|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
posted June 25, 2003 11:07 PM |
|
|
Screw your so-called poor animals
When you and oh...another million people decide to give yourselves up for testing(or your children), then you can decry the 'evils' of animal testing.
Until then, science marches forth...crushing bunny skulls under it's boot.
____________
|
|
Khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted June 26, 2003 03:37 AM |
|
|
Save The Whales, Save The Planet....
Save me from the logic behind 90% of the posts on this topic.
Let me simplify things for you here...A loved one is on their deathbed, and in order for them to live, you must take the life of an animal in order for them to survive. Do you let your loved one die or do you kill the animal? Unless the loved one is my mother-in-law, there is no doubt about what I would do. You?
IMO...
Animal testing in the name of health science (medicine) is justified.
Animal testing in the name vanity and profit is unjustified and more-times-than-not cruel.
Humans have this instinct called 'self preservation', which means we will do whatever is necessary to maintain or secure things we need to survive. This is a fact of life, and until we all reach 'self actualization' on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the premature death and killing of other living organisms will exist. Find your own way to justify this if you must, but I think you will be wasting your precious time. My suggestion is go ahead and enjoy what's left of your life instead.
Have a nice day, and when you are brushing your teeth with toothpaste, showering with soap & shampoo, and applying your deoderant & cologne/perfume, try not to think about how many innocent animals died so you can just feel clean. Feeling guilty yet? C'est la vie...
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Athimus_Phaeni
Famous Hero
Final Fantasy Fan
|
|
posted June 26, 2003 04:04 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I do believe that animals feel pain or any other emotions on a much lesser level
Why? Because they cant express in a way that you clearly understand what they are feeling? Because they dont scream "HELP!" or any other expression that show the pain they are feeling?
That's a ridiculous conclusion!
Quote:
animals are products and if you disagree just look in you fridge or your closet
Are you insane? Are you supposing that animals exist just to fulfill our needs? Where did you get that idea?
Our intelligence is just more evolved than the other species. Nothing more than that. And I really dont think that this allows us to declare then products. Otherwise Einstein, Newton and other people with a higher IQ than normal people(probably including us) could do the same... declaring us as their product.
____________
But I won't be
Burned by the reflection
Of the fire in your eyes
As you're starying at the sun
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted June 26, 2003 04:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Why? Because they cant express in a way that you clearly understand what they are feeling? Because they dont scream "HELP!" or any other expression that show the pain they are feeling?
Steal a baby from a human female and she may die of sorrow, steal a baby from a rat and it will continue its life as normal.
I also believe it has been demonstrated that the animal brain is a lot less advanced, so it is more like a machine than a human brain. Their actions do not depend on advanced emotions like our's and all they think about is survival. Except for the cases of the more intelligent animals like cats, I would say that animals can better be compared to computers than humans.
____________
|
|
Athimus_Phaeni
Famous Hero
Final Fantasy Fan
|
|
posted June 26, 2003 05:13 AM |
|
|
Just watch Discovery Channel sometimes, and you will occasionaly see a non-human mother suffering because she(it) lost her(its) only baby(or one of them).
What you said it is not true.
____________
But I won't be
Burned by the reflection
Of the fire in your eyes
As you're starying at the sun
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted June 26, 2003 05:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
animals are products and if you disagree just look in you fridge or your closet
Are you insane? Are you supposing that animals exist just to fulfill our needs? Where did you get that idea?
B.S.
We tolerate animals because:
1. They are tasty.
2. They make us feel wanted/loved (pets).
3. They useful on a farm or research or a product.
4. We think they are pretty.
5. We project our feelings on them and believe that they are actually human.
If an animal doesn't belong to the above group we eradicate them. (Look at rats, wolves, or stray pets etc.)
If it makes you feel somewhat better about using one kind of animal for food or clothes, to rail against another use for animals, research, then go ahead but you are still a hypocrite. Unless of coarse you are a strict vegan (but who will cry of the insects killed to protect your vegtables?)
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
IRh
Famous Hero
Lizard
|
posted June 26, 2003 09:50 AM |
|
|
What we are talking about? 125M rabbits? There are trillions of them on earth, only rabbits, not talking about other animals. Why did you suddenly remembered about them? Because they are tortured by human hands? Sorry, it looks like hypocricy of a veg who doesn't eat meat because of "poor animals". "Let them die in nature, let them die for other people, but I am pure." Trillions rabbits etc live their wild life, and nobody cares, why should we care now? In any case, we can't think about each creature, we should 1st think about ourselves.
And, you obviously refer to so-called "good" and "evil", considering animal experiments as "evil". Remember, we cannot expand this human society concepts (even here almost not working) to animal world. [R order cannot be expanded to complex plane  ]
Good Khayman btw, Oldtimer too.
____________
|
|
Dread_Knight
Known Hero
Converting Vegetarians
|
posted June 26, 2003 10:31 AM |
|
|
Just let me explain....
Listen people...
1) An animal feel pain as much as a human, especially primates.
2) There is a substitue.
You just take a DNA semple or a few human cells, and just see how they respond.
3) Animal cruelty-It is not only testing on animals...
If the test worked, And the animal responded good, Great...
BUT when the testers see it's all got wrong then they should kill the animal right away, not to let it suffer!!!
Did you see the pic of the dog?
He got rescued in israel, from testing, after a sort of antibiotics was injected to him.
It is wrong that they are strugling to keep him alive, he IS suffring, so they need to just let him go!
4) About rats-I really dont give a **** about rats and laborotory mice.
they were destened to be tested on.
By their name you can understand LABOROTORY mice.
They are borned in the laborotories and they die in laborotories.
But why dogs? and Primates?
5) Ye I recon you right, i prefer a cat to die than a human.
But that doesn't mean they suffer less.
P.S
If you are already testing, don't make them suffer so much!
Don't stick metal into their nose and throat!!!
Just inject....
That what i think animal cruelty is all about.
P.S 2
IRH: I do eat meat!
And even the opposite, I hate vegtables.
____________
|
|
Fire_Dragon
Adventuring Hero
King of Dragons
|
|
posted June 26, 2003 11:58 AM |
|
|
I'm 100% in agreement with Dread_Knight.
____________
The King of Dragons emerge from its lair to seek vengence upon its throne of Fire.
|
|
Dread_Knight
Known Hero
Converting Vegetarians
|
posted June 26, 2003 12:11 PM |
|
|
Just call me DK will ya?
Tnx for the support...
____________
|
|
Lith-Maethor
Honorable
Legendary Hero
paid in Coin and Cleavage
|
posted June 26, 2003 12:28 PM |
|
|
one objection...
no animal is "destined" to be used in research... that is BS...
using animals for medical research is something I can live with... using them for cosmetics and stuff, is something I find unecessary to say the least...
as for oldtimer's point about wolves, rats and animals viewed as "pests" in general... I don't see why we should kill any animal without a reason...
and just for the record, I do like meat (in fact, I never understood why anybody would go against human nature and become a vegetarian...)
____________
You are suffering from delusions of adequacy.
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
posted June 26, 2003 12:41 PM |
|
|
Animal testing might be necessary for some scientific research (because it allows scientists to discover how animals react to certain pains, diseases and medicines) but I do agree that over testing on animals is somewhat harsh. However, I am not against animal testing because first; the animals tested make up a very very tiny percentage of their kind in total population and second; hundreds and hundreds more animals get killed by accidents, disasters and hunters outside the lab than inside it.
So what about animal testing? It has been around for decades and nothing has changed since. So for all of you out there who wants to put a complete end to animal testing, think again before you speak out against it.
I smell tree hugging hippies...and yes, I do eat meat.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
Dread_Knight
Known Hero
Converting Vegetarians
|
|
posted June 26, 2003 12:51 PM |
|
|
I can understasnd...
It's right, no animal is destened to be used.
It compleatly WRONG to use animals for cosmetics reaserch.
And DA: WTH D'ya mean by tree loving hippies?
PS DA
Didn't you have a Minotaour as your avatar before?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 26, 2003 01:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
An animal feel pain as much as a human, especially primates.
Never said otherwise, just that I'd rather it not be me, my relatives or humans in general being tested on, pain or not.
Quote:
There is a substitue.
You just take a DNA semple or a few human cells, and just see how they respond.
*sighs* Are you like ignoring my points on purpose? Some tests need the ENTIRE subject, ie a person/animal as a whole. Please try and understand this.
Quote:
About rats-I really dont give a **** about rats and laborotory mice.
they were destened to be tested on.
By their name you can understand LABOROTORY mice.
They are borned in the laborotories and they die in laborotories.
But why dogs? and Primates?
Blatantly hypocritical, you don't mind some being put through suffering because you don't care about them? How immensely kind of you. This statement becomes even more hypocritical when placed next to:
Quote:
It's right, no animal is destened to be used.
So shall we assume rats and mice are no longer considered animals by you?
Quote:
Ye I recon you right, i prefer a cat to die than a human.
But that doesn't mean they suffer less.
Never said they didn't, again, I'd rather they did than me. If you feel different, sign up for being a test subject.
Quote:
If you are already testing, don't make them suffer so much!
Don't stick metal into their nose and throat!!!
Just inject....
That what i think animal cruelty is all about.
No, you think cruelty only applies to animals you like.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Dread_Knight
Known Hero
Converting Vegetarians
|
|
posted June 26, 2003 03:11 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, you think cruelty only applies to animals you like.
Thets compleatly a NASTY thing to say!
My mom is a Vet, My dad is a Vet, And i will be a vet!
I care about AAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLL animals!
Just in compare to all animals i just can't find an animal i care less about!!!
I said before thet rats were destened to be tested on!
Then lith came and said that no animal is destened for testing and i agreed with him.
I Just cant find an animal that fits more than a rat for testing.
I wasn't ignoring u! I just said my opinion to someone else.
And if you so smart can u tell me, how many human lives were ruined because of a medicine that was tested on animals was good?
____________
|
|
Athimus_Phaeni
Famous Hero
Final Fantasy Fan
|
|
posted June 26, 2003 03:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What we are talking about? 125M rabbits? There are trillions of them on earth, only rabbits, not talking about other animals.
There are billions of humans in Earth. We care about each human death.
Quote:
Why did you suddenly remembered about them?
I did not suddenly remembered agout them. It is just the topic. My posts here werent things that I had just concluded before posting.
Quote:
Because they are tortured by human hands? Sorry, it looks like hypocricy of a veg who doesn't eat meat because of "poor animals"
I am not vegetarian.
Quote:
Trillions rabbits etc live their wild life, and nobody cares, why should we care now?
It would be the same than kidnaping people of other countries and bringing it to yours(or any other country) for scientific purposes.
I just dont care the way you are living in your country, as long as you can get a decent life. The same apply to rabbits lifes, while they are in they natural enviroment, there is no problem. But they kidnap the rabbits, and bring then to a completely different place. It wouldnt be a problem if the rabbits still had a decent life in this new "home". But that is not what happens.
____________
But I won't be
Burned by the reflection
Of the fire in your eyes
As you're starying at the sun
|
|
Dread_Knight
Known Hero
Converting Vegetarians
|
posted June 26, 2003 03:59 PM |
|
|
Finally a decent person!
Finally i see someone who agree with me!
Do you?
If not tell me with what you do or do not agree, I'd like to know.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted June 26, 2003 04:07 PM |
|
|
How drug(medicine) discovery works:
In order for a medicine to work, it needs to affect a biological process. In order to do that, it needs to physically interact with the participants in said biological process, generally proteins. (Proteins can be thought of as tiny molecular machines doing little jobs in the cell). Figuring out what proteins or other molecules are involved at all can be and is extremely difficult, but let's say you've figured out that disease A is caused by a protein going haywire and doing its job when it's not supposed to. Sort of like the brooms in the Sorcerer's Apprentice. They were meant to carry in just two buckets of water, but they kept going and flooded the house. It's often the same sort of thing in diseases, especially cancer or autoimmune diseases. What you need is a molecule that will go in and block the protein that's going haywire. Basically, the way most drugs work is by throwing a wrench in the gears of a particular molecular machine. Now remember, you're doing this blind, these things are so small that you can't go in and pick out all of the malfunctioning protein or anything like that, what you need is something that fits into the malfuntioning protein so perfectly that if you just put them together in the cell, it will jam the protein automatically.
The way these molecules, known as "inhibitors" are found is by purifying a bunch of the protein and trying a whole bunch of molecules to find ones that bind to the protein (we're talking thousands or even millions of molecules). The ones that bind to the protein generally interfere with its function although in some rare cases, they actually enhance the protein's function. This screening technique will generally provide you with anywhere from 1 or 2, to a couple hundred "leads," or molecules that, in a test tube, can interfere with the protein's function.
Then you need to prove that they can interfere with that protein's function in a cell. You take cultured cells (sort of like a blood sample) and try your leads on them and see if 1. the leads can get into a cell (not all molecules can actually even get into cells, if they can't, they are useless as drugs) and 2. if the leads still inhibit the protein in the context of a cell, which is very, very different from in a test tube. If you started out with a couple hundred "leads," you'll be lucky to end up with a few dozen at this stage.
YOU'RE STILL NOT DONE.
You've come up with a bunch of molecules that can interfere with a protein's function, right? How do you know they won't interfere with any other proteins? There are tens of thousands of proteins in the body that we know about, and who knows how many that we don't know about. The main problem with drug design is not finding something that inhibits protein A, it's finding something that does so without inhitibing proteins B, C and D. Many proteins are very similar to eachother, it's sort of like trying to design something that will disable 1 screwdriver but not all the others in the toolbox. This is why most drugs have side effects, it's because they're interfering with more proteins than they are supposed to. It is currently impossible to assay the binding of a molecule to every single one of those proteins in a test tube or in cell culture. The only way to figure out if the potential drug will interfere with other vital processes is to get it into a full, living organism and seeing if they exhibit serious side effects from the potential drug. Would a human be ideal for this? Technically yes, but so many leads turn out to be toxic at fairly low doses to dare testing it on humans at this stage (or, if you don't care about that, getting enough humans to test it on).
In addition, just because the potential drug got into a cell in cell culture doesn't mean it will get into the correct cells in the body. The body is big and complicated. What if you take a pill and it just gets digested in your stomach? It never has a chance to inhibit protein A because it gets broken down to quickly. Worse yet, what if it gets partly digested and the partly digested molecule turns out to be toxic? (this happens) What it it doesn't get digested but just passes through your gut and you crap it out and it never gets to do its job? What if it just collects in your stomach and sits there? What if it is supposed to go to the heart but instead goes to the brain where it causes damage? What if it gets where it's supposed to go but in such low concentrations that it doesn't have an effect? We're getting better at predicting these things, but you just don't know unless you can give it to something that is similar enough to humans (mice and rats are generally okay, monkeys are only needed in extremely rare cases like AIDS research) that you can assay these factors.
That's why a blood test isn't enough.
Once you've figured out all of these things, you've probably narrowed your couple hundred leads down to maybe one or two that still work. THEN you test it on humans. Even then, it may not work, but imagine what would have happened if you had taken the few dozen that worked on cell culture but not in a mouse and tried them on humans? How many more people would volunteer for clinical trials then?
Animal testing isn't something that any but the occasional sicko enjoys, but to save human life (think about the millions of Africans with AIDS) it is necessary.
The animals are not tortured and are generally treated better than any animal in a real farm. When they need to be killed, they are normally put to sleep first or if that would affect the experiment, they are killed as quickly and painlessly as possible, generally by instant decapitation. Certainly, they die less painful deaths than the rats that eat rat poison. Animals do feel pain and suffering which is why in order to do animal testing you need to go before a board made up of other scientists, government officials and community members (often religious leaders since they have the time and the moral authority to be on these committees, but not always) and prove that 1. the experiment will give useful information, 2. the experiment can't be done in cell culture 3. you've picked the right animal to use 4. you're procedure is the absolute least painful way to get the information and 5. you're using the minimum number of animals possible. Even if you show these things, the board will often say that the information isn't worth what you're doing and you can't do the experiment. (If it's a primate, you also have to show that you've set up a retirement fund for them to like in a monkey retirement home after the experiments are done. I'm totally serious. )
For the record, I am a vegetarian and the only animals I have ever experimented on are fruit flies (strange how nobody seems to object when the animal in question doesn't look good as a children's toy). And no, I wasn't pulling their wings off or any snow like that.
Finally, it may be arrogant to decide that human life is worth more than animal life, but I think it's just as arrogant to sacrifice human life on the altar of one's epistemological self indulgence.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted June 26, 2003 04:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
My mom is a Vet, My dad is a Vet, And i will be a vet!
Ask your parents how the medicines they give to animals were developed.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Dread_Knight
Known Hero
Converting Vegetarians
|
|
posted June 26, 2003 04:29 PM |
|
|
[qoute]The animals are not tortured and are generally treated better than any animal in a real farm. When they need to be killed, they are normally put to sleep first or if that would affect the experiment, they are killed as quickly and painlessly as possible, generally by instant decapitation.[/qoute]
You are so wrong!
Did you see the dog!
They didn't put him to sleep!!!
And i assure you he is suffring!!!
The animals are not treated better than a farm animal!
Here some pictures:
sorry for the content.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
