fact I do not take drugs and I haven't done in years... Not even for headaches or such... I never said tests shouldn't exist or be done either... never said they couldn't save life... but if they didn't exist and drugs that we have now didn't exist I will be fine with it, just like people were when drugs as such didn't existed...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As a matter of fact I do not take drugs and I haven't done in years... Not even for headaches or such... I never said tests shouldn't exist or be done either... never said they couldn't save life... but if they didn't exist and drugs that we have now didn't exist I will be fine with it, just like people were when drugs as such didn't existed...
    you realy are out of touch with reality nio.
    you seem to have no understanding of what our medicine has achieved.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    As a matter of fact I do not take drugs and I haven't done in yearsQUOTE]

    Bullshit, you toke the reefer flat out. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    he doesn't care about research i think he is now saying ...but is obviously willing to take the medicines...

    Who tells you I do, I don't and haven't done for years...
    he thinks we who are for animal testing ...should volunteer ourselves for testing :eek2:
    and can't understand why we think the people against animal testing should be on the table...

    I said those who believe researchs are so damn important, not those who think we should test animals... I am not against animals testing... Never said I was for or against it... I never said I can't understand your point of view and your beliefs on the subject... I do understand them and respect them, they are yours... You just can accept that someone else can not have the same view of life and understanding than you...
    guys a fucking nutjob if you read through this thread.

    If beliving in something than not everyone else believe in make me a nut job, than I agree I am a nut job, but my beliefs are my beliefs and yours are yours... at least even if I don't agree with them I still respect them... what we have here is a pure discremination based on beliefs... think i am a nut job cos I respect life as it is and don't think any has more right to life than others, then do, I couldn't care less...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    As a matter of fact I do not take drugs and I haven't done in yearsQUOTE]

    Bullshit, you toke the reefer flat out. :p

    :lol: well yeah took those kinds of drugs... but mostly ketamine which is for animals :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    you realy are out of touch with reality nio.
    you seem to have no understanding of what our medicine has achieved.

    Who said I didn't, I know what medicine have achieved and I know it can achieve even more... me taking no drugs has nothing to do with the fact that I don't recognise what achievement they are... it's just my choice and I do so because I believe in healing myself and handling the pain...it's not because the drugs have been tested on animals at all... as I said before I am not a animal right defender...
  • SkiveSkive No discipline. No morality. No respect. New ForestPosts: 15,225 Skive's The Limit
    As a matter of fact I do not take drugs and I haven't done in years... Not even for headaches or such... I never said tests shouldn't exist or be done either... never said they couldn't save life... but if they didn't exist and drugs that we have now didn't exist I will be fine with it, just like people were when drugs as such didn't existed...


    If you had a serious medical condition that required drugs to treat it I'm sure you would take it - and therefore you'd be connected to the testing and research that went into that drug. That was the point.
    Yesterday is history
    Tomorrow is a mystery
    But today is a gift
    That’s why it’s call the present
Sign In or Register to comment.