Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Oligo

Animal testing

Recommended Posts

Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 20 2002,11:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">A good portion of my argument stems from hypocrisy alone. If youre at home with doing these things yourself, then you'll have my respect.<span id='postcolor'>

Hypocrisy means saying one thing and doing another.

The hypocrisy is on your part, I would say since I assume that you do use some form of deodorant, medicine or any other of the many products that are tested on animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 20 2002,10:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,01:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think i read somewhere that a single volcano erupted, a huge area of land was destroyed, and ash completly bclogged up the sky, preventing sunlight getting in and therefore all plantlife and therefore wildlife died. Now, please tell me human weapons are more damaging to the environment than that.<span id='postcolor'>

Gladly. The biggest hydrogen bomb ever detonated (To my knowledge) knicknamed Bravo was set off in the pacific ocean. It was hundreds of times more powerful than the nukes that were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Fallout hit islands more than 200 miles away from ground zero infecting native islanders (Not to mention every wild animal in that 200 mile radius that didnt get vaporized) with acute radiation poisoning. It was also responsible for the death of a Japanese fisherman on a ship called The Lucky Dragon. Keeping in mind that this was meant to be nothing more than a test, and was never "meant" to hurt anything.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,01:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, i'm pretty sure if any animals had the intelligence to understand the benefits of medicine, education and  and such things that humans have brought to this world (remembering theres other things apart from nukes). Not everyone is a depressed maniac pacifist, i'm perfectly happy in my life. Personally i enjoy all the evils humanity has produced such as Computers, TV, winter sports and football. I can explain them being so happy without such things by saying that they have no clue that Cars and Medicine and everything else exists. They see a plane and they'll think its a bird or something, we feed them pills they'll think its dinner. They may be intelligent but they'd never understand such things, if they did i'm prettyy sure they'd be much like us. Remeber that humans used to be like animals, and as they developed they got into killing etc..up to today. What makes you think dolphins would be any different? O yeah, because they're stupid and will never develop things like we have, which defeats a large part of your argument completly.<span id='postcolor'>

Once again, they have no use for such things due their "uncanny" ability to co-exist with nature just fine the way it is. Something that we, the supposedly more advanced race, still has yet to experience.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, and how is a bomb that effects everything in a 200 mile radius more devastating than something that kills off everything on the planet. The fallout from that incident effected the entire world by starving everything. You get rid of sunlight, you get rid of plants, you get rid of animals. From what i've heard it wouldn't take long for such a volcano to erupt again, considering how complex volcano's can be you can't just say this volcano is inactive. If indeed that volcano did kill everything, then i'd probably fear it happening again 40 times more than a nuke going off. And theres scientists who have scientific 'proof' that something like that will happen again something in the next 10 years, along with a whole host of other massive natural disasters.

plus, how many times do we hear how volcano's erupt with the force of 200 odd nagasaki bombs?

Humans have an uncanny ability to exist with nature, do we forget all these tribal people - they amaze us with their harmony with nature. Or indeed, that we once used to live in nature. Its just a large majority have moved on like has been said. We have no requirement for Mass transit, medicine, Tv or whatever things in this world that are evil, but we choose to use them, because for the most part they benefit us. Nukes and Tanks and Guns etc... are all neccessary to defend ourselves or indeed attack other people - Its not like animals don't have assets for this - they develop from evolution because in the animal world things get killed a lot - In our case, we used our intelligence and skills to improve these assets, and now, we can defend our ''herd'' from predators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 20 2002,02:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hypocrisy means saying one thing and doing another.

The hypocrisy is on your part, I would say since I assume that you do use some form of deodorant, medicine or any other of the many products that are tested on animals.<span id='postcolor'>

Two things regarding hygienic products. One, according to your definition of hypocrisy, no one could say their product is tested without the use of animals without it actually being so. Companies that promise such things are smart enough to get their all natural ingredients from sources that dont involve animal testing. Two, anything i use for cleaning myself, or making myself smell nicer is from just such a company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 20 2002,11:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Two things regarding hygienic products. One, according to your definition of hypocrisy, no one could say their product is tested without the use of animals without it actually being so. Companies that promise such things are smart enough to get their all natural ingredients from sources that dont involve animal testing. Two, anything i use for cleaning myself, or making myself smell nicer is from just such a company.<span id='postcolor'>

Didn't you see what Oligo pointed out twice? Even if the final substance hasn't been animal tested, the raw ingredients have. It is that way by law. You can't sell anything for human use before it has been tested on animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,02:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, and how is a bomb that effects everything in a 200 mile radius more devastating than something that kills off everything on the planet. The fallout from that incident effected the entire world by starving everything. You get rid of sunlight, you get rid of plants, you get rid of animals. From what i've heard it wouldn't take long for such a volcano to erupt again, considering how complex volcano's can be you can't just say this volcano is inactive. If indeed that volcano did kill everything, then i'd probably fear it happening again 40 times more than a nuke going off. And theres scientists who have scientific 'proof' that something like that will happen again something in the next 10 years, along with a whole host of other massive natural disasters.<span id='postcolor'>

Few things. One, you said earlier that this volcano affected "a large portion of land", not the entire world. Two, i HIGHLY question your source on this. And three, where are you trying to take this? Are you actually proposing that nature is a more destructive force than human kind? If i may remind you, nature replaces everything it destroys over time. I wish i could say the same for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 20 2002,02:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 20 2002,11:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Two things regarding hygienic products. One, according to your definition of hypocrisy, no one could say their product is tested without the use of animals without it actually being so. Companies that promise such things are smart enough to get their all natural ingredients from sources that dont involve animal testing. Two, anything i use for cleaning myself, or making myself smell nicer is from just such a company.<span id='postcolor'>

Didn't you see what Oligo pointed out twice? Even if the final substance hasn't been animal tested, the raw ingredients have. It is that way by law. You can't sell anything for human use before it has been tested on animals.<span id='postcolor'>

Right, and its absolutely impossible to beat the system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 20 2002,11:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Right, and its absolutely impossible to beat the system?<span id='postcolor'>

Entirely? Yes impossible unless you want to live in a cave in the woods. I don't think you realise the extent of animal testing. The monitor right in front of you has been animal tested to see that the radiation is ok. Everything that is in interaction with humans has to be tested on animals by law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 20 2002,02:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 20 2002,11:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Right, and its absolutely impossible to beat the system?<span id='postcolor'>

Entirely? Yes impossible unless you want to live in a cave in the woods. I don't think you realise the extent of animal testing. The monitor right in front of you has been animal tested to see that the radiation is ok. Everything that is in interaction with humans has to be tested on animals by law.<span id='postcolor'>

ok, where do these laws apply, and whats the source on this?

probably a load of drek anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 20 2002,11:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">ok, where do these laws apply, and whats the source on this?<span id='postcolor'>

You'll have to ask Oligo for the medicine testing stuff, it is his area. I don't know the specifics. But it is safe to assume that for instance in the US the FDA has requirements that food and drugs have to be tested before they are released. The choice that the industry has is between testing on humans or animals. They don't want to risk it on humans so they go for animals.

As for the monitor example, this I know to be a fact. All aparature that generates high energy EM fields have to be tested. This again is done on animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, it's hard to find any references to legislation, but I'll try. I seem to remember that you live in U.S. Aculaud, so here is what your FDA has to say about cosmetics and animal testing.

FDA and cosmetics safety testing

Basically what it says is that you don't have to test your cosmetics product safety (=animal testing), but then you have to label them: "WARNING--The safety of this product has not been determined." So in U.S., you can buy cosmetics labelled like that, if you dare, and be fairly certain that they haven't been tested on animals.

When it comes to medicines, though, I'm sure you have to test them always.

In E.U. I'm pretty sure the laws are more tighter (as usual), making it mandatory to test anything in contact with people before selling it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Aug. 20 2002,11:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Espectro @ Aug. 20 2002,10:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No animals are smarter than human beings on this planet. Thats how it goes.

With intelligence, comes power.<span id='postcolor'>

To make a statement like this, you would first need to define 'intelligence'. What makes a creature intelligent? The ability to conform to our ideals of what a smart creature should do?<span id='postcolor'>

The ability to communicate and to evolve ourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 20 2002,12:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everything that is in interaction with humans has to be tested on animals by law.<span id='postcolor'>

Even "Real Dolls"?

wow.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow.gif5--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (LauryThorn @ Aug. 20 2002,12wow.gif5)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Aug. 20 2002,12:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everything that is in interaction with humans has to be tested on animals by law.<span id='postcolor'>

Even "Real Dolls"?

wow.gif<span id='postcolor'>

LOL... smile.gif  smile.gif  smile.gif

I was thinking kinda along the same lines...

whitetest.jpgrearing.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be damn sure that the plastics used for the manufacture of the "real dolls" have been tested for safety on (or maybe even in) animals. biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Aug. 20 2002,13:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You can be damn sure that the plastics used for the manufacture of the "real dolls" have been tested for safety on (or maybe even in) animals. biggrin.gif<span id='postcolor'>

Nice to hear that!

I was so concerned about my safety.

tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this will be the new hot topic for the day. Now what some of you are getting wrong is the intellignece factor. I never said animals are SMARTER than humans, I just said they are smart. They are able to live in a cycle that does not require them to build any real structures, drive anything form of transport that pollutes, or develop a system of breeding for slaughter. How would you like it if you were born to be put onto a diner plate? If you have no other use than to be someones meal that they dont even require most of the time? I would say most meat eaters eat more meat than required. ANIMALS DONT HAVE HANDS LIKE US! How are they supposed to build cars and stuff? And why are you judging them by their ability to build polluting things? As for them not able to understand human languges, I think it is obvious that tamed animals have an understanding of certain words that are continously directed at them, and we dont even understand what animals are saying or communicating in. When was the last time you heard two cats meowing at each other and moving their tails and were able to tell exactly what they were saying? I find it sad that some of you here support the cruel slaughter of animals in factories and dont mind eating the meat that normally contains anti-biodicts. And that comment about if people dont eat meat the slaughtered meat is left to rot: remember this, if there is no demand, the indusrty has to cut down. iw ould not mind eating meat so much if it wasnt for the fact that even free range meat is breed to die. When they used to hunt their meat that was a lot better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Espectro @ Aug. 20 2002,12:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The ability to communicate and to evolve ourself.<span id='postcolor'>

Animals are quite capable of communicating, otherwise they wouldn't all make so much damn noise. As for evolving, all life on earth is constantly evolving, changing in reaction to the altering environment around them, some do it faster than others and for different reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ Aug. 20 2002,11:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,02:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, and how is a bomb that effects everything in a 200 mile radius more devastating than something that kills off everything on the planet. The fallout from that incident effected the entire world by starving everything. You get rid of sunlight, you get rid of plants, you get rid of animals. From what i've heard it wouldn't take long for such a volcano to erupt again, considering how complex volcano's can be you can't just say this volcano is inactive. If indeed that volcano did kill everything, then i'd probably fear it happening again 40 times more than a nuke going off. And theres scientists who have scientific 'proof' that something like that will happen again something in the next 10 years, along with a whole host of other massive natural disasters.<span id='postcolor'>

Few things. One, you said earlier that this volcano affected "a large portion of land", not the entire world. Two, i HIGHLY question your source on this. And three, where are you trying to take this? Are you actually proposing that nature is a more destructive force than human kind? If i may remind you, nature replaces everything it destroys over time. I wish i could say the same for us.<span id='postcolor'>

Well i meant the world

The sources are various scientists who say this may be something that happened many many centuries ago or could've been what took out the dinosaurs if that asteroid didn't. The theory came up because from dig sites they found a very thick layer of ash and all that stuff and the same layer was found pretty much everywhere on earth. I dunno i9f its true, but the evidence i hear is pretty convincing

What i'm saying is you can rip the shit out of humanity for being destructive but nature is destructive also. You talk as if humans are the sole reason for the destruction and death of the environment when nature itself can destroy everything just as easily with no warning. Humans may pollute (and anyway, may i ask why we are investing billions upon billions and organising world wide policies to reduce pollution if we all just want to stomp on daisies all day?) but the fact remains we've done a lot to help this world. Not only in medicine, but look at all the wildlife we're protecting and feeding. Just because we fight a lot doesn't mean we're all nasty pieces of shit. If we ever replaced the cities with fields and greenery, then i don't think we'd have progressed much at all, and besides, who'd want to replace it all, humans now need cities to live, and to take away employment, food, shelter etc... just for some hippie ideal is just pacifists being selfish and ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, don't get me started on vegetarianism...that's a whole other issue (meat=good).

For the most part animals do not have intelligence that can be rated anywhere near human...cognitive functions, mnemonic abiility, abstract thought...humans win hands down in all areas.

Cetaceans (dolphins and whales) and the great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans) exhibit remarkable "intelligence" compared to most other mammals, but their level barely even approaches that of a human toddler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not only in medicine, but look at all the wildlife we're protecting and feeding. Just because we fight a lot doesn't mean we're all nasty pieces of shit. If we ever replaced the cities with fields and greenery, then i don't think we'd have progressed much at all, and besides, who'd want to replace it all, humans now need cities to live, and to take away employment, food, shelter etc... just for some hippie ideal is just pacifists being selfish and ignorant.<span id='postcolor'>

Why exactly do you think all this wildlife needs protecting and feeding now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Aug. 20 2002,12:14)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think this will be the new hot topic for the day. Now what some of you are getting wrong is the intellignece factor. I never said animals are SMARTER than humans, I just said they are smart. They are able to live in a cycle that does not require them to build any real structures, drive anything form of transport that pollutes, or develop a system of breeding for slaughter. How would you like it if you were born to be put onto a diner plate? If you have no other use than to be someones meal that they dont even require most of the time? I would say most meat eaters eat more meat than required. ANIMALS DONT HAVE HANDS LIKE US! How are they supposed to build cars and stuff? And why are you judging them by their ability to build polluting things? As for them not able to understand human languges, I think it is obvious that tamed animals have an understanding of certain words that are continously directed at them, and we dont even understand what animals are saying or communicating in. When was the last time you heard two cats meowing at each other and moving their tails and were able to tell exactly what they were saying? I find it sad that some of you here support the cruel slaughter of animals in factories and dont mind eating the meat that normally contains anti-biodicts. And that comment about if people dont eat meat the slaughtered meat is left to rot: remember this, if there is no demand, the indusrty has to cut down. iw ould not mind eating meat so much if it wasnt for the fact that even free range meat is breed to die. When they used to hunt their meat that was a lot better.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah the industry needs to get cut down resulting in mass unemployment - need for cheaper foodstuffs - companies profit margins fall - need for lower production costs - encouraging them to find other ways of producing food efficiently which will involve cruelty to animals (they could use Genetic Modification but veggies get pissed off about that as well even though its a potential solution to world hunger) - same problem - more whining - more unemployment - demands for everyone in the known universe to be veggie - lots of fighting - war - death - end of world

You can't boycott the meat industry, not everyone in the universe wants to be a veggie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kurtz, like it or not, most animals get born just to end up somebody's dinner even without human intervention. Predators like to prey on young animals, because they're easy to catch. That's why most animal offspring get eaten before they reach the age of reproduction. And that's why animals produce so much offspring (so that some would survive). Being eaten is quite natural.

Now consider the farm animals. Their numbers are so high merely because we feed them and take care of them. Some of them even get to reproduce. Their species will never face extinction. How many cows do you think there would be in the world if we did not produce them in farms?

For any species, getting domesticated by man is the best insurance of success as a species and assured survival.

If we stopped eating cow meat, the species might become extinct eventually. This is already happening to the horse. There are way fewer horses in the world now when less people ride them anymore. This is bad for the horses as a species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Aug. 20 2002,12:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 20 2002,12:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Not only in medicine, but look at all the wildlife we're protecting and feeding. Just because we fight a lot doesn't mean we're all nasty pieces of shit. If we ever replaced the cities with fields and greenery, then i don't think we'd have progressed much at all, and besides, who'd want to replace it all, humans now need cities to live, and to take away employment, food, shelter etc... just for some hippie ideal is just pacifists being selfish and ignorant.<span id='postcolor'>

Why exactly do you think all this wildlife needs protecting and feeding now?<span id='postcolor'>

Because of humans, but at least we're trying to put right what we did before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man has been eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years...don't tell me that all of a sudden we shouldn't.

I am against inhumane conditions like battery farms, but eating meat is a very fundamental human act.

If people wish to be vegetarian, so be it.

But don't presume to tell others how to live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we had not started a meat industry in the first place, there would be no need to cut down on it. We have screwed up. We have so dominated animals that now they need us to still be a species. We have meddled with the world, and one day we may feel the conscequences. At least animals in the wild are wild before they are killed bgy naother animal. And then the aniaml is killed to be aten by a creature that needs it, not some western person who wants to eat meat for the taste. i would ay we eat more than enough meat for our health intake. And as I said a while ago, I understand the thing of having predoters and eating for survival, I would eat meat for survival, but when it becomes cruel slaughter, no matter how good meat is for you, i go against it. Until companies put the animals welfare and the welfare of the consumer(no more meat with drugs in it) over their saleries, I woill continue to take a stance of Vegetariasm. Im not saying Im better than a meat eater, Im just following my belief, if you believe what you are doing is right, then you will continue to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×