Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Animal Testing

2

Comments

  • Posts: 16,720 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    If animals wish to sit the Junior and Leaving Certificates, who am I to stop them?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,220 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Against
    I'm all for testing on animals for medical research, even to the point of LD50 tests. Without animal research we wouldn't now be using insulin and many other important drugs.

    However, shampoos and makeup can be made without tests on animals.
    When I buy shampoos I check it for "No animal tests" labels. It's a small way not to support unnecessary cruelty.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭JohnnyStones


    Dudess wrote: »
    You would have fit right in in 30s Berlin. Oh wait...
    • even the Nazis disagreed with cruelty to animals
    .

    Where you hear that?
    no they didn't!!:p

    and why are you sticking up for nazi's anyway?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Hitler loved his doggy


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 306 ✭✭JohnnyStones


    MooseJam wrote: »
    Hitler loved his doggy

    Yeah he loved it doggy style as well i believe:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 258 ✭✭Outer Bongolia


    Against
    ScumLord wrote: »
    I seen a documentary years ago about a research chimp, I think he's name was bobo. It was raised to understand sign language in a nice research place where they didn't cut up animals it was more about researching chimp intelligence. That group lost it's funding and the chimp was sold onto a medical research place over the years he was infected with all sorts of stuff and then sold onto a traveling circus but because he was infected with hepC he couldn't mix with the other chimps. The saddest part was when the researcher that taught him sign language (was like a father to the chimp) came to visit him after 15 years. The chimp knew him and started signing straight away. When the researcher had to leave it was one of the saddest things I've ever seen on tv ever.

    I think I saw that movie, was that the one with Steven Seagal? He had to break into the Russian compound to rescue the poor chimp but in his way was Rutger Hauer with a sub-machine gun? That was very sad alright.

    I don't agree with Cosmetic testing because it involves causing unnecessary pain to an innocent animal in the interests of superficiality and vanity. However, speaking about Russia again, they often subject bears to very rigorous heat resistance tests. These tests are valuable in enlightening us about the effects of extreme temperatures on the physical and mental state. These tests also contribute to the local economy, as bets can be placed and T-shirts sold of the Bear walking over the hot coals. The footage can then be copyrighted and mass-produced for sale to international television markets and entertainment shows such as 'Animals do the silliest things' and 'When Bears attack'. Reminds me of a test they did in China about twenty years ago to test the connection between animal cerebral response times and tomatoes. 120 Panda bears were given a three week course explaining the danger of following a moving tomato and subjected to electro-shock tests which tried to make them understand that if they followed a rolling tomato down a flight of stairs then they would suffer and if they held back, they would be rewarded. The final stage of the test involved placing a Panda Bear at the top of a flight of stairs and rolling a tomato down the stairs. If the panda followed the tomato to the bottom then it would be punished with two hollow point bullets to the brain. From what I remember, out of the 120 Panda bears tested, 119 of them followed the tomato and were dispatched accordingly. 1 Panda followed the tomato but had a heart attack halfway down the stairs. Subsequent investigations established that this panda bear died from a massive heart attack caused by a high cholesterol diet. It turned out that the night watchman of the panda compound, Chung Si Heu, was particularly enamoured with this particular Panda and treated him to a full pack of sausages every night. This was a mistake, as panda bears are not capable of handling such high-fat food.

    Anyway, I think that animal testing is valuable in the field of medical science.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Reku


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Just to point out to all those who are praising animal testing in the cosmetics industry and how it lets you know you'll be safe: It doesn't, it only checks for short term issues, many cosmetics still result in a slow build up of toxins in and on the body. Even what type of deodorant you use can be tested for by checking Aluminium content of your hair, Aluminium is suspected to play a part in Alzheimers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Against
    Dudess wrote: »
    You would have fit right in in 30s Berlin. Oh wait... even the Nazis disagreed with cruelty to animals.

    From Animal testing to Nazis in 44 posts.. is this a new record?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,105 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Against, I don't hold another animals life to be of any less value than yours. If I was in favour of animal testing I would be in favour of testing you.

    I love how so many of you are against animal testing for cosmetics etc and, of course, use them without a second thought.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,925 ✭✭✭aidan24326


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    bleg wrote: »
    it's pretty much a no brainer, do you want to put the lives of human beings at risk to test a highly experimental compound, people with friends and family who care deeply about them. on the other hand do you want to test it on animals without a consciousness?


    as i say, no brainer. anybody who thinks otherwise should put themselves forward for testing, that would strengthen up the gene pool.

    Perhaps the no-brainer here is your good self. Animals without a consciessness you say, really? Maybe you'd like to define consciousness for us. Whether or not an animal is 'conscious' in the same way as us in not the issue, what matters is said animal's capacity to suffer. That many animals used in labs around the world can and do suffer severe physical pain and mental distress is a fact, often for non-essential cosmetics and household chemicals.

    Adult chimps are known to have cognitive and emotional capacity not dissimilair to a young child. Thankfully use of chimps is banned in the EU but the US military still use them in research labs. Is it then ok to experiment on a young human? If not why not? Where do we draw the line, at dogs, mice, rats?

    Those who consider our torture of animals as acceptable due to us being the dominant species might want to reconsider that attitude. What if we weren't? What if some advanced aliens needed a bunch of lab rats and deciced that we humans would fit the bill? Those who dismiss the suffering of animals should then be first in line to volunteer themselves as lab specimens. I'm not saying there should be absolutely no testing done, but we can take measures to minimise any suffering involved, which doesn't happen in alot of places. Even in medical research some of the animal testing that goes on is of questionable value.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,598 ✭✭✭Padraig Mor


    Against
    In Ireland, experiments, including painful ones, are allowed under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, administered by the Department of Health. Most animal experiments are done without anaesthetic. In Ireland and some other countries, the law requires that, in experiments involving surgery the animal must be anaesthetised but in most of these cases the animal is allowed to recover for observation, and there can be severe suffering at this stage.

    Completely untrue. As is most of the crap spouted by the 'animal rights' crowd.

    In Ireland, you need to receive special permission if you are NOT going to anaesthetise an animal for an experiment. You also need separate permission AGAIN if you going to let the animal wake up from anaesthesia after a procedure (i.e. not euthanase it while it's still asleep).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,465 ✭✭✭MOH


    What we need is zombies. Zombie testing FTW


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    Against
    MOH, won't be long until you incur the wrath of HAFU for that post ;):D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    Like eating animals its not 100% ethically correct but its practical and benefits humanity. If there were another efficient way I'd be for it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Brilliant! Admins, a Zombie forum if you please!


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,105 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tar.Aldarion


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Like eating animals its not 100% ethically correct but its practical and benefits humanity. If there were another efficient way I'd be for it.

    How is it practical and benficial to humanity?
    It is actually a hugely wasteful process. Much moreso than a society that doesn't need mass slaughterhouses to survive. I am much hapopier eating my fake meat and being vegetarian.
    I can also get cheaper health insurance for being a vegetarian now. There si a discount given in some companies. :-)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Nature Boy


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    I'm completely against it. I don't think we should abuse animals for whatever reason we want. If we're so intelligent, why do we rely on animals so heavily?
    I'm sure we could come up with more humane ways of testing, but we won't because using animals is a far easier option. Shame.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    Against
    How is it practical and benficial to humanity?

    Were your partents vegetarians?
    Your grand-parents?
    Your great grand-parents?
    Etc, etc... ;)

    Slaughterhouses and the like (supply chain) have only evolved so that man could dedicate more time to harnessing eletricity, the atom, land on the Moon etc. Not much chance of those happening when you've got to go hunting for your daily meal :cool:
    I can also get cheaper health insurance for being a vegetarian now. There si a discount given in some companies. :-)

    That'll be another "private pensions" scandal/fiasco in the offing, then :D


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    I am much hapopier eating my fake meat and being vegetarian.
    Cue abuse from the non-PC "real men" of Boards... Well the ones who haven't been banned anyway...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    How is it practical and benficial to humanity?
    It is actually a hugely wasteful process. Much moreso than a society that doesn't need mass slaughterhouses to survive. I am much hapopier eating my fake meat and being vegetarian.
    I can also get cheaper health insurance for being a vegetarian now. There si a discount given in some companies. :-)

    In terms of developing new medicines and treatments for illnesses and understanding more about nature.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,994 ✭✭✭ambro25


    Against
    Nature Boy wrote:
    I'm sure we could come up with more humane ways of testing, but we won't because using animals is a far easier option. Shame.

    In the grand scheme of things, testing isn't concerned with "humane" - testing is concerned with cost and reliability of results. Least cost = least number of animals required, cheapest animal variety available for the purpose at hand.

    So long as animal testing is cheaper and/or the results thereof more reliable, then that's what is done.

    As and when someone invents appropriate non-animal testing methods for this-that-the other compound, which is at least as expensive and at least as reliable, then animal testing for that particular compound stops - because it's not that easy to handle, feed, house, experiment on, etc a live or anaestetized animal.

    Not being cynical for the sake of it, just common-sensical.

    Were I to be really cynical, then I'd say
    * stop catching & shipping monkeys, because of the carbon footprint
    * start using lifers/paedophiles/etc., human testing surely yields better results faster :evil smiley:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Actually that's a good point. Why doesn't Boards provide an evil smiley?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,655 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    Like eating animals its not 100% ethically correct but its practical and benefits humanity. If there were another efficient way I'd be for it.
    How is it practical and benficial to humanity?
    It is actually a hugely wasteful process. Much moreso than a society that doesn't need mass slaughterhouses to survive. I am much hapopier eating my fake meat and being vegetarian.
    I can also get cheaper health insurance for being a vegetarian now. There si a discount given in some companies. :-)

    is what way is eating meat unethical? I wouldnt call it unethical, but i would suggest that some of the practises for raising and slaughtering animals for consumption as unethical.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,258 ✭✭✭✭Eoin


    How would you test pet food if it was banned?

    Anyhow, here's an article about transparant frogs being produced, so they don't have to be killed to look at their internal organs.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,296 ✭✭✭RandolphEsq


    Against
    2 things;
    -The reason people feel bad about animal testing is because they have this idea that it is a poor defenseless animal and it is unfair to put it through such ''abuse''. They think the animal thinks and feels the way we as humans do. It's human compassion.
    -Animal testing isn't done because scientists love hurting animals. It is done because it is more practical than using humans as animal lives are obviously not as highly regarded as human lives. However, if someone DOES take some sort of pleasure from watching an animal in pain, then there is something mentally wrong with that person and they shouldn't be allowed test on animals.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Nature Boy


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Say an alien race come to earth. They are far more intelligent than us, far more powerful and far more wealthy. They wish to test their perfumes, toilet cleaner, medice etc on us because it cost effective and our lives are "less regarded", would you accept your fate?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,655 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    Nature Boy wrote: »
    Say an alien race come to earth. They are far more intelligent than us, far more powerful and far more wealthy. They wish to test their perfumes, toilet cleaner, medice etc on us because it cost effective and our lives are "less regarded", would you accept your fate?

    Thats an unrealistic proposition.

    we hardly set off to Mars to find specimens to test the latest fragrance of lynx on now in fairness


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Reku


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    faceman wrote: »
    Thats an unrealistic proposition.

    we hardly set off to Mars to find specimens to test the latest fragrance of lynx on now in fairness

    But we're not exactly capable of intergalactic travel, as we became better able to travel we expanded out the animals we felt we had the right to hunt, kill, eat, trap, kidnap and shove into a zoo, etc... who's to say a well travelled intergalactic race would not also adopt a similar view on us inferior creatures?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,111 ✭✭✭MooseJam


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    I for one welcome our new intergalactic overlords


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    Nature Boy wrote: »
    Say an alien race come to earth. They are far more intelligent than us, far more powerful and far more wealthy. They wish to test their perfumes, toilet cleaner, medice etc on us because it cost effective and our lives are "less regarded", would you accept your fate?

    no, but what would we able to do about it *shrug*
    I'm sure the rabbits and mice don't like their lot either, but that's the way the world is. In a cage, stuck with needles.. or eaten by a fox.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,126 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Nature Boy wrote: »
    Say an alien race come to earth. They are far more intelligent than us, far more powerful and far more wealthy. They wish to test their perfumes, toilet cleaner, medice etc on us because it cost effective and our lives are "less regarded", would you accept your fate?
    No way that would happen.
    At not until we've sold them all the peoples in the developing world.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    BrightEyes wrote: »
    The reason people feel bad about animal testing is because they have this idea that it is a poor defenseless animal and it is unfair to put it through such ''abuse''.
    And? Is that not true?
    They think the animal thinks and feels the way we as humans do.
    Animals feel pain and fear. They feel frustration and boredom from being locked in a tiny space all day every day. Some animals, like dogs and chimps, feel sadness.
    What is your point?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Against
    Dudess wrote: »
    And? Is that not true?

    Animals feel pain and fear. They feel frustration and boredom from being locked in a tiny space all day every day. Some animals, like dogs and chimps, feel sadness.
    What is your point?
    They're food.

    Are tigers bad for eating zebras?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    I don't get ya, Terry. This is about animal testing. BrightEyes was explaining the reasons why humans get upset by it as if these reasons are incorrect. I was just asking him how they could be incorrect.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Against
    I'm off the clock.
    You don't have to get me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 388 ✭✭Scoobydoobydoo


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    I am against animal testing, especially in situations where it's not vital, such as with cosmetics. Whatever about saving human lives, feeding rabbits lipstick in the name of vanity is abhorrent.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    faceman wrote: »
    is what way is eating meat unethical? I wouldnt call it unethical, but i would suggest that some of the practises for raising and slaughtering animals for consumption as unethical.

    Well, when you can eat vegetables why put a living creature through the experience of death and take its life against its will so you can enjoy eating it? Its not nice for the animal but its not a terrible crime, its, as I said, not perfectly ethical from our moral standpoint.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,007 ✭✭✭pretty-in-pink


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Againnst, there are to many differences between us, its cruel and wrong. Same goes for blood "sports". Gets my blood boiling


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,655 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    Well, when you can eat vegetables why put a living creature through the experience of death and take its life against its will so you can enjoy eating it? Its not nice for the animal but its not a terrible crime, its, as I said, not perfectly ethical from our moral standpoint.

    You havent really explained why its unethical. is it because we are taking the life of another living creature for our own consumption.

    If thats the case, well you should eat anything vegetables included. The Jane Muslims can explain it better than me especially at this hour of night!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Oh yeah, they're the dudes who wear masks to prevent them from breathing in and then "killing" air-borne micro-organisms. And they don't wash in case they harm or kill micro-organisms in the water. Isn't it "Jain"?
    Even I, Boards' very own "PC loon", think that's crazy... :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,182 ✭✭✭nyarlothothep


    faceman wrote: »
    You havent really explained why its unethical. is it because we are taking the life of another living creature for our own consumption.

    If thats the case, well you should eat anything vegetables included. The Jane Muslims can explain it better than me especially at this hour of night!!!

    Animals have sentience to an extent


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Againnst, there are to many differences between us, its cruel and wrong. Same goes for blood "sports". Gets my blood boiling

    What do you mean by blood sports? I'm assuming hunting, no...?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Yeah, and coursing.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,296 ✭✭✭RandolphEsq


    Against
    Dudess wrote: »
    And? Is that not true?

    Animals feel pain and fear. They feel frustration and boredom from being locked in a tiny space all day every day. Some animals, like dogs and chimps, feel sadness.
    What is your point?

    -I wouldn't call it a ''poor,defenseless,animal''; that is what you would say about a human who was being tested. Again it is about convincing yourself the animal is NOT a human and therefore cannot be regarded the same way. This does not,however, excuse cruelty to animals.

    -Animals only go as far as feeling, they never think about the feelings they're experiencing and say to themselves ''I'd rather not be here''.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    But testing/being kept in a confined space severely traumatises the animals and they often descend into madness.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Against
    MooseJam wrote: »
    I for one welcome our new intergalactic overlords

    our new, pleasant smelling, overlords.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Terry wrote: »
    They're food.

    Are tigers bad for eating zebras?

    tigers are bad just sleeping

    but they are a beautiful defination of purpose


    i think we should test stuff on criminals but its not gonna happen

    <waits for nampy pamby liberals to start on him>


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    No way that would happen.
    At not until we've sold them all the peoples in the developing world.

    when i rule the world you should apply for a govt job


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    Against
    Nature Boy wrote: »
    Say an alien race come to earth. They are far more intelligent than us, far more powerful and far more wealthy. They wish to test their perfumes, toilet cleaner, medice etc on us because it cost effective and our lives are "less regarded", would you accept your fate?



    i'd tell them that here's a lab rat, it has the same basic biochemical make up as myself, use it.


    you however, since you're against animal testing would have to put yourself forward.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement