Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Sign up in favour of animal experiments

The petition   123 votes

  1. 1. Will you sign?

    • Yes, animal experiments are necessary for good science
      80
    • Yes, more as a balance to the thuggery of animal rights extremists
      8
    • No, amimal experiments can't be justified
      27
    • No, and I'm on my round to your house with my mates
      8

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

143 posts in this topic

yes. Although security and insurance costs are now so high that companies researching alternatives to animal testing attract premium investment. Now that probably is a good thing although even the most optimistic assessments do not envisage there to be any viable completealternatives to animal testing to be discovered for a generation at least. Which will mean that the idiocy of groups like SHLS, BUAV and the other fools will only make medicines unaffordable for most of the world. I see that shortsightedness on their parts as morally bankrupt.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the idea of animal experimentation as i'm sure do the overwhelming majority of people and any of the photographs of animals in distress are extremely emotive but unfortunately if we decide that we place human lives above those of animals then you have to accept this testing process. :(

 

Cue discussion as to whether humans should be placed above animals in the pecking order ...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cue discussion as to whether humans should be placed above animals in the pecking order . . .

it seems to me that rights should always be balanced by responsibilities - so our human rights should be balanced by our own responsibilities for our fellow human beings, animals and the environment. But that is as far as it goes: wanton animal cruelty for human gain is repugnant and you will find noone involved in vivisection would disagree with that. We haverightly banished cock-fighting, bear-bairting and recently foxhunting. BUT that is to do with OUR responsibilities and not any noptional animal rights.

 

For animals to have rights of their own as liberationists occasionally opine, one wonders what responsibilities they envisage in return? No fowling of pavements maybe? No killing of other animals for food? No pup-cruelty?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems the poll is sticking resiliantly to the expected statistic - that two thirds of adults reject animal rights and support animal experimentation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

come on, I can't believe there is noone intellihgent who can't challenge my position

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

roll up all you tosspots who think that your arguments might have a modicum of moral validity

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bell the Cat, you need to let go a bit. You've made about half the posts on this thread, thus contravening the Usage Guidelines. You have your opinion and others have a different opinion. I don't understand why you get so excited every time you get an additional vote in your favour. Would you defend Bush because he won a majority?

 

 

roll up all you tosspots who think that your arguments might have a modicum of moral validity

Firstly, calling anyone who disagrees with you a "tosspot" is not particularly nice or intelligent. Secondly, I think "moral" was probably the wrong word to use. While there are certainly many arguments in favour of animal experimentation, I believe that a purely moral standpoint would rule out such use of animals.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bell the Cat, you need to let go a bit. You've made about half the posts on this thread, thus contravening the Usage Guidelines.

I didn't know that sorry

 

 

You have your opinion and others have a different opinion. I don't understand why you get so excited every time you get an additional vote in your favour.

I think this issue, politicallöy, has gonbe well beyond tit tat opinionism. The animal rightsists are in reality a tiny minority of ignorant fanatics. There is no such thing as a balancced debate in this arena as making it balanced necessarily makes it biassed.

 

 

Would you defend Bush because he won a majority?

I really am the ,most unlikely person to approve republican wins, but if it was democratic then grudgingly so

 

 

Firstly, calling anyone who disagrees with you a "tosspot" is not particularly nice or intelligent.

I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that the oponents of animal testing are otherwise

 

 

Secondly, I think "moral" was probably the wrong word to use. While there are certainly many arguments in favour of animal experimentation, I believe that a purely moral standpoint would rule out such use of animals.

o really. And what would that moral standpoint have to say about the cost of medicatiuonbs for AIDS in thiord world countries. Unless you can answer that I consider you a moral tosspot :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cost of medical aid to Third World countries is mostly determined by governments, rather than by pharmecutical companies. This includes, I believe, medicatiuonbs.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Bell the cat

For animals to have rights of their own as liberationists occasionally opine, one wonders what responsibilities they envisage in return? No fowling of pavements maybe? No killing of other animals for food? No pup-cruelty?

 

For humans to have rights of their own, one wonders what responsibilities are envisaged in return? No killing of the rain forests maybe. No killing of other humans for oil. No paederasty.

:ph34r:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The cost of medical aid to Third World countries is mostly determined by governments, rather than by pharmecutical companies. This includes, I believe, medicatiuonbs.

would that that were so. The pharmaceutical industry has been trying to get western governments and not private industry to support the cost savings in AIDs and malaria medications in the third world. Nut most governments expect industry to take up ntrhe tab. This, however, is impossible when animal rights fascism is making medical research prohiobitively expensive in Europe just now. But supposedly youz think that is a good thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For humans to have rights of their own, one wonders what responsibilities are envisaged in return? No killing of the rain forests maybe. No killing of other humans for oil. No paederasty.

absolutely, and these are things that are current considerations for humankind.- But are they considerations for dog-kind, cat-kind or mouse-kind?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tell you what BTC, just consider this thread to be your own rant room so that you can post without taking breath and insult anybody else who's opinion differs from yours, ok ? <_<

 

You had originally posted a good argument and since then have just let your personal prejudices and absolute inability to accept there are 2 sides to every argument destroy your credibility.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thing is, I no longer believe there to be two sides to this argument having spent 20 years getting death threats from the 'other side'

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

come on, I can't believe there is noone intellihgent who can't challenge my position

 

thing is, I no longer believe there to be two sides to this argument having spent 20 years getting death threats from the 'other side'

so, then I guess there is no one "intellihgent" enough to challenge your position then.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry to TT users who see me as fanatical and dominating this thread. For a long time I have stayed out of this argument as previously the police advised those of us who participated in such endeavours to keep a very low profile. But over the last 20 years the threats of violence against us has got worse and worse and I now wholeheartedly applaud the Research Defence Society in taking our concerns into the public domain. If you like, my wound up feelings about this issue buttoned up for so long have been released perhaps in an overagressive manner. I just hate to see the arguments dominated by individuals that do not know what they are talking about. Sorry.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0