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.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
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
No you're not. It's called a Strawman argument, you're over simplifying a complex argument for your own gain and refuting other arguments against that claim on the basis of your original point, i.e. pleasure for pain. It's idiotic to say the least.
Because that's all you ever seem to do and it gets boring fast.
I wouldn't say we're 'better' as such... more driving ourselves to extinction.
:yes: TBH, I've never quite understood why there is a need for testing on animals if the product is meant for humans. Same goes for cosmetics.
Yeah, I admit that I view a lot of things in a fairly black and white (cold) way (the same with other issues like feminism I feel strongly about). I understand there are degrees of cruelty too and admittedly, I'm talking about factory farming more than anything else (I should've made that more clear).
When I find out who wrote the arguement, which is very intersting to read I shall post up the link if it's online for anyone interested in that.
Firstly there are obviously differences between a rat and a human, but take morphene for example (I think it was morphene and the animals involved, I remember this from a lecture), morphene makes mice react differently to rats as in it makes one hyper and the other has a similar effect as on humans. Rats and mice are by far more closely related to each other than to humans. It is the same that chocolate is poisonous to dogs and not to humans (thank god).
Then there is the stress of being in a lab. Stress has been shown to lower the immune system, a human example being psychosomatic illness. If you have depression or are suffering with stress then it lowers your immune system and you're more likely to get ill. The same goes with animals. So on top of a rat in a lab being a completely different species to human beings, its immune system is at a different level because it is stressed.
Note also that a lab creature is not exposed to the outside and the illnesses. It is basically born in to a nice safe bubble, so this will affect its immune system.
I can understand why people support animal research, we have attachments to our family and friends (yes, I know that sounds a bit cold) and we want what we believe is best for them. It is pretty much the state of being human, our emotions are hurt otherwise and the 'animal' inside of us is terrified of death. But at the same time, how convincing is it? Are there not alternatives like computer models we can use? Technology moves pretty fast after all...
If animal testing is so good, then why do we have side effects with the drugs? Then of course we have to take more drugs to deal with the side effects.
Tbh I think that we're a world obsessed with immortality. Heck, even if we get a sniffle a lot of us think we're dying and reach eagly for Lemsip (which actually contains stimulants too, so whilst our body tells us to rest, this puts more strain on us to make us want to keep going - Source: The Ecologist). I'm not saying that if I were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, I would not consier treatment, of course I would... But I think the time is coming to start using alternatives.
Yes, because we'd be all so much better if we lived in caves and were lucky to survive into our twenties...
I think you're missing the point of testing on animals. It isn't to see how humans would react. Its to see if there's any unforseen results which the theoretical work and work on cell cultures has failed to detect. If the theory is that the mouse would be fine and instead the mouse dies there is obviously something not quite right in the theory and its best to go back to the drawing board...
Gee... That's a justification to destroy their homes.
A person is a person, aren't we all equal?
I mean what made a person 5000 years ago happy is unlikely to be what would make you and I happy today. People held different values back then. It doesn't make them any less 'better' because they aren't the same as us.
Again, we are still destroying the planet and if we keep on consuming like this we'll wipe a great deal of us out. So you could argue that in some ways, their lifestyles are better if indeed their aim is to keep on reproducing successfully for generations to come.
It really depends on your definitions of 'good' and 'bad'.
We're certainly better off... We as a rule don't tend to kill our disabled, or let those who are too old or ill to do anything starve to death. if our children don't support us in our old age the state will. its been a long time since anyone in this country has died from measles or chickenpox. If i cut my hand the chances of it getting gangrene and falling off is pretty rare...
The reason why there are so few stone age populations around is that as soon as they got the chance those who lived in them dropped them...
PS - where did the argument about destroying homes come in? It isn't mine and given that this strand comes from your view that butterflies habitats are more important than clean water and electricity it seems that you'd be happy to destroy their homes if they happenend to build them in an area of outstanding natural beauty...
How is pointing out a straw man an insult?
they have differences, and these differences are well known, so you tend to avoid testing of certain drugs when that class of drug is known to have different effect in a certain species - especially drugs that interact with the human immune system, like how those people nearly died in a drug trial last year - it was a new class of treatment
they test on human cell cultures a lot as well as computer simulations to weed out the ineffective drugs, animal testing is just another 'layer' to this series of testing before it reaches human volunteers
of course accidents occur still, that's what the testing reduces the chance of
Drugs have side effects because they arent perfect, that has nothing to do with animal testing and everything to do with our level of knowledge of exact biochemistry.
Of course we are obsessed with immortality - I'd say most people in the UK now have very deep doubts about what comes after death, so therefore we dont want to.
P.S - Lemsip does contain a stimulant, but its only a small dose of caffiene which is put in to help the paracetamol work faster, its not really enough to put any strain on the body.