Young Liberals discussion

Today's Issues > Animal Testing

Comments Showing 1-21 of 21 (21 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by ♥ Rachel♥ (new)

♥ Rachel♥   (i_got_a_jar_of_dirt) | 121 comments Sometimes it's worth it (cures for cancer), sometimes it's not (makeup).

*Mrs. Brightside* Did you drink? Bad girl! Haha(;

*Mrs. Brightside* ....A pot cookie? Lol, I never heard of that! Sounds like some party.

*Mrs. Brightside* Lindsay wrote: "Yeah brightside it's pot baked into cookies for people who don't want to smoke it."

I know what it is...I just never heard of it being in cookies. Was her mom...embarrassing..or just funny?

*Mrs. Brightside* Oh yeah! Columbus day. But that's good she was.

message 6: by ♥ Rachel♥ (new)

♥ Rachel♥   (i_got_a_jar_of_dirt) | 121 comments Blahhh I wish I had a holiday weekend :(

message 7: by Claere (new)

Claere (omenonwings) | 6 comments I think it's totally evil. I actually think that humans have no right to use animals whatsoever.

message 8: by Marco (new)

Marco (marcoreads) | 15 comments Lindsay wrote: "And you don't think that a chimpanzee, who is 99.9% the same as us genetically and can feel all the pain that we have, should not be given the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Chimps rip faces off people and eat. Its what they'll do. L, i believe human should not own "wild" animals and treat em like "domestic". Jealousy is felt by ALL living things...don't know about plants though.
Sea life, also, dont know about that. But seriously, humans should stay within the human kind.

No interspecies mix. Pls. i dont dig genesplicing either. my 2 cents.

message 9: by ♥ Rachel♥ (new)

♥ Rachel♥   (i_got_a_jar_of_dirt) | 121 comments Well, I do. So now I'm saying that it's not OK to test on them because I like them. Is that a good argument? :P

message 10: by Kataury (last edited Jan 05, 2011 09:38PM) (new)

Kataury If they're testing on something like a rodent, then who cares? They're the fastest multiplying species in the world. If one dies then there's two hundred more to take their place. A human life and the life of a rat are not the same thing. Rats are animals, we kill them with pesticide, we set up traps and we use thousands of methods to destroy pests. Animals die, and they are born, a cycle of life that is placed to be used one way or another. Just because an animal has a cute little face doesn't mean that they deserve to be treated like humans. In no way are animals that live in their own filth like humans.

message 11: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (djinni) Humans are animals.

message 12: by Kataury (new)

Kataury Yeah, and the more advanced animal gets the power to rule the other animals. People die by bear mauling all the time, yes, tragic. But that's what happens. Que cera cera

message 13: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (djinni) So, if a more powerful animal came along, you could be content with being an experimental subject, because you think that would be your place?

message 14: by Kataury (new)

Kataury No, because I would rebel, same as any animal, its part of who we are. And I'm more than certain that plenty of other humans would too, we just happen to be smarter than animals and capable of being able to coordinate ourselves in a system that is much more efficient than a nest of rats and pests. Don't rats bite those that irritate them or as you would say harm them for their experiments? There's more than enough pests to go around. Animals kill each other all the time. The wolves use the deer to feed themselves, so do we kill all the wolves just because they're harming the poor deer? No, because it would unbalance the natural system. Do we keep from killing rats? No, because they plague our houses and our harvests and spread disease. But why kill something when we can use it for new development? Finding cures for diseases and ways that we can further our studies is a logical solution. I'll admit, the cosmetics isn't exactly a necessity, but oh well, we can let the PETA members handle that one.

message 15: by Icefire (new)

Icefire *Completely lost* | 1 comments I agree with some of that. The cosmetics are just plain out cruel, with putting makeup in a rabbit's eye and waiting to see if it goes blind. But I don't think animal testing is necessary at all. The test results are most of the time useless. They tried tobacco on animals and none of them developed lung cancer, while in humans we do develop lung cancer from smoking. It's unreliable and it's just plain out wrong. These animals do feel pain, just like us. There's nothing to benefit from putting cancer into a rabbit's head and looking at it while the rabbit dies. I won't say that animal testing hasn't been useful in the past, but now, there are other alternatives to animal testing.

message 16: by Kataury (new)

Kataury I never said anything about animal abuse. I agree that it's cruel and inhuman for people to torture animals for no logical reason. But it's a cruel world, survival of the fittest is one of the basest points of life. If you have the chance to save those you love from a disease at the cost of an animals life would you do it, not even that, but your very own species? I don't think cosmetics are a necessity, amongst several other points, but if the salvation of thousands comes at the cost of an animals life then I say why not? Have we not used animals since the neolithic era? We domesticated them and depended on them for our survival to help us grow and develop. We do so again to save the lives of others and ourselves, even if it is at the cost of an animal's life. I'm not saying let's go run tests on the endangered species of some tiger. We're just testing on rats. Rats that still harm us even if they don't intend to, that populate by the thousands each time one female is in heat. We aren't just going to leave them alone like they have a right to live in our houses and feast upon our work that we toiled to earn. They're thieves that live off of others. It's a parasitic symbiosis, one that we aren't going to leave alone just because they have to feed their young that will soon enough harm us again.
Animals do not think about their families, very few animal species actually mourn over the death of their young. The only comprehension that an animal has is survival. Should they not survive then so be it. Should their young not survive then they will wait until the seasons pass and they mate again.
It isn't as if I'm telling the world let's kill all the animals because we can, It's not as if I don't care for animals at all. Environmentally we are stupid in our movements and don't truly understand the consequences. In all honesty, I'm not telling us to kill the animals, I'm not as coldly immoral as you think, you just jump to conclusions. We should preserve the lives of animals, yes, but should we not also seek our own preservation? Don't we deserve to live just as much as any other creature on this planet? What you said is that humans are filth and don't deserve to live. Alright, then if you really think we're that disgusting, then kill us all, become a terrorist in the name of animals just because you feel like they deserve to live more than we do. You would turn against your own species just to provide the rats with a life that they can enjoy, continuing to live in their own filth, mating every time their in heat and still end up being killed by the thousands of other predators in the world?
Perhaps my words sounded harsh, but I never said that I hated animals, I never said that we have the right to torture cats, or dogs, or monkeys. I was specifying my point on a species that has always been on the lowest rung of the food chain. Animals that are preyed upon by everything, but they still survive, because there are more than enough of them to do so and they are a species that has absolutely no care for what happens to their young, or their mate. When a rat grows it searches to find another rat and create more rats, all the while feeding off of what they can find. It's true that I don't find the value of a rat very high. Neither does a cat, or a hawk, or the thousands of other animals that see them as nothing but food. Another ingredient necessary for their survival. Do you always weep for the prey when you see them eaten alive by those that hunt them? No, you don't, because you understand that it is necessary for the survival of the hunter. Our survival is also necessary, we require the rats to help us survive. They will also survive, because they are able to.

message 17: by Kataury (new)

Kataury "Humans are overpopulated. We litter the streets with our filth and we destroy beautiful forests and deserts and lakes for our own selfish needs. We are corrupt and we take what we want because we feel entitled to it. We are destroying our home planet faster than we have time to find a new one. Humans are despicable, horrid creatures that don't deserve to walk the planet." I think that might give someone the wrong impression. There are plenty of occasions that an animal will feel a long period pain before they die, we're not the only ones that provide cruel deaths. If we test upon them and suffer whatever consequences come from it then so be it. But even if we have a snowflakes chance that the cost of rats lives go into helping save the lives of millions then we aren't going to let those lives go to waste. In all honesty, if you're so concerned about what happens to these animals then why not go and blow up the labs that hold these poor abused animals?

message 18: by Kataury (new)

Kataury In the case of your second response: If you could find ten people in this world that are willing to go through with it I'd be amazed. If you asked those that resisted against animal testing some would nod their heads and say 'yes that would be a good idea' or 'Of course, why didn't I think of that?' But how many would actually do it? Would you be willing to?

For the third response: Then what course of action could you even begin to take? There are plenty of people that rally against animal testing, but those few extremists make all of them look as if they're acting like nutjobs that insist that humanity is the most evil thing the world ever saw. But I have to ask, what would the world be like without us? What would this planet be without humans?

message 19: by Kataury (last edited Jan 09, 2011 08:03AM) (new)

Kataury It would be a stagnant planet. One without a real purpose. Animals would still be killing each other, the very plants fight for survival against one another. Everything would just go back to the basics. There would no longer be any music, or understanding, life would be so very empty, seeing the miracle of a person that is able to create fire, one of the purest forms of power, is an amazing feat that we often take for granted. Species would still die after the hunting of another species and evolution would occur between the two and the whole thing starts over again. It'd be nothing but an endless cycle of the most basic forms of survival. Animals are only capable of survival and therefore will never make a change on the world. It is humans who are capable to live and truly make this world filled with ideas and possibilities. Without us the world would be nothing but a shell that is empty and useless.

message 20: by Kataury (new)

Kataury Too bad they don't though hm? Evolution sends different species down different pathways. The dolphin just picked the wrong one. Whichever animals was picked I'm pretty sure they'd end up where we are now.

message 21: by Kataury (new)

Kataury Of course we've made foolish decisions. But I think some people are a little extreme with their methods of environmental issues.

back to top