Nighteyes Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Care to explain this one further' date=' because I'm at a loss at how to point out how stupid this is without reverting back to high school biology text books.[/quote']Maybe if you explain why you think it's so stupid I can correct your misconceptions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundian Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Maybe if you explain why you think it's so stupid I can correct your misconceptions" Both humans and mice have around 30,000 genes, but only around 300 are unique for each species. As well as their numerical parity, mice and humans have a similar genetic sequence, with 99 percent of genes having direct counterparts in the other species." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MDP Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 it is sick, and not proven to be completley effective, test stuff on baaaad bands, i vote mcfly...ross Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Maybe if you explain why you think it's so stupid I can correct your misconceptionsMy misconceptions? About evolution, common ancestory and the prevelence of gene homology across species? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nighteyes Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 There is practically no similiarity between the genetic make-up of a human and a guineapig/rabbit/gerbil etc. Maybe a slight exaggeration but the physiological differences are an important factor too. And the fact remains that almost 50 animal tested and FDA approved drugs are taken off the market each year because of unforseen side effects in humans which did not occur in animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camie Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 it is sick' date=' and not proven to be completley effective, test stuff on baaaad bands, i vote mcfly...ross[/quote']Actually a lot of scientific breakthroughs have occured through animal testing.However animal testing is not needed now with the technological advances that have came through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jake Wifebeater Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Simple question: Do you think it's right or moral for products to be tested on animals?Simple answer: I don't think it's right and I think it's morally wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Maybe a slight exaggeration but the physiological differences are an important factor too. And the fact remains that almost 50 animal tested and FDA approved drugs are taken off the market each year because of unforseen side effects in humans which did not occur in animals.A slight exaggeration? Yes' date=' physiological differences are important, and taken in to account regularily.In the UK around 40 drugs have been withdrawn in total since 1961, not per year, so I doubt this claim of 50 per year in America is accurate. Of note, most drugs that are withdrawn in the UK are withdrawn due to adverse drug reactions with other medicine the patient has been taking.EDIT - Here's a link to a list of FDA approved drugs that have actually taken off the market up to around 2002 (Vioxx is an example of a drug being withdrawn recently):[url']http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2002/chrtWithdrawals.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threeornothing Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 This is a fairly balanced view. "...But you show me the animal I have to kill to save my child's life and I'll tear it apart with my bare hands if I have to - no question of doubt in my mind."Thats like the fucked up people who believe you can cure aids by raping a baby"I ain't no Gary Glitter, but if I get aids, you show me the baby I have to rape to save my life and I'll tear it apart with my..........."If that thought makes you sick, welcome to my world in my thoughts about vivesection.Richard D Ryder said it best when he coined the word "speciesism" .... and its certainly up their with racism sexism and homophobia.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MDP Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 ok, ill change what i said, animal testing works fairly well, but in this day and age, can be easily replaced by technological advances. which means that animals are being tested on without the need for it, so NOWADAYS it is unneeded. im not a peta pusher or anything, they are the other extreme, and take it too far.ross Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Richard D Ryder said it best when he coined the word "speciesism" .... and its certainly up their with racism sexism and homophobia....Racists, homophobes, sexist, paedophiles and Nazis. I take it you feel strongly about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 I'm not sure where everyone is coming up with this idea that there are 100% effective ways to replace animal testing available. I wish someone would tell all those scientists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundian Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Thats like the fucked up people who believe you can cure aids by raping a baby No it isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nighteyes Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 No it isn't.yes it is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundian Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 yes it is Why does raping a baby have anything to do with animal experimentation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
framheim Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 i don't think i know enough about animal testing to venture a proper opinion on it.i don't agree with needlessly testing on them, for instance surely perfume and other luxury goods could be tested some other way. and i don't want animals to be treated with cruelty. i also understand why it might be necessary but i have my doubts.perhaps people could explain the processes without sensationalising their arguments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 i don't agree with needlessly testing on them' date=' for instance surely perfume and other luxury goods could be tested some other way[/quote']Well, in the UK cosmetic testing on animals is completely banned. It would be great if that was worldwide.As for your suggestion, Dave, I may well do so later on when I have more time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundian Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 perhaps people could explain the processes without sensationalising their arguments? Try here for a non-sensational view. How biased you think it is is up to you. You can find the other point of view with a simple google search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threeornothing Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Why does raping a baby have anything to do with animal experimentation?What does killing an animal with your bear hands have to do with saving a child!!Yes I know what they are meaning, but its a horrible arguement....and I tried to shock people into hearing it in the same light I would....That and I love starting pointless arguements cos I'm a bitter bastard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Try here for a non-sensational view. How biased you think it is is up to you. Another site worth looking at is http://www.medicalprogress.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nullmouse Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 What does killing an animal with your bear hands have to do with saving a child!!Vaccine development' date=' technological advancements (e.g. incubators for premature babies) and screening for teratogens? That and I love starting pointless arguements cos I'm a bitter bastard And like a fool I will rise to it everytime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noir Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 If you don't test animals' date=' how will you know that they work?[/quote']test on animal rights activists! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Page 99 Posted November 8, 2005 Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 test on animal rights activists!Nah, test on people who make sweeping statements like that. The world is overpopulated after all, and I'm sure a few less of us won't do humaity's ego too much harm.p.s. Animal testing is disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulscoconutass Posted November 8, 2005 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2005 Ironically the Nazis did tend to shun animal experimentation. They much more preferred to use ethnic minorities' date=' children and the mentally / physically disabled.[/quote']Sounds really bad but i was taught that those experiment were actually 'successful' because they improved the knowledge and science of the human body and its limits greatly. It's believed they managed to significantly advance the fields of:Freezing / HypothermiaGeneticsInfectious DiseasesInterrogation and TortureHigh AltitudePharmacologicalSterilizationSurgeryTraumatic Injuries Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinosaur Posted November 9, 2005 Report Share Posted November 9, 2005 No, animal testing is bad! thats what Neds are on the Earth for! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.