Testing Products on Animals

Ho-Oh

used Sacred Fire!
    • 35,992
    Posts
    19
    Years
    • Seen Jul 1, 2023
    What are your views on this?

    I find it completely stupid, considering half the products are dangerous to animals. The companies that actually do this are clearly heartless because they don't realise the big difference between animals and humans. Society will never learn.
     
    At the end of the day though who is going to say "oh yes i want to be tested on for poisonous chemicals"

    quite alot actually though they are under strict medical examination

    I think that humans should be tested on under the circymstances that they are not obliged to continue if they wish not to
     
    Unless you count on lab rats and invoke animal rights...

    That is practically the most inhumane thing a man can do with nature. Ironically, why don't they test the product themselves(if it's edible of course)?
     
    Lol....if animal testing was so ineffective, then why would we do it so often?

    Look at the big picture: It's the easiest way to test out new products for dangerous side-effects before they are used on actual people. Is it unfortunate for the animals?...Sure it is, but are there any other realistic options for us to use? The bottom line is that these companies aren't going to risk liability and test out new products on people right away. Even if someone willingly volunteers, they might end up getting sick (or worse), and then what happens? The company ends up getting sued, even if the company clearly states the dangers of the test. It actually costs less for these companies to settle the lawsuit instead of fighting it in court (which is why our law system is retarded).

    So basically, if we want new drugs and other products, animal testing is a must. I don't think the companies enjoy doing it, but I know for a fact they won't enjoy not making money. And I'm pretty sure everyone else won't enjoy not getting new products and medicines. And I refuse to believe that this kind of thought process is animal cruelty. It's just common sense >.>
     
    Forever said:
    What are your views on this?

    I find it completely stupid, considering half the products are dangerous to animals. The companies that actually do this are clearly heartless because they don't realise the big difference between animals and humans. Society will never learn.
    Click to expand...

    If half the products were dangerous to animals, wouldn't it be just as dangerous for us sentient life? Do you think that it would be better letting a rat spread disease than letting it get a rash from a shampoo that would be little more than irritating. It may, in some cases, be inhumane, but remember they're in-human. As soon as they become sentient and able to think intelligent thoughts (excluding instinct) they can go.
     
    What I don't understand is what makes the life of a human's so much more important than an animals..? They may not be as intelligent, but they're still living and I believe that since we are more intelligent we should be more responsible for the Earth and it's inhabitants - all of them.
     
    It would be more fitting to test on ourselves.
    I find it disgusting how anyone can value other animals' lives less than human ones; while it is a natural instinct to value one's own race, it ceases to be so once harm is done outside of necessity.

    Gengarchomp said:
    As soon as they become sentient and able to think intelligent thoughts (excluding instinct) they can go.
    Click to expand...
    Sentient — to feel
    Sapient — to know (hence our latin name is **** sapiens)


    Edit: Oh wow, censoring...
     
    I don't understand how you could possibly equate a human life with that of an animals. Don't we have a right to be responsible to ourselves? If we do, then we wouldn't put any type of life above our own, and we wouldn't do testing on ourselves rather than other animals. While it's not the most morally "right" thing we do, it's an actual necessity. Animals die every day because of human activity. Is killing a cow to make a hamburger ok? Is fishing ok? Is catching a mouse in a trap ok? I don't see the difference between any of those and animal testing. If we didn't harm or kill animals to support the human race, we'd all be dead right now. =/
     
    Cassino said:
    I find it disgusting how anyone can value other animals' lives less than human ones;
    Click to expand...

    Are you saying that if you were driving a car and there was a baby in one lane, and a squirrel in the other, that it would be a tough decision as to which one to hit? By sentient, I meant having the ability to make conscious thoughts and understand abstract concepts on a near-human level.
     
    Aurafire said:
    I don't understand how you could possibly equate a human life with that of an animals.
    Click to expand...
    I don't understand how you possibly couldn't...
    Don't we have a right to be responsible to ourselves? If we do, then we wouldn't put any type of life above our own, and we wouldn't do testing on ourselves rather than other animals.
    Click to expand...
    But we still shouldn't put our own species above any other so why is testing on animals different to testing on humans.
    While it's not the most morally "right" thing we do, it's an actual necessity. Animals die every day because of human activity. Is killing a cow to make a hamburger ok? Is fishing ok? Is catching a mouse in a trap ok? I don't see the difference between any of those and animal testing. If we didn't harm or kill animals to support the human race, we'd all be dead right now. =/
    Click to expand...
    It's not a necessity and these things may not be right, but naturally animals eat other animals... We don't need these things though so it's not true to say that we'd all be dead because when humanity didn't have access to fire and they weren't at the top of the food chain they still survived.
     
    1KewlDude said:
    I don't understand how you possibly couldn't...
    Click to expand...

    It's because we are human. Like it or not, we're superior in body and mind. If you really put your life on equal footing with...any type of animal life? I guess that's your opinion.

    1KewlDude said:
    But we still shouldn't put our own species above any other so why is testing on animals different to testing on humans.
    Click to expand...

    Alright, so if all animals are on equal footing, then some animal, be it human or mouse or whatever, has to be tested to improve our understanding of biology, medicine, genetics and various other fields. We can't just stop doing research. My question to you is: Would you rather do potentially dangerous tests on a human or another animal that isn't human?

    1KewlDude said:
    We don't need these things though so it's not true to say that we'd all be dead because when humanity didn't have access to fire and they weren't at the top of the food chain they still survived.
    Click to expand...

    That's not really applicable in this situation, since we live in a time where there's billions of people on the planet that need a steady food source. So in all actuality, humanity as we know it would cease to exist if we didn't slaughter livestock or fish the crap out of oceans.
     
    Aurafire said:
    I don't understand how you could possibly equate a human life with that of an animals. Don't we have a right to be responsible to ourselves? If we do, then we wouldn't put any type of life above our own, and we wouldn't do testing on ourselves rather than other animals. While it's not the most morally "right" thing we do, it's an actual necessity. Animals die every day because of human activity. Is killing a cow to make a hamburger ok? Is fishing ok? Is catching a mouse in a trap ok? I don't see the difference between any of those and animal testing. If we didn't harm or kill animals to support the human race, we'd all be dead right now. =/
    Click to expand...

    Here's my thinking, it's to put it into perspective:

    We are all part of the Animal Kingdom. Like it or not, we are.
    As part of the Animal Kingdom, or any other kingdom for that matter, we kill things for our survival/when necessary/when we deem it necessary.
    IE. Lions will kill other lions when they feel they are being threatened.

    If someone deems it necessary to kill another person, then they should do so without consequence. Same with if another animal deems it necessary to kill a human. Other animals do this to other animals, and humans can do this to MOST other animals.

    Being in the same kingdom by natural law puts us on equal footing, like it or not. Humans don't necessarily think in superior ways, just different ways. Many different animals have survived for longer than humans have. Other animal civilizations have lasted longer. That is how I, and many other people, define superior in this situation. The ability to survive for longer. Other animals have...

    I will sum up my opinion with this phrase/philosophy: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

    No, I don't believe animal testing is morally right, or right in any other way for that matter.
     
    Last edited:
    Gengarchomp said:
    Are you saying that if you were driving a car and there was a baby in one lane, and a squirrel in the other, that it would be a tough decision as to which one to hit?
    Click to expand...
    Yes; I feel this way because of the world's human population. If there were 100,000 of us on the Earth, I would hold human lives in much higher regard.

    Gengarchomp said:
    By sentient, I meant having the ability to make conscious thoughts and understand abstract concepts on a near-human level.
    Click to expand...
    That would be sapience, still. Sentience is simply being aware of the world and being able to feel things such as physical pain, basically all multicellular animals except humans are sentient.
    Look both words up if you like.


    Aurafire said:
    I don't understand how you could possibly equate a human life with that of an animals. Don't we have a right to be responsible to ourselves? If we do, then we wouldn't put any type of life above our own, and we wouldn't do testing on ourselves rather than other animals. While it's not the most morally "right" thing we do, it's an actual necessity. Animals die every day because of human activity. Is killing a cow to make a hamburger ok? Is fishing ok? Is catching a mouse in a trap ok? I don't see the difference between any of those and animal testing. If we didn't harm or kill animals to support the human race, we'd all be dead right now. =/
    Click to expand...
    But that's it, testing perfume and whatever on pigs isn't necessary to the survival of our race.
    Now, killing them to make pork and ham is, but simply remember that the testing is for frivilous things.
     
    Last edited:
    J£¡zåя∂27 said:
    Here's my thinking, it's to put it into perspective:

    We are all part of the Animal Kingdom. Like it or not, we are.
    As part of the Animal Kingdom, or any other kingdom for that matter, we kill things for our survival/when necessary/when we deem it necessary.
    IE. Lions will kill other lions when they feel they are being threatened.

    If someone deems it necessary to kill another person, then they should do so without consequence. Same with if another animal deems it necessary to kill a human. Other animals do this to other animals, and humans can do this to MOST other animals.

    Being in the same kingdom by natural law puts us on equal footing, like it or not. Humans don't necessarily think in superior ways, just different ways. Many different animals have survived for longer than humans have. Other animal civilizations have lasted longer. That is how I, and many other people, define superior in this situation. The ability to survive for longer. Other animals have...

    I will sum up my opinion with this phrase/philosophy: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

    No, I don't believe animal testing is morally right, or right in any other way for that matter.
    Click to expand...

    But...we do think in a more superior way. We obviously have the most intelligence of any species on Earth. And just because other species have survived longer doesn't mean they are smarter or better than us in terms of the entire animal kingdom. And I'm not saying that humans are "better" then other species. I'm just saying...We are the dominant species. It would be silly to assume that all other forms of life are equal to us, not necessarily in importance, but in intelligence. I refuse to believe that I am equals with something like an ant for example. Just because it's another animal doesn't mean we're on equal footing. I don't think it's cruel to think this way. I'm all for respecting life and such but...Putting the importance of human life on the same level as any other animal seems silly.

    But that's totally beside the point. I agree with that quote, but only if it's applied to situations involving humans. I mean, you can't treat an animal with amazing amounts of kindness and respect and have it return the favor (in most cases). And a lot of the times, animals don't have the brain capacity to care a whole lot. I'm not saying go out and torture animals just for fun, but if they are totally oblivious to the situation, what's the point in trying to respect something as if it were human that can't respect you back on the same level. Once again...not saying we shouldn't respect other forms of life. But for the sake of the argument on animal testing, it makes sense.
     
    Aurafire said:
    Lol....if animal testing was so ineffective, then why would we do it so often?

    Look at the big picture: It's the easiest way to test out new products for dangerous side-effects before they are used on actual people. Is it unfortunate for the animals?...Sure it is, but are there any other realistic options for us to use? The bottom line is that these companies aren't going to risk liability and test out new products on people right away. Even if someone willingly volunteers, they might end up getting sick (or worse), and then what happens? The company ends up getting sued, even if the company clearly states the dangers of the test. It actually costs less for these companies to settle the lawsuit instead of fighting it in court (which is why our law system is retarded).

    So basically, if we want new drugs and other products, animal testing is a must. I don't think the companies enjoy doing it, but I know for a fact they won't enjoy not making money. And I'm pretty sure everyone else won't enjoy not getting new products and medicines. And I refuse to believe that this kind of thought process is animal cruelty. It's just common sense >.>
    Click to expand...

    I'll double this.
    As mean as it is, I don't think any company is going to risk losing money and going thru a load of crap, because some guy wants to get rich because the soap gave him acne.

    I still think it's wrong to use it on the animals, but, that's the way it is. D:
    Maybe we could genetically modify an arm or a scalp? Lol, no.
     
    J£¡zåя∂27 said:
    Here's my thinking, it's to put it into perspective:

    We are all part of the Animal Kingdom. Like it or not, we are.
    As part of the Animal Kingdom, or any other kingdom for that matter, we kill things for our survival/when necessary/when we deem it necessary.
    IE. Lions will kill other lions when they feel they are being threatened.

    If someone deems it necessary to kill another person, then they should do so without consequence. Same with if another animal deems it necessary to kill a human. Other animals do this to other animals, and humans can do this to MOST other animals.

    Being in the same kingdom by natural law puts us on equal footing, like it or not. Humans don't necessarily think in superior ways, just different ways. Many different animals have survived for longer than humans have. Other animal civilizations have lasted longer. That is how I, and many other people, define superior in this situation. The ability to survive for longer. Other animals have...

    I will sum up my opinion with this phrase/philosophy: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

    No, I don't believe animal testing is morally right, or right in any other way for that matter.
    Click to expand...
    I agree with this 100%! Well said, J£¡zåя∂27!
     
    You shouldn't eliminate animal testing completely, but there comes a point where it becomes inhumane. ( I.E. forcing monkeys to smoke cigarettes* )

    *although I do realize how freaking funny it looks
     
    Testing Products on Animals
    Click to expand...

    The second I saw this title, I knew I had to make a remark. Keep in mind this is all my own opinion, so no lowering rep or flaming me just because you don't have similar views.

    Let's start off with the basics now, shall we? Hmm, let's see... Testing on animals means somehow placing chemicals on or in the animal. And are many animals resistant against chemicals like we are? I think not. Natural selection has not yet allowed most creatures other than us humans to be immune to the kinds of chemicals we place on them.

    What I see wrong with this is hey, the animals aren't as immune to the chemicals as we are. And the products we're testing on them are most likely for us, so shouldn't they be tested on us? After all, we are getting overpopulated; what better than to drop the number a bit? OK, I'm kidding. I don't want anyone to die, no matter how murderous or evil they may be. But we don't have many cures for the animals if they get poisoned from the chemicals while we have cures for humans that are perfectly safe for us to take.

    Even if the product is for the animal itself, it's still wrong to test on the animal, in case it goes wrong. Now, people may wonder how to figure out if it's working then. I don't have a suggestion, but hey, our creator (or maybe even creators) gave us functioning brains, and we have discovered many things in our lifetime, so surely we can use the gift of knowledge to find a way around testing on animals. Am I right, or am I right?

    Anyways, that's all I have to say on the subject.
     
    Cassino said:
    Gengarchomp said:
    Are you saying that if you were driving a car and there was a baby in one lane, and a squirrel in the other, that it would be a tough decision as to which one to hit? By sentient, I meant having the ability to make conscious thoughts and understand abstract concepts on a near-human level.
    Click to expand...

    Yes; I feel this way because of the world's human population. If there were 100,000 of us on the Earth, I would hold human lives in much higher regard.
    Click to expand...

    I'm sorry, are you basing the worth of human life on quotas? I guess the Killing Fields of Cambodia were just a hunting session and Japanese whaling is the true holocaust.

    Ignoring the self-destructive thinking behind that, don't you think there are a hell of a lot of squirrels out there?
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top