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

13»

Comments

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


    Against
    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.




    a vegetable is living too...


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


    bleg wrote: »
    a vegetable is living too...


    Animals have sentience to an extent

    `///


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 950 ✭✭✭EamonnKeane


    Against
    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 can't argue everything from an empathetic standpoint. "Oh, you support jailing murderers! How would you like it if someone locked you in a prison cell?" I know the animals are "innocent", whatever that means, but it remains that everything suffers and dies, so this is really just a drop in the ocean for the animals.

    The point is, as humans we do what is best for us. If we don't infect thousands of monkeys with HIV for testing, it will wipe out most of the world's people.


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


    You can't argue everything from an empathetic standpoint. "Oh, you support jailing murderers! How would you like it if someone locked you in a prison cell?" I know the animals are "innocent", whatever that means, but it remains that everything suffers and dies, so this is really just a drop in the ocean for the animals.

    The point is, as humans we do what is best for us. If we don't infect thousands of monkeys with HIV for testing, it will wipe out most of the world's people.

    You can infect thousands of monkeys with HIV to benefit humanity, but its still not a good or right thing to do, its done out of necessity. Same with killing animals to consume their vital proteins. Most people have difficulty stomaching the thought of eating cats and dogs, I think thats some indication of the fact that eating animals cannot be justified 100% ethically given the existence of vegetables.


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


    Against
    You can infect thousands of monkeys with HIV to benefit humanity, but its still not a good or right thing to do, its done out of necessity. Same with killing animals to consume their vital proteins. Most people have difficulty stomaching the thought of eating cats and dogs, I think thats some indication of the fact that eating animals cannot be justified 100% ethically given the existence of vegetables.
    Depends on the breed of dog or cat.
    There's not too much meat on them anyway.

    On the other hand, horse meat is really nice. I don't know why more people don't eat it.

    I wouldn't eat simians, purely because of the risk of developing CJD. Genetically, they are too close to us for comfort.


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


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    bleg wrote: »
    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.

    Why would I? I'm an animal, I'm against animal testing...


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


    Against
    I'm a mammal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,458 ✭✭✭CathyMoran


    Against
    I would not be here had they not experimented on some poor dog back in the 1920's (am a diabetic) - while I feel bad about it, I would rather be alive. Also, I can not imagine being alive today had they not tested my chemo drugs on animals first to see if they worked. I am against cosmetics testing though.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,613 ✭✭✭✭Clare Bear


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    I'm against it....but then again if I got sick tomorrow and had to take drugs that were tested on animals I'd be grateful I could...I hate that animals have had to go through such abuse for it but if it came down to me or my family needing medicine that was tested on animals I'd have to say I'm for it....completely against testing for cosmetics though.


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


    out of curiousity, those of us who dont agree with testing cosmetics on animals, do you only use cosmetics that weren't testing on them?

    im against it but admittedly i dont practise what i preach! :(


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 11,613 ✭✭✭✭Clare Bear


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    faceman wrote: »
    out of curiousity, those of us who dont agree with testing cosmetics on animals, do you only use cosmetics that weren't testing on them?

    im against it but admittedly i dont practise what i preach! :(

    Yes, I always make sure it says Not Tested on Animals if I'm buying a new product that I haven't bought before.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭oneeyedsnake


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

    Ok the chimps might go a bit nuts.Does this really matter if even one person has one more day with his loved ones more he dies of cancer/the good AIDS/septicaemia ect... as a result of the drug that was tested on the chimp?


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


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Ok the chimps might go a bit nuts.Does this really matter if even one person has one more day with his loved ones more he dies of cancer/the good AIDS/septicaemia ect... as a result of the drug that was tested on the chimp?

    I'd value a chimps life a lot more that one day of some random punter


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


    Against
    My chimp got 600 points in his leaving cert.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    faceman wrote: »
    out of curiousity, those of us who dont agree with testing cosmetics on animals, do you only use cosmetics that weren't testing on them?

    im against it but admittedly i dont practise what i preach! :(

    Lush ftw


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


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    faceman wrote: »
    im against it but admittedly i dont practise what i preach! :(

    you use cosmetics ? you're a bloke aren't you ?


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


    Ok the chimps might go a bit nuts.Does this really matter if even one person has one more day with his loved ones more he dies of cancer/the good AIDS/septicaemia ect... as a result of the drug that was tested on the chimp?
    :eek::eek::eek: oneeyedsnake in non-trolling, intelligent post shocker!!!
    See? It's not that difficult to be civil... But anyway, I wasn't arguing against animal testing. That post was in response to someone saying that animals don't have the same feelings as humans, which isn't true. They may not share ALL the same feelings as humans but they do experience physical pain, anguish, fear, frustration/boredom (when in confined spaces for exceptionally long periods), trauma, mental illness, and some animals, like dogs and chimps, experience sadness.
    But that post was quite refreshing after the obnoxiousness of:
    ROFL, like anyone could give a fuc.I hope the chimp got his hep c from violent rape by a big buck gorilla. This thread reminds me of the animal rights activists that were sat out side my lecture building the other week, all they got were a load of sniggers and when they approached me with their propaganda I tore it up right in their face ,feicin hippies. For the record I think animal testing is great especially the stress test were they put a hamster on a hot plate and increase the temperature at a set rate till the little bugger dies. I fully support animal testing for both pharmaceuticals and cosmetics and don't mind a spot of fox hunting now and again either.
    Yeah, that's a very beneficial test for humans all right.

    Edit: I take back my non-trolling remark at the beginning of this post - just spotted your use of the phrase "good AIDS". Presumably from that Chris Morris sketch featuring some right-wing c*nt chat-show host (no doubt modelled on Robert Kilroy-Silk) who defines AIDS contracted through a blood transfusion as "good AIDS" and AIDS contracted by a gay man through sexual contact as "bad AIDS".
    Undoubtedly a troll. No doubt it's only a matter of time before you get banned - I mean you've already got banned from Personal Issues.


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


    do you have some fetish about trolls or something?


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


    Against
    If you think someone is trolling, please report the post.
    Thanks.


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


    Mordeth wrote: »
    do you have some fetish about trolls or something?
    Yes, I suppose I do...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 201 ✭✭coolhandc


    if monkeys were top of the food chain and more advanced then us they would be doing it too!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Against
    Do you weigh an animals life above a humans?

    No. If a house was on fire you save the family before the families pets.
    Animals have sentience to an extent

    You're dipping into the realm of philosophy here. The best explaination is the difference in cognitave functions and the steps up the evolutionary ladder.

    1. Animals are known as dumb beasts for a reason. There instincts are hardwired and though they can be relaxed eg. domestication of dogs and cats they can never be fully supressed as these animals have not evolved beyond the level of reaction to their core instincts. Humans are more evolved both in intelligence, communication and emotionally. A dog needs to pee, He will pee. A dog wants to have sex, he will have sex. He doesn't feel ashamed. He just does it. Humans have evolved to the stage where they can choose and command their instincts. (although there are behavioural scientists that may disagree with me)

    Humans can THINK, can plan, can debate and can reflect. We have conquered out base desires and can choose whether to sucumb to them or not. We have instincts but they are controlled in the manner of social conditioning and personal choice.

    Yes animals can feel base emotional responses e.g pain but they do not have the understanding or intelligence intrinsic to humans. A good way of describing this would be to use an example. An animal can be conditioned into responses. e.g taught to attack. But it doesn't truly understand or make decisions on whether to attack. It does it because that is what it's instinctual leader has conditioned it to do. It cannot differenciate between friend and foe. It is taught tricks.

    2. Humans can manipulate their environments. Animals react to theirs.

    3. Humans have advanced communicton systems and language. Animals have very basic language skills and communication.

    4. Human have an ability to learn beyond their instincts. We have discovered chemistry, physics and transfered and applied this knowledge into daily lives.

    5. Perhaps the major difference is what Steinbeck referred to as the "leap of the imagination" that people are capable of. That metal jump that can link two diverse ideas or that flash of inspiration that led Einstein to suddenly understand that E=MC2 etc.

    There are many many other arguements that can lead one to deduce that humans are superior to animals. You cannot say strength for the bear is stronger, you cannot say speed for look at the cheetah. We cannot fly. But we can THINK! It is our minds that set us apart. To allow us to have this debate. And it is our minds that have led us to become the dominant species on this planet and to have the ability to lock the other species up and test eyeliner on them. It is our minds that allow us to debate the ethical morality of this.

    But make no mistake. Animals are not equal. They are sub-human. They are our pets for lack of a better word. Maybe we should take better care of them but they are in our care nonetheless.


  • Registered Users Posts: 541 ✭✭✭hopalong85


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    SetantaL wrote: »




    There are many many other arguements that can lead one to deduce that humans are superior to animals. You cannot say strength for the bear is stronger, you cannot say speed for look at the cheetah. We cannot fly. But we can THINK! It is our minds that set us apart. To allow us to have this debate. And it is our minds that have led us to become the dominant species on this planet and to have the ability to lock the other species up and test eyeliner on them. It is our minds that allow us to debate the ethical morality of this.

    Don't chimps have the mental capacity of a six year old human child on average? Pretty sure i heard that somewhere. If so that means they can also think yes? Is it fair to subject a thinking creature to testing?


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


    MooseJam wrote: »
    you use cosmetics ? you're a bloke aren't you ?

    last time i checked..

    I assume you are a bloke too who uses deo, soaps, cologne etc..


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Against
    Is it fair to subject a thinking creature to testing?

    Fair? Fair is an abstract concept we teach to our children to ground some compassion in them. Does a zebra turn around and say to the Lion, "Don't eat me, that's not fair!" Life is not FAIR period. Get used to it.

    As to the ethical morality of these practice it's the weighing of the perceived benefits verses the inherient suffering these practices may submit. I find it ironic to think of the German experiments on children and twins and the moral disgust verse the current practices on animals and the correlations between them and moral uproar or lact thereof they inspire. However it's a subjective personal choice based on ones own moral compass. To speak of fairness is to reduce this debate to the level of that six year old chimp.


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


    wouldn't a six year old chimp be at least as advanced as a seven and a half year old though? that raises some prickly moral issues.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Against
    wouldn't a six year old chimp be at least as advanced as a seven and a half year old though? that raises some prickly moral issues.

    Depends on how you look at it. Define advanced. Off the bat I don't think a chimp is as advanced as a 7 year old. For one thing it does not have the same verbl dexterity. You can prove anything you want with a proper test design. Children can understand concepts that chimps cannot.

    regardless of having seen the data, it certainly does not mean that a chimp is the equivalent or equal to a 7 year old. A 7 year old is a human, a chimp is not regardles of any similarities.

    Personally I would like to see some sort of legislation that some sort of review board would have to be approached to judge the benefits of any scientific study involving animals. I cannot see it happening judging by the political power these drug companies wield but that would be my approach to the situation. In cases of more advanced animals like primates and domesticated creatures I would definately like to see a higher burden placed on applacants to establish a common public benefit to contraversial testing.


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


    o.0


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 283 ✭✭popecatapetal


    I've always felt like telling the anti-animal-testing people in town that if they want to help the animals so much, they should volunteer for the testing instead of them.


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


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    SetantaL wrote: »
    Depends on how you look at it. Define advanced. Off the bat I don't think a chimp is as advanced as a 7 year old. For one thing it does not have the same verbl dexterity. You can prove anything you want with a proper test design. Children can understand concepts that chimps cannot.

    regardless of having seen the data, it certainly does not mean that a chimp is the equivalent or equal to a 7 year old. A 7 year old is a human, a chimp is not regardles of any similarities.

    Now you're getting more in to nature Vs. nurture since there have been children raised by wild dogs who had no linguistic ability from a human language point of view, only barks and yelps, and even as adults continue to have drastically reduced communication abilities. Then what of chimps trained to use sign language, many humans do not know sign language so by your logic (that one's ability to use a human language to communicate is a measure of intelligence) would these chimps not therefore in fact be more intelligent than some of the poorly educated members of our species?

    Simple fact is we are only "more advanced" because we say we are, we are the ones setting the definition of what intelligence is so who is to say that dogs do not make all the same arguements as to why they should have the right to discipline (bite/snarl at) their human. The only thing that in anyway really separates us is our technology so we're more creative is all really. It's like trying to say that we are stronger than an ant because we can lift more, it's a biased viewpoint so we win, whereas if you examine which can lift more relative to it's own weight (a less biased measurement) the ant wins hands down. We need an unbiased 3rd party to establish the tests before we can really say that we are more advanced in any sense other than technology.

    As for the arguement of reacting to Vs. manipulating the environment, rabbits dig burrows, beavers build damns, termites build mounds, are these not examplese of changing one's environment? Unless you mean poisoning it in which cause we win, no contest.

    You say we have more complicated languages, if that is so why can we not understand what animals are saying, if our languages are so complex and we are so advanced then we should have no difficulty decoding the language of animals.

    Animals also learn beyond their instincts, otherwise they would be untrainable as guide dogs, circus performers, messenger pigeons etc...
    Monkeys and chimps have been known to use tools in the wild, birds will use gravity to open things with a hard shell, etc...


    Strip away man's technology and we wouldn't even be more than a blip on the map.
    One could in fact argue that viruses are the most advanced lifeform since even with our technology there are many we have yet to really beat (e.g. the common cold, AIDS, west nile, ebola, etc...) and they evolve at a far faster rate than we do or than our technology does.


  • 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
    I've always felt like telling the anti-animal-testing people in town that if they want to help the animals so much, they should volunteer for the testing instead of them.

    What makes you think they would want to help humans?


    Edit: for the above post.
    An argument that gets rid of that animals only do things on instinct thing.
    Some animals play games with quite advanced rules, with no purpose other than being trivial. Some animals eavesdrop. Etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    Simple fact is we are only "more advanced" because we say we are
    that's a load of horse poop. I love chimps and they can do allot of the same things that make humans stand out, using symbolism and such. They have great potential but there still Milena behind us. What a child can pick up in five minutes might take a chimp it's whole life to learn or even understand.
    Strip away man's technology and we wouldn't even be more than a blip on the map.
    Technology is us extending our imagination into the real world. You can't just say take it away. It's like saying take away a bats sonar and see how great he is at flying around blind.

    The fact is the human is the greatest animal to set foot on this planet. We have the best qualities of every other animal, I think a species success can be judged by it's abundance and we're everywhere.


  • 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
    The fact is the human is the greatest animal to set foot on this planet. We have the best qualities of every other animal, I think a species success can be judged by it's abundance and we're everywhere.
    We don't have the best qualities of every other animal, all we have is our intelligence. Other animals are fater, stronger, and have far better immune systems.
    Everything we have apart from our brain, a different animal has better.

    What if you were to judge a species by the harm it has done to the planet, what then? :-)


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


    what harm would that be? the planet's fine


  • 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
    By 'harm the planet' I mean make it harder for themselves to thrive in it. Using up all the things you need to thrive at a fast rate(and not leaving time to make the transition from oil etc to alternatives without economic trauma. ), whilst getting a bigger population.
    Being detrimental to your own survival. The planet will still be perfectly fine when we are extinct.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,251 ✭✭✭AngryBadger


    Against
    I don't know why this kind of thing always degenerates into an ethics debate.

    Research involving animals is unavoidable. You have a theory, you develop something based on the theory. You test your concoction in isolated cell cultures, and a few other in vitro models, but inevitably you have to move onto in vivo (i.e. within the body) tests, otherwise there's no way of knowing if your treatment/whatever will have the desired effects.

    Animal research should always be done humanely, and only where there are no suitable alternatives available. But it's not something we can just decide to stop. Logistics dictates that there will always be animal testing before products get approval, otherwise it's pot luck every time you take medication.

    P.S. I'm referring almost exclusively to animals used for the development of medical products, or other research which aids human progress, I'm not talking about cosmetics. Frankly if people want cosmetic products so badly then let them volunteer to be guinea pigs, maybe they'll throw in a few free samples.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    We don't have the best qualities of every other animal, all we have is our intelligence. Other animals are fater, stronger, and have far better immune systems.
    Everything we have apart from our brain, a different animal has better.

    What if you were to judge a species by the harm it has done to the planet, what then? :-)
    We do have a good spread of abilities. We can cover large distances when we where hunters our range was massive) but we also have quick short burst speed. We can swim excellently, we can climb, we can deal with heat much better than the vast majority of other animals. We're a jack of all trades rather than specialised in any particular field which is a major advantage and makes it easy for us to colonise new and unfamiliar territory. We can successfully hunt alone but in a pack we're practically invincible.

    The fact we're causing so much damage just goes to highlight the brilliance of the human form and abilities. We're to good in a way. Compared side by side to any other animal on the planet your much better off being human.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,834 ✭✭✭Sonnenblumen


    We don't have the best qualities of every other animal, all we have is our intelligence. Other animals are fater, stronger, and have far better immune systems.
    Everything we have apart from our brain, a different animal has better.

    What if you were to judge a species by the harm it has done to the planet, what then? :-)

    But humans unlike animals are also good at talking through their arse!

    You've omitted the religious aspect to humans ie soul? Animals don't do soul.


  • 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
    Yes, we all have a mythical soul...
    Ah, intelligence...I take it back.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,845 ✭✭✭2Scoops


    Against
    You've omitted the religious aspect to humans ie soul? Animals don't do soul.

    Are you sure that humans do 'do soul'? I've certainly never seen one. Perhaps human creativity and imagination is the key difference.


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


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    my budgie has a soul


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




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


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    ScumLord wrote: »
    We do have a good spread of abilities. We can cover large distances when we where hunters our range was massive) but we also have quick short burst speed. We can swim excellently, we can climb, we can deal with heat much better than the vast majority of other animals.
    Emm... you haven't really looked at the people around you lately, have you?
    Many people consider the distance from one Luas/bus stop to the next to be a large one as they're too lazy to walk it. I know many who will readily admit that they can't do chin-ups (pansies!) so what hope do they have climbing for their food/survivial. As for speed bursts, yeah, followed by a heart attack....:rolleyes:
    Swim yes, but excellently, no... many just know enough to be able to survive in a pool, put them in a flowing river and they're done for.
    Dealing with heat/cold, if that were true they wouldn't be fiddling with the air conditioning every 20 minutes or so in my office.
    We had these traits, we're now so enamoured with our technology that we're letting our physical abilities decay.:(
    ScumLord wrote: »
    We're a jack of all trades rather than specialised in any particular field which is a major advantage and makes it easy for us to colonise new and unfamiliar territory. We can successfully hunt alone but in a pack we're practically invincible.
    Practically invincible is a bit of a reach...:rolleyes:
    ScumLord wrote: »
    The fact we're causing so much damage just goes to highlight the brilliance of the human form and abilities. We're to good in a way. Compared side by side to any other animal on the planet your much better off being human.
    Actually cockroach/virus capable of infecting many species have the best long term prospects for survival as a species.



    As for the spiritual argument you just insulted every Buddhist out there since they do believe in animals having a soul, would inability to respect other people's points of view and belief not be counter-indicative of intelligence?:p


Advertisement