Animal "rights" activists.

[Micropanic]

Just to give a defense for animal activists, seeing as I am one:

The ones you hear about causing harm, either physically hurting them or emotionally (like for instance a group digging up a body, as previously posted) deserve to be locked up, most activists abhor those kind of acts and if you hear they're part of the ALF (either themselves or the media saying it), it's a complete lie since they've ignored the credo and guidelines.
On September 1st, animal activists participated in a peaceful protest in Oxford against Oxford University for doing animal testing (most famous of the animals is a monkey called Felix), and building essentially an animal testers hotel, along with state-of-the-art equipment which they will use to torture these animals. I was part of that protest, and I can't count how many times the police were goading myself and others to argue back at them, for if we did we'd be arrested... but then that happens in any protest since we know how much the police love arresting, eh
If only they would use the money that they spend to fund these despicable acts were instead chanelled to perfect an alternative use for experiments, like for instance the proven act of cloning human cells.
The only reason we use animals to experiment on, and not humans is because they can speak our language and plead us to stop.. whereas people can block out the animals cries, and continue to hurt them. There are those who would be horrified to learn that humans were experimented on, but wouldn't bat an eyelash if animals were... what right do we have to do that.

 

[Glaucus]

If only they would use the money that they spend to fund these despicable acts were instead chanelled to perfect an alternative use for experiments, like for instance the proven act of cloning human cells.
The only reason we use animals to experiment on, and not humans is because they can speak our language and plead us to stop.. whereas people can block out the animals cries, and continue to hurt them. There are those who would be horrified to learn that humans were experimented on, but wouldn't bat an eyelash if animals were... what right do we have to do that.

There is no other method to test, The goverment says your not aloud to test on humans, you also can't cut a human up to work out exactly what is going on, it generally causes death. Cloning cells does not tell you how a drug interacts with the entire organism. Like ever animal activist you seem very miss guided and naive.

Oh and yet again another animal rights person using the word torture, it's not torture is it It's not causing pain and suffering just for the sake of it. But I guess with out using words liek that, it would have such an impact.

 

[Tom1138]

Just to give a defense for animal activists, seeing as I am one:

The ones you hear about causing harm, either physically hurting them or emotionally (like for instance a group digging up a body, as previously posted) deserve to be locked up, most activists abhor those kind of acts and if you hear they're part of the ALF (either themselves or the media saying it), it's a complete lie since they've ignored the credo and guidelines.
On September 1st, animal activists participated in a peaceful protest in Oxford against Oxford University for doing animal testing (most famous of the animals is a monkey called Felix), and building essentially an animal testers hotel, along with state-of-the-art equipment which they will use to torture these animals. I was part of that protest, and I can't count how many times the police were goading myself and others to argue back at them, for if we did we'd be arrested... but then that happens in any protest since we know how much the police love arresting, eh
If only they would use the money that they spend to fund these despicable acts were instead chanelled to perfect an alternative use for experiments, like for instance the proven act of cloning human cells.
The only reason we use animals to experiment on, and not humans is because they can speak our language and plead us to stop.. whereas people can block out the animals cries, and continue to hurt them. There are those who would be horrified to learn that humans were experimented on, but wouldn't bat an eyelash if animals were... what right do we have to do that.

Monkeys can't perform complicated surgery and save lives. They can just hurl poo at the problem...

 

[platypus]

Cosmetics - No
Medical - No

What's the point in going half half? You either agree with animal testing or you don't. You can't say, yeah it's fine to put acid into little Fido's eyes for medical research, but don't even think about doing it for cosmetics or else I'll be angry and sad!

Yes you can. Cosmetics serve no purpose other then to allow [insecure] people to tart themselves up in an attempt to make themselves look better.

Medical research however..

 

[Azagoth]

Blah, blah, blah blah

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

God, just thinking about her makes me want to kick the face off a badger!

lol, haven't heard that phrase in a while!

I bet none of the protesters would refuse medical treatment that came about from animal testing. Come to think of it they'd probably stick to their BS argument that it doesn't help in medical breakthroughs. What a bunch of scummy terrorist retards.

They started doing arson attacks on the student owned facilities at my university a few years back, as apparently we're all part of the system and are therefore legitimate targets. They even had the nerve to accuse the workmen building a new psychology lab of being terrorists because they wore headscarves (worn because the animal rights brigade had previously intimidated workers). They really make me sick.

 

[Micropanic]

There is no other method to test, The goverment says your not aloud to test on humans, you also can't cut a human up to work out exactly what is going on, it generally causes death. Cloning cells does not tell you how a drug interacts with the entire organism. Like ever animal activist you seem very miss guided and naive.

Oh and yet again another animal rights person using the word torture, it's not torture is it It's not causing pain and suffering just for the sake of it. But I guess with out using words liek that, it would have such an impact.

I don't have to use the word, but there have been reports (hidden cameras and all that) of scientists torturing the animals before and during the experiments.

(As long as the test subject is willing of course) Why not test straight on the source of use: humans?
Because there's too many variables? Oh of course, animals have no variables between themselves.
Unethical? Hypocritical.
Yes, because the government says we cannot and rightly so, but that same law should be put on animal experimentation as well.
Humans are instinctly selfish and narcisstic as if we're the most important species on the earth, when infact we're the damn virus. Changing things to suit our needs, not giving a damn about the rest of the world.
Our protests are not just targeted at the place of animal experimentation, but overly against the government for turning a blind eye to these things... which is yet another thing they seemingly overlooked when Labour made their promises.
(http://www.vote4animals.org.uk/labour.htm)

Oh, and hostilites against me is not warranted seeing as I've been treating the rest of you with respect, please try to keep your unneeded emotions at bay

 

[Azagoth]

I don't have to use the word, but there have been reports (hidden cameras and all that) of scientists torturing the animals before and during the experiments.

Sauce? Preferably from an unbiased news source that doesn't have any links to animal rights terrorists.

 

[Glaucus]

I don't have to use the word, but there have been reports (hidden cameras and all that) of scientists torturing the animals before and during the experiments.

you mean you don't understand what there doing, there's very few cases of real abuse.

Because there's too many variables? Oh of course, animals have no variables between themselves.

yes, of course there's variables, but with animals they can be minimised, they generally have shorter life spans and many more available, which means they can be hand picked to minimise. They can also be genetically bred to have certain traits.

(As long as the test subject is willing of course) Why not test straight on the source of use: humans?

becuase it's not possible.
A) it's against the law
B) not enough people willing, so you get the verables as above
C) you can't kill a human at the end of the trial and disect to see what truly is happening.
D) they can't be genetically engineered.

Unethical? Hypocritical.

Yes, of course it's unethical, I don't see how it's Hypocritical. Animals aren't human. There animals.

 

[Monkey Puzzle]

Micropanic, I'm sure there are many cases of pet-owners abusing animals. Any cases of of scientists/animal carers in labs abusing animals is unfortunate but by no means not common practise, so I don't think that's a particularly strong point.

The alternatives to animal experimentation aren't realistic. Cloned cells are of limited use, particularly with regards to discovering how whole systems or organisms work. Similarly, computer models are limited by the data upon which they are based;- data which must be gathered experimentally.

Unfortunately, animal experimentation is a necessity in order to further our understanding of how our bodies work and how to fight disease. The claims of animal rights activists that such experiments are of no use in the study of human physiology are laughably inaccurate. The choice comes down to whether the gain in terms of lessening human suffering outweighs any suffering of the animal subjects. This has been addressed through regulation of animal experimentation whereby the minimum number of animals is used.

It would be nice to see animal rights groups engage in intelligent debate rather than resorting to sentimental propaganda, misinformation and pie-in-the-sky naivety.

 

[Micropanic]

It would be nice to see animal rights groups engage in intelligent debate rather than resorting to sentimental propaganda, misinformation and pie-in-the-sky naivety.

Perhaps, but then to hear it from the other side of the coin, so do the pro-vivisectionists.
Obviously, a topic such as this is like a discussion between religion and science... or to put it into a more internets term, pirates versus ninjas

In their behavior toward creatures,
all men are Nazis.
The smugness with which man could
do with other species as he pleases
exemplify the most extreme racist theories
...the principle that might is right.