Hot Button Topics (religion, politics, sports)

[Chocofreak13]

i'm gonna sit back and wait for the shitstorm to dispense. only until everyone has had their say can we move on without clusterfucking it up.

*kicks back and munches on popcorn*

[Simonorged]

good point.*gets shield*

[NejinOniwa]

RE:ANIMAL TESTING
The critters are going to die sooner or later anyway. Why not let them do some good for science while they're at it?

Naturally, one should avoid obviously cruel and painful experiments when possible, but some things are worth that price.

[stewartsage]

Well said Nejin, as usual.  It doesn't strike me as terribly useful or appropriate to use animals for things like cosmetics, but even procedures like vivisection have uses.

[Bella]

Thirding Nej. Until there's a better way to run experiments (for instance, testing on lab-grown organs or something of the like) animals will have to do.

This is probably gonna sound dumb, but I've always wondered - what possible use DOES vivisection have, anyway? Why not wait until the animal dies and do an autopsy, or perform exploratory surgeries while it's alive? It's never made sense to me.

[stewartsage]

It's really a leftover of when surgeons performed operations in front of students in a classroom setting.  It allows the doctor/biologist/etc. to see all the organs functioning inside the body.

[Chocofreak13]

i'm against most forms of animal testing, considering that 99% of the stuff tested on them is for humans, and can just be tested on humans anyway. drug trials are a great way for some people to make money, meaning that everyone benefits: the animals don't get tested on (considering some of the sick stuff i've heard of, this is a MAJOR plus in my book), the scientists get their data, and people get more sources of income.

of course, in the cases when it physically CAN'T be tested on humans (very rare, but possible), animals are a logical next step. but did we REALLY have to launch Kudryavka into space? wouldn't an egg or some thermal sensors or something have worked just as well?

[Nichi]

I don't really like the idea of animal testing, but there are some cases where there's no other option

[alfonso_rd_30]

yes, Animal testing is and should be as Nej said...

[NejinOniwa]

i'm against most forms of animal testing, considering that 99% of the stuff tested on them is for humans, and can just be tested on humans anyway. drug trials are a great way for some people to make money, meaning that everyone benefits: the animals don't get tested on (considering some of the sick stuff i've heard of, this is a MAJOR plus in my book), the scientists get their data, and people get more sources of income.

of course, in the cases when it physically CAN'T be tested on humans (very rare, but possible), animals are a logical next step. but did we REALLY have to launch Kudryavka into space? wouldn't an egg or some thermal sensors or something have worked just as well?

You have to remember the scope of animal testing is MUCH, MUCH bigger than just drug tests. And sure, there are plenty of those that could be done on humans starting at a certain level, and some of them are. But what about the gazillion various project on, say, stem cells? Gene splicing, bone marrow cloning, et cetera? There's so much progress to be made that we can't even begin to touch on if we don't have things to test our ideas on - and we sure can't use humans for that, or the bloody humanitarians would have a field day with us.

[LeaflameSD]

It lives...

[Chocofreak13]

@nej: see, you underestimate my capacity for caring here. i could never hurt an animal. but humans are a different story. humans i could care less about. >>;

[NejinOniwa]

Humans are animals as well, K. The only difference is that humans can make civilization progress. Non-sapients, not having a civilization, can't. That's all that really matters.

[Chocofreak13]

and, as sentient beings, we can consent to the tests we may put out upon one another. animals, not being able to speak our language or understand our customs, cannot. while they may be subject to experimentation within their own societies, being subjected to the experiments of another, which they are not part of, isn't right.

[NejinOniwa]

In the face of progress, consent is only a bonus. Many things would've remained unknown if we limited ourselves that way. Besides, we are the apex - us using the lesser creatures in the food chain to our own benefit is only part of the natural cycle, even if it's not only eating them.