Animal Testing

As V&P mod, it's my pleasure to inform Senior Indigo that his poll placement seems present, pleasant, and anatomically correct. No jive!

As for my vote, I go with "No, with some exceptions". Schoolroom dissection is something I strongly oppose, especially now that we can provide digitally generated models of anatomical features. Research for makeup and other frivolous luxuries should be banned, and its practitioners shot.

As to "exceptions", researches into areas such as organ regeneration, disease and genetic disorder research, etc., probably do involve some degree of involuntary animal participation, but I would sanction such practices only when absolutely necessary for the purpose of the research itself.

For medicinal purposes it seems reasonable. For other purposes not at all

*insert mandatory line about capitalist decadence*

A little something here that ought to be required viewing for heartless Social Darwinist assholes who gleefully take to heart the old cliche' concerning this dog eat dog world we live in. It seems compassion is natural in origin as well.

Yes, I support Animal Testing. I believe that it is a good tool for medical science that has saved many human (and animal) lives.

I'm in between "Yes, any procedure unconditionally" and "Yes, but only with certain kinds of animals". I don't support non-medical animal testing (like cosmetics and other consumer products) at all and even with medical only a select few animals really would give us any usable insight. So yes but with a humane attitude.

Yes, but only with certain kinds of animals.

Most of the time, there'd be no use doing testing on say snakes, because they aren't very similar to humans. I support testing for primarily medical and scientific (studying animal behaviour, evolution etc) reasons. Testing for cosmetic products is a bit iffy to me. People are always going to want to use cosmetic products and the best way to make sure new products are safe for human use is to test on other animals first. In any sort of testing, sometimes the animals will die or suffer injury as a result. That's just something you have to accept. It's why testing on humans isn't done until much later in the process of developing new treatments or whatever is being done. I think the main problem with cosmetic products is a lack of regulation on testing and the fact that Capitalist society has taken the use of cosmetics way overboard for the sake of producing greater profit.

Yes, I support animal testing in general except using endangered animals to protect biodiversity (although I acidentally voted for the first option). Human needs should supercede animal needs and retards like PETA shouldn't impede on human progress.

Certain procedures.

As mentioned by previous posters, it should not be forgotten that a great deal of medical advances in out society were made possible through animal testing. Even with today's computer technology/ dry lab methods, there are still no viable substitutes for animal testing in understanding interactions at the molecular level as well as analyzing impact to nervous systems, blood circulation, etc. Keep in mind, this also applies to other fields such as space exploration, where human achievements were only made possible through earlier experimentation with canines and apes.

I however do agree that animal testing for profit-driven, non-essential vanity projects, which describes more than half of the cosmetics industry, is wrong, and PETA should stick it to such enterprises.

Any and all procedures. They're just animals and its not like we're running out of them.

You're just an animal as well. But I'm not surprised you'd have a callous opinion, it's true to form.
You know this is trolling, Dagoth. I wasn't going to make an official notice of it until it was reported by another mod.

And I'm not against human testing either. My apologies if that's callous. Whatever you may mean by that.

Chthonic171 wrote:

And I'm not against human testing either.

That's not exactly surprising or wrong.

Chthonic171 wrote:

My apologies if that's callous. Whatever you may mean by that.

Whatever I mean by that? Callous isn't my special word who's definition I assign. Regardless I was just, in a sideways kinda way, saying that you're predictable. Although to be fair I expected you to be a bit more balls out when I saw that you were the last poster in this thread.

Indigo wrote:

I don't have the same hang up about cosmetic research as the other posters do. While frivolous and superfluous, there isn't any actually harm in it.

I have a perfect quote for this but I can't remember the origin or the exact wording, but fuсk I'll try anyways:

Attempting to paraphrase something I only vaguely remember, my brain wrote:

Why do animals get to test all our makeup and anti-depressants? We're the one's who're miserable, we should test that shit. Armadillos don't need lipstick.

Indigo wrote:

Although, I'd much actually prefer that cosmetics research be phased out completely; then it's a non-issue.

That's kinda like saying you'd prefer food eating to be phased out so the meat-issue would become a non-issue. It's not really something that will ever disappear until you can genetically make perfectly complexioned humans.

Indigo wrote:

The one caveat is that, like with meat farming, the suffering to the animal should be minimized as much as possible. There's also the matter of intent.

This is the key for sure. A little humanity would go a hell of a long way in rehabilitating the image of animal testing. But a little humanity is something we don't even give to most humans so I guess animals and progress are fuсked.

Indigo wrote:

I take issue with 99% of what PETA campaigns for, anyway. An organization that elevates the hypothetical rights of animals to those of humans rubs me the wrong way.

The real problem is that they put the rights of non-humans far above those for us. It's the same type of revenge-mentality that makes up the basis for anti-first-world MTWists. Humans have to pay for the oppression of animals just like the white westerner has to pay for colonialism.

Indigo wrote:

Edit: Looks like I spoke too soon....

I have to keep it interesting or else we end up with a dead Discussion section since like almost nobody posts about serious shit anymore.

How was my response predictable? In its delivery or content?

I assumed since its well-known here that I'm a large supporter of eugenics and human experimentation that I didn't need to go "balls out" in here since its just animals and my vote should be more than obvious.

I'm on my phone, hard to talk/debate/elaborate.

Chthonic171 wrote:

How was my response predictable? In its delivery or content?

I saw that you'd posted here and I instantly knew what you were going to say. In that sense it was predictable.

Chthonic171 wrote:

I assumed since its well-known here that I'm a large supporter of eugenics and human experimentation that I didn't need to go "balls out" in here since its just animals and my vote should be more than obvious.

Which is why it was predictable. I still wanna know how you justify supporting pseudo-science like eugenics though. It's just so anticommunist (in the scientific sense).

Chthonic171 wrote:

I'm on my phone, hard to talk/debate/elaborate.

Now that's just lazy.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

I saw that you'd posted here and I instantly knew what you were going to say. In that sense it was predictable.

Well, I'm glad you've taken the time to get to know me so well then

Quote:

I still wanna know how you justify supporting pseudo-science like eugenics though. It's just so anticommunist (in the scientific sense).

Never claimed to be communist of the year. This will have to wait until another day. Remind me soon and ill spill my lil heart. I was told not to start another thread on eugenics so..?

Quote:

Now that's just lazy.

Sorry, must not be as easy on mine as it is on an iPhone

Hey, scientifically produce perfect-skinned people and voila, there's no more animal testing.

Everyone wins