Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

einned · Oct 10, 2003, 01:36 pm

Hey people, I have got an internship at an University in the Netherlands we make peptides and DNA that are somtimes being used with animal tests to see what the effect is.
This primarily used for the study of medicine and I wondered what you guys think of this. Should we be looking for other options as a society?

Fallen Angel · Oct 11, 2003, 02:03 am

Yes, testing animals out to see if a shampoo will sting your eyes or not is revolting, I use natural shampoo and conditioners that are non animal tested, and they work great, they also have no sulphates in them that slowly kill your hair.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Oct 11, 2003, 04:38 pm

Wonder who the animals will vote for when given that right?

Fallen Angel · Oct 12, 2003, 01:38 am

Probably a duck hahaha.

G. Adams · Oct 12, 2003, 07:38 pm

wow, i'm stunned, something we agree on.

there isn't a whole lot of logic behind my disgust at animal testing, its all purely emotive. so i'm not even going to bother to argue it. not that i usually bother to argue much these days, just throw my objection in and leave it at that.

casual · Oct 13, 2003, 02:27 am

yeah, if they really want to test out if their product works, they should try it on themselves..

and since that isn't an option i still think they should find another way around this problem.. animal testing is, as previously mentioned, 'purely emotive'.. and theres no reason to argue about it, it just is...

TwoShanks · Oct 15, 2003, 09:14 am

er.. if you notice, the original question was about medical testing on animals, presumably referring to drug tests and development.

I suggest what it then comes down to is which you find worse from a "purely emotive" view; avoidable deaths of humans or deaths of lab animals.

**Pooeypants** · Oct 15, 2003, 12:03 pm

It'll be interesting what alternative methods ppl can offer to animal testing. How about testing them on convicts? Especially those on life sentences (I mean like life life not the British one which lasts barely 10 years...), they're just a drain on the system. At least then they've contributed to society etc.

G. Adams · Oct 15, 2003, 12:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (TwoShanks,)
er.. if you notice, the original question was about medical testing on animals, presumably referring to drug tests and development.

I suggest what it then comes down to is which you find worse from a "purely emotive" view; avoidable deaths of humans or deaths of lab animals.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Animal life above humans any day. Its not like humans are on the brink of extinction now is it?

Animals are innocent, totally and purely. Humans, well adult humans, are not. Thus for me to have 1000 animals suffer ridiculous amounts of pain to improve some painkillers (as the majority of drugs work and testing is simply modification of current drugs, rather than great new ones) is not justified.

einned · Oct 17, 2003, 08:56 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Thus for me to have 1000 animals suffer ridiculous amounts of pain to improve some painkillers (as the majority of drugs work and testing is simply modification of current drugs, rather than great new ones) is not justified.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Well, I know it's not justified but there just aren't any alternatives around, are there?

G. Adams · Oct 17, 2003, 09:57 am

Yes there are -

a) test on humans, either volunteers or yourself

b) don't test such minor drugs on animals. There's still something scratching in my head about testing in regards to major drugs, like getting an AIDS vaccination or cure, but even there my gut still hates the idea of testing.

If your not sure enough of the drug to test it on a human, then don't test it on an animal. (my buddhist/pagan philosophy kicking in now) A life is a life, regardless of the species, and I don't want lives being risked without the subject in question's full consent. Which requires the subject to be human.

**Pooeypants** · Oct 19, 2003, 11:07 am

I think we should push for an act or law that allows testing to be done on criminals convicted and sentenced for a long period...now that should be a good deterent of crime.

G. Adams · Oct 19, 2003, 12:32 pm

Not to mention barbaric, cruel and unusual

Waychel · Oct 19, 2003, 12:37 pm

Of course we shouldn't test on animals, they're living beings - they have their rights! We should either put all progression of medical science at a stand-still or use living human beings as guinea pigs instead!

I never did understand the logic of it very well, or lack thereof.

casual · Nov 6, 2003, 03:54 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)

.. (my buddhist/pagan philosophy kicking in now) A life is a life, regardless of the species....<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

^ good one ;)

I wouldnt say i have a good alternative for the animal testing, and i dont think the convict suggestion would never be accepted ...

But even though i have no alternative at hand, it still doesnt make animal testing "right" ...

Paavo · Nov 7, 2003, 08:47 am

I take it everyone that's against animal testing and think that animal lives are just as valuable as human, are all vegetarians too? :P

Seriously though, I'm too against animal testing in the sense that it does feel morally wrong...but then again, so does so much other stuff like hunting (for a "good" cause, I.E an animal has no natural enemies anymore etc etc) and caging birds and whatnot...the list goes on forever. But I'd be fooling myself if I said I think animal lives are just as valuable as human. Your dog gets sick and needs a damn expensive operation which you "can't afford"....you have it killed. I'm sure you could find a way to afford the operation if it was your child or mother or something. :P

Blablabla... *just woke up* ¤_______¤

G. Adams · Nov 7, 2003, 09:01 am

I'd have my dog put down if it was a last resort, but not if i couldn't afford an operation fo it. I'd borrow and go into debt rather than have it killed for sake of money.

I'm not vegeterian because its not natural. Its not immoral to eat animals as its what humans eat as part of a good diet.

Hunting is okay as long as its for food, or in a survival situation where you need the skins or something. Hunting for sport is appalling. Fun no doubt but appalling.

Impenitent · Nov 7, 2003, 09:19 am

animal testing is great...

just make sure they can use the number 2 pencils...

**Pooeypants** · Nov 9, 2003, 01:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Not to mention barbaric, cruel and unusual<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
So we test on animals instead huh? Or just release products untested? :D

G. Adams · Nov 9, 2003, 02:47 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Not to mention barbaric, cruel and unusual<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
So we test on animals instead huh? Or just release products untested? :D<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Nope, test on humans. But not criminals. if you volunteer, fine. I see life as life, I don't discriminate on species. At least a human can choose to have tests, (if we ignore my philosophy that there is no such thing as choice...), such choice is beyond animals.

Oct 10, 2003, 01:36 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
einned Sedimentary Rock Location: The Netherlands Posts: 24	Hey people, I have got an internship at an University in the Netherlands we make peptides and DNA that are somtimes being used with animal tests to see what the effect is. This primarily used for the study of medicine and I wondered what you guys think of this. Should we be looking for other options as a society? A runner must run with dreams in his heart, not money in his pocket. Emil Zatopek

Oct 12, 2003, 07:38 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	wow, i'm stunned, something we agree on. there isn't a whole lot of logic behind my disgust at animal testing, its all purely emotive. so i'm not even going to bother to argue it. not that i usually bother to argue much these days, just throw my objection in and leave it at that. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 15, 2003, 12:03 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	It'll be interesting what alternative methods ppl can offer to animal testing. How about testing them on convicts? Especially those on life sentences (I mean like life life not the British one which lasts barely 10 years...), they're just a drain on the system. At least then they've contributed to society etc. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Oct 15, 2003, 12:57 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (TwoShanks,) er.. if you notice, the original question was about medical testing on animals, presumably referring to drug tests and development. I suggest what it then comes down to is which you find worse from a "purely emotive" view; avoidable deaths of humans or deaths of lab animals.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Animal life above humans any day. Its not like humans are on the brink of extinction now is it? Animals are innocent, totally and purely. Humans, well adult humans, are not. Thus for me to have 1000 animals suffer ridiculous amounts of pain to improve some painkillers (as the majority of drugs work and testing is simply modification of current drugs, rather than great new ones) is not justified. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 17, 2003, 08:56 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
einned Sedimentary Rock Location: The Netherlands Posts: 24	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) Thus for me to have 1000 animals suffer ridiculous amounts of pain to improve some painkillers (as the majority of drugs work and testing is simply modification of current drugs, rather than great new ones) is not justified.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Well, I know it's not justified but there just aren't any alternatives around, are there? A runner must run with dreams in his heart, not money in his pocket. Emil Zatopek

Oct 11, 2003, 02:03 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	Yes, testing animals out to see if a shampoo will sting your eyes or not is revolting, I use natural shampoo and conditioners that are non animal tested, and they work great, they also have no sulphates in them that slowly kill your hair.

Oct 11, 2003, 04:38 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Wonder who the animals will vote for when given that right?

Oct 12, 2003, 01:38 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	Probably a duck hahaha.

Oct 13, 2003, 02:27 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
casual Sedimentary Rock Location: Denmark Posts: 5	yeah, if they really want to test out if their product works, they should try it on themselves.. and since that isn't an option i still think they should find another way around this problem.. animal testing is, as previously mentioned, 'purely emotive'.. and theres no reason to argue about it, it just is...

Oct 15, 2003, 09:14 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
TwoShanks Molten Ash Posts: 29	er.. if you notice, the original question was about medical testing on animals, presumably referring to drug tests and development. I suggest what it then comes down to is which you find worse from a "purely emotive" view; avoidable deaths of humans or deaths of lab animals.

Oct 17, 2003, 09:57 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Yes there are - a) test on humans, either volunteers or yourself b) don't test such minor drugs on animals. There's still something scratching in my head about testing in regards to major drugs, like getting an AIDS vaccination or cure, but even there my gut still hates the idea of testing. If your not sure enough of the drug to test it on a human, then don't test it on an animal. (my buddhist/pagan philosophy kicking in now) A life is a life, regardless of the species, and I don't want lives being risked without the subject in question's full consent. Which requires the subject to be human. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 19, 2003, 11:07 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	I think we should push for an act or law that allows testing to be done on criminals convicted and sentenced for a long period...now that should be a good deterent of crime. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Oct 19, 2003, 12:32 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Not to mention barbaric, cruel and unusual Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 19, 2003, 12:37 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	Of course we shouldn't test on animals, they're living beings - they have their rights! We should either put all progression of medical science at a stand-still or use living human beings as guinea pigs instead! I never did understand the logic of it very well, or lack thereof. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Nov 6, 2003, 03:54 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
casual Sedimentary Rock Location: Denmark Posts: 5	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) .. (my buddhist/pagan philosophy kicking in now) A life is a life, regardless of the species....<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> ^ good one ;) I wouldnt say i have a good alternative for the animal testing, and i dont think the convict suggestion would never be accepted ... But even though i have no alternative at hand, it still doesnt make animal testing "right" ...

Nov 7, 2003, 08:47 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	I take it everyone that's against animal testing and think that animal lives are just as valuable as human, are all vegetarians too? :P Seriously though, I'm too against animal testing in the sense that it does feel morally wrong...but then again, so does so much other stuff like hunting (for a "good" cause, I.E an animal has no natural enemies anymore etc etc) and caging birds and whatnot...the list goes on forever. But I'd be fooling myself if I said I think animal lives are just as valuable as human. Your dog gets sick and needs a damn expensive operation which you "can't afford"....you have it killed. I'm sure you could find a way to afford the operation if it was your child or mother or something. :P Blablabla... just woke up ¤_______¤

Nov 7, 2003, 09:01 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	I'd have my dog put down if it was a last resort, but not if i couldn't afford an operation fo it. I'd borrow and go into debt rather than have it killed for sake of money. I'm not vegeterian because its not natural. Its not immoral to eat animals as its what humans eat as part of a good diet. Hunting is okay as long as its for food, or in a survival situation where you need the skins or something. Hunting for sport is appalling. Fun no doubt but appalling. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Nov 7, 2003, 09:19 am	#18 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	animal testing is great... just make sure they can use the number 2 pencils... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Nov 9, 2003, 01:40 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) Not to mention barbaric, cruel and unusual<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So we test on animals instead huh? Or just release products untested? :D War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Nov 9, 2003, 02:47 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) Not to mention barbaric, cruel and unusual<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> So we test on animals instead huh? Or just release products untested? :D<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Nope, test on humans. But not criminals. if you volunteer, fine. I see life as life, I don't discriminate on species. At least a human can choose to have tests, (if we ignore my philosophy that there is no such thing as choice...), such choice is beyond animals. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill