Animal testing, your feelings?

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I have never stopped to move a dying or dead rodent off of the road. We do have bald eagles that scavenge, and perhaps I should think of them.

Hmm yeah it is somthing to take into consideration, i never really thought about until one day i saw a dead flattend pheasant on the road- the next day there was a dead flattened fox next to it.
Fox's are the only animals over here that i can think of at the top of my head that scavenge and eat dead animals, but you do see a lot of dead ones on the road because of this (plus they often live near populated areas now days).

[RockLee]

I'm not assuming anything, thats why i started trhe post with a big "If"- i am simply voicing my opinions, do you have an issue with freedom of speach?

I don't have any problem with you voicing your opinion. But you are assuming things.

->

Sure you could lie and say different in this post, but i think you are like most other people in this world, and if you were dying you would support animal death if it could save your life.

But i don't think you will, because deep down, you value your own life more than a rats.

If that's not assuming, than what is it?

Who do you think you are to judge what i can and cannot say to somone in my own thread? Who put you on your high horse?
I am sure SVF has the ability stick up for him self in a debate like an adult and does not need you to nanny him.

Who says I nanny SFV? You are making assumptions again. I suggest you stop doing that. What you can and can't is up to the forum rules, and with the personal attacking you are doing lately you are walking on thin ice.

It depends on what types of experiments were done on humans, some experiments i suppose i would agree with while i others i would not i guess.
I don't approve of all animal experimentation, and i suppose the same goes for people too.

Suppose they'd inject humans with all kinds of chemicals to see how their body reacts to it (even with the possibility of death) , would you still tolerate it?

[Mycernius]

Hmm yeah it is somthing to take into consideration, i never really thought about until one day i saw a dead flattend pheasant on the road- the next day there was a dead flattened fox next to it.
Fox's are the only animals over here that i can think of at the top of my head that scavenge and eat dead animals, but you do see a lot of dead ones on the road because of this (plus they often live near populated areas now days).

Crows, Magpies and the like will take roadkill. Plus they seem to have enough sense to move out of the way. I very rarely see dead crows. As for peasants, they are remarkably stupid birds. I have had several dive infront of my truck instead of going the shorter route to the hedge.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I don't have any problem with you voicing your opinion. But you are assuming things.
->
If that's not assuming, than what is it?
Who says I nanny SFV? You are making assumptions again. I suggest you stop doing that. What you can and can't is up to the forum rules, and with the personal attacking you are doing lately you are walking on thin ice.

If the mods see me posting things they see as inapropriate, they'll delete them, as for now why don't you leave the moderating and running of the forum to those responsable for that- if you have any continued issues with my posts then you can pm the mods about it.
Personally i don't think i am doing anything wrong, plus looking at the poll for this thread i think it is safe to assume so far that there are no people here that would refuse animal tested treatments if their lives depended on them.

Suppose they'd inject humans with all kinds of chemicals to see how their body reacts to it (even with the possibility of death) , would you still tolerate it?

Well, i don't know of any cases of people legally doing that sort of experiment to people, so it would be another of those "if" games" as SVF would put it ;) .

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Crows, Magpies and the like will take roadkill. Plus they seem to have enough sense to move out of the way. I very rarely see dead crows. As for peasants, they are remarkably stupid birds. I have had several dive infront of my truck instead of going the shorter route to the hedge.

Yeah i agree pheasants are very stupid, once when i was a kid i was been driven back from school and we saw a pheasant standing in the middle of the road, so we slowed down the car and expected it to go away. It didn't, so we stopped the car and shooed it off the road; we had to come back the same way again later, and what to you know, it was back there in the middle of the road, so we had to shoo it off again.
The next day there was a dead pheasant in the middle of the same road.

I dunno, maybe they just have a really, really short memory, but they have no fear of cars. Crows and magpies seem to be far brighter, ravens and jackdaws are very intelligent scavenger birds as well.

[RockLee]

If the mods see me posting things they see as inapropriate, they'll delete them, as for now why don't you leave the moderating and running of the forum to those responsable for that- if you have any continued issues with my posts then you can pm the mods about it.
Personally i don't think i am doing anything wrong, plus looking at the poll for this thread i think it is safe to assume so far that there are no people here that would refuse animal tested treatments if their lives depended on them.

I AM a mod, but not on this forum. :) So if there is something on this forum, I talk to the other mods about it.

Well, i don't know of any cases of people legally doing that sort of experiment to people, so it would be another of those "if" games" as SVF would put it ;)

My point is, would you bother if those experiments were conducted on animals? It's no "IF-game", it's just a question I ask you. Would you mind when it happens on humans, but don't care when it happens on animals?

[Tokis-Phoenix]

My point is, would you bother if those experiments were conducted on animals? It's no "IF-game", it's just a question I ask you. Would you mind when it happens on humans, but don't care when it happens on animals?

It depends what the circumstances are ;) . Legislation protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment in England, few animals feel any pain as they are killed before they have the chance to suffer according to the BBC website;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/te...00/3430169.stm

Would you give your life/die to save, say, the lives of rats?

[strongvoicesforward]

Well, it appears Tokis-Phoenix does not have the courtesy to reciprocate answering "if" questions, and like Rock-Lee says does go off on assumptions.

In the post above she makes the statements:

Legislation protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment in England,...

Legislation, while good and can be a protector of abuse, is not a guarantee of protection. Show us some government study that says ALL lab animals are protected from cruelty and mistreatment. What does that mean? Are you saying there is no animal suffering in labs in England simply because some legislation is on the books purporting to protect animals?

I know there is anti discrimination legislation in the U.S., but it still happens.

Don`t get me wrong. I am not bashing England. England is the hot bed of strong animal rightists and direct action for animals is a great export they have been successful in spreading throughout Europe and to the U.S.

few animals feel any pain as they are killed before they have the chance to suffer according to the BBC website;

Another assumption.

As for the link you provided above -- that is just a list of pro-reasons for the argument for animal testing. It is not factual. Anyone can make a list and the antithesis exists which could be cited as fact, too -- although to do so would be erronious also. Or, are you assuming again that lists you cite on a BBC site are just factual information?

Show us a study Tokis-Phoenix that supports your point and not just a list of reasons for pro-animal testing.

[strongvoicesforward]

Would you give your life/die to save, say, the lives of rats?

I know this question was asked to RockLee, but I will answer it, too -- despite the fact that Tokis-Pheonix is only good at asking hypothetical questions and not answering them -- or is afraid or lacks the courtesy to do so even when she fires them off.

Would I exchange my life for an animal`s life where the outcome was a sure thing -- I die and it lives? No.

Would I willingly risk my life for an animal? Yes.

In fact many animal rightists/liberationists who engage in direct action do so. To raid an animal breeding farm that supplies animals to labs is risking serious injury when suppliers employ razor wire that needs to be scaled or when a farmer has loaded weapons in their homes. Anytime a liberationist is caught by police or private security that has weapons, they are at serious risk to bodily injury that could result in death.

---------------------------------
*btw, has anyone else noticed Tokis-Pheonix' ability to ask the hypothetical "if" questions, but not answer them?

[strongvoicesforward]

In cancer research, one of the most heavily funded programs utilizing perhaps the most number of animals for testing, millions of mice have died since 1971, the year President Nixon declared war on it. From previous posts I have listed the numbers that show this stark reality and utter failure. Cancer rates continue to rise. Animal models, particularly the mouse which is the most widely used animal in research, has suffered because they are the most manipulative of all animals -- but the cancer we cause and cure in them have not lead to lower cancer rates or lower deaths from cancer because the mouse is not a good model for humans.

A mouse gene may be very similar to a human gene, but the rest of the mouse is very different.

The fact that so many cancer researchers seem to forget or ignore this observation when working with "mouse models" in the lab clearly irks Robert Weinberg. A professor of biology at MIT and winner of the National Medal of Science for his discovery of both the first human oncogene and the first tumor-suppressor gene, ...

... preclinical models," Weinberg explains. "And it's been well known for more than a decade, maybe two decades, that many of these preclinical human cancer models have very little predictive power in terms of how actual human beings�\actual human tumors inside patients�\will respond.

...tumors that arise in each, with the same flip of a genetic switch, are vastly different. Excerpts from Fortune Magazine, Clifton Leaf

See full article here: Why We're Losing the War on Cancer�\and How to Win It

[RockLee]

Legislation protects all lab animals from cruelty or mistreatment in England, few animals feel any pain as they are killed before they have the chance to suffer according to the BBC website;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/te...00/3430169.stm

I think SFV pretty much summed it up

Would you give your life/die to save, say, the lives of rats?

No, I wouldn't. But I'd help anywhere possible, if it was in my power to do so.

It depends what the circumstances are ;)

Note that that was a reply to the question about if you would bother tests being run on humans with death as a result. So according to you, in some circumstances it would be tolerable? (Not making assumptions, just asking wether you would or not)

[No-name]

Just a reminder that we kill rats for no reason other than they are a disease vector and a threat to food stores. A single rat can shut a restaurant down. These large number of health and nuisance rodent deaths profit us nothing in the way of knowlege. Lab rats, we hope, are teaching us something valuable.

I would not favor testing on humans if death was a possible result. Again, I believe that human life is significantly more valuable.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Well, it appears Tokis-Phoenix does not have the courtesy to reciprocate answering "if" questions, and like Rock-Lee says does go off on assumptions.

What "if" questions that were clearly defined have i not answered? Plus you don't have to keep repeating that (in bold) when i'm not even logged on- and you accused me of posting when you couldn't reply

In the post above she makes the statements:
Legislation, while good and can be a protector of abuse, is not a guarantee of protection. Show us some government study that says ALL lab animals are protected from cruelty and mistreatment. What does that mean? Are you saying there is no animal suffering in labs in England simply because some legislation is on the books purporting to protect animals?
I know there is anti discrimination legislation in the U.S., but it still happens.
Don`t get me wrong. I am not bashing England. England is the hot bed of strong animal rightists and direct action for animals is a great export they have been successful in spreading throughout Europe and to the U.S.
Another assumption.

Maybe it cruelty does happen in labs, but thats just an assumption. For now, England has some of the best and most rigorously kept laws against animal cruelty in the world.
Saying it cruelty might go on, and thats a reason to put a stop to animal testing, is like saying there are people in this country who have badly treated their pet dogs amoungst the many thousands of good dog owners, and thus we must put a stop to the keeping of dogs just in case somone mistreats them.

As for the link you provided above -- that is just a list of pro-reasons for the argument for animal testing. It is not factual. Anyone can make a list and the antithesis exists which could be cited as fact, too -- although to do so would be erronious also. Or, are you assuming again that lists you cite on a BBC site are just factual information?
Show us a study Tokis-Phoenix that supports your point and not just a list of reasons for pro-animal testing.

It is factual- there are laws against animal cruelty in England, we have found many cures for deseases/illnesses, animal testing has helped us come along in strides in surgery etc- if you cannot face the facts, then deal with it.
Oh, and by the way, it is a study. Why don't you show me an accurate and up to date study that says otherwise?

Would I exchange my life for an animal`s life where the outcome was a sure thing -- I die and it lives? No.

Would I willingly risk my life for an animal? Yes.

Ah, so, i wasn't wrong in assuming that you would not give your life to save the lives of animals (would you do it for a 100 monkeys, heh?).

In fact many animal rightists/liberationists who engage in direct action do so. To raid an animal breeding farm that supplies animals to labs is risking serious injury when suppliers employ razor wire that needs to be scaled or when a farmer has loaded weapons in their homes. Anytime a liberationist is caught by police or private security that has weapons, they are at serious risk to bodily injury that could result in death.

I certainly wouldn't call climbing over a barb wire fence "risking your life"- i've been doing it since i was a little kid and the worst thing that ever happened to me was a torn sleeve on my jumper.
And if you break into somone's property, wether its somones home or workplace, and they have a right to protect themselves from tresspassers, you are breaking the law and to be honest, they have every right IMHO to shoot you if you break into their home and scare the hell out of them.
No farmer will murder or injure somone just taking a stroll on their land unless they are inflicting serious damage to their property or refusing to go or brandishing weapons themselves.

You might try to romantasize the fact you support criminal activities, and you believe you are honestly risking your life, but really when you break into other peoples properties illegally or steal or threaten/injure people, you are just a common criminal and deserve to be behind bars. You give a bad name to your cause.



Oh yes, and the cancer thing- well i think its really ironic that the guys very own life was saved via cancer treatments when he would have died for sure otherwise without them.
People are getting cancer more and more now days, but we are not losing the war so to speak on cancer itself as we have come along in strides in medical treatments and research, yes the survival rates for somone in advanced cases of cancer are pretty much the same, but treating and curing cancer on people, the survival rates have gone up a lot. The guy who wrote the article would not have even survived if it wern't for those treatments developed since the 70's.

A mouse gene may be very similar to a human gene, but the rest of the mouse is very different.

The fact that so many cancer researchers seem to forget or ignore this observation when working with "mouse models" in the lab clearly irks Robert Weinberg. A professor of biology at MIT and winner of the National Medal of Science for his discovery of both the first human oncogene and the first tumor-suppressor gene, ...

... preclinical models," Weinberg explains. "And it's been well known for more than a decade, maybe two decades, that many of these preclinical human cancer models have very little predictive power in terms of how actual human beings�\actual human tumors inside patients�\will respond.

...tumors that arise in each, with the same flip of a genetic switch, are vastly different.

"And to be sure, cancer is a challenge like no other. The reason is that this killer has a truly uncanny ability to change its identity. "The hallmark of a cancer cell is its genetic instability," says Isaiah "Josh" Fidler, professor and chair of the department of cancer biology at Houston's M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. The cell's DNA is not fixed the way a normal cell's is. A normal cell passes on pristine copies of its three-billion-letter code to every next-generation cell. But when a cancer cell divides, it may pass along to its daughters an altered copy of its DNA instructions�\and even the slightest change can have giant effects on cell behavior. The consequence, says Fidler, is that while cancer is thought to begin with a single cell that has mutated, the tumors eventually formed are made up of countless cellular cousins, with a variety of quirky traits, living side by side. "That heterogeneity of tumors is the major, major obstacle to easy therapy," he says.

Harold Varmus, president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, agrees. "I just think this is a very tough set of problems," says Varmus, who has seen those problems from more angles than just about anybody. He shared a Nobel Prize for discovering the first oncogene (a normal gene that when mutated can cause cancer) in 1976. That crucial finding, five years into the War on Cancer, helped establish that cancers are caused by mutated genes. Later Varmus served as NIH director under Bill Clinton, presiding over a period of huge funding increases. "Time always looks shorter in retrospect," he says. "I think, hey, in 30 years mankind went from being almost completely ignorant about how cancer arises to being pretty damn knowledgeable."


By the way, the article you posted is not anti animal testing.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Just a reminder that we kill rats for no reason other than they are a disease vector and a threat to food stores. A single rat can shut a restaurant down. These large number of health and nuisance rodent deaths profit us nothing in the way of knowlege. Lab rats, we hope, are teaching us something valuable.
I would not favor testing on humans if death was a possible result. Again, I believe that human life is significantly more valuable.

Yeah same here, although i might agree with testing on people who are on death row and are gonna die anyway because they've done somthing horrible in their lives, and i do agree with people who volunteer for testing. But overall, i think people's lives are more valuable than animals lives, certainly rodents, whom 85% of animal testing is done on;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4177200.stm

But yeah, people kill rats and mice in their millions every month- as far as i see it, we might as well put them towards somthing useful like saving animal and human lives. I agree with animal testing as long as it is towards somthing good like saving people's lives and finding cures for horrible deseases and things etc.

[strongvoicesforward]

What "if" questions that were clearly defined have i not answered?

Here is your �gif�h question (quid pro quo): If 100 retarded children diagnosed to not live beyond age two could be experimented on for treatments to save 100,000 fully normal mind functioning cognitive children of 9 years old -- who if found a cure for their disease from these retarded children -- would live to a normal life span -- would you point the finger and say, �gtake them to the experimental room�h?

Maybe it cruelty does happen in labs, but thats just an assumption.

I would say it is cruel to beat a being to death with a baseball bat -- even if I loaded them up with novacaine or pain blockers before I started.

I would say it is cruel to violate the integrity of a being`s body when they are unwilling participants in an action directed at them -- despite any attempt at trying to make them feel comfortable during the violation.

It`s not an assumption -- unless you think those two examples above are not cruel just because pain may be blocked.

No matter how comfortable I made a being feel or made it so they didn`t feel pain, it would be cruel of me to deprive it of its life for my own selfish purposes to benefit myself.

For now, England has some of the best and most rigorously kept laws against animal cruelty in the world.

It`s good that they do. But I am not so naive to say that those prevent animal suffering. Just being in a sterile environment without enrichment for mental stimulation has a maddening affect on animals.

The U.S. has some of the best and most rigorously kept laws against racial discrimination, but I am not so naive to think people are not discriminated against based on their race.

[strongvoicesforward]

Saying it cruelty might go on, and thats a reason to put a stop to animal testing, is like saying there are people in this country who have badly treated their pet dogs amoungst the many thousands of good dog owners, and thus we must put a stop to the keeping of dogs just in case somone mistreats them.

In due time...in due time.

I am all for ending the pet trade in the form it is now. Beings should not be bread for entertainment or ownership out of profit by sales from breeders and pet shops. Too bad that a few bad apples spoil the bunch and should cause the whole pet trade to go under. I guess heavy smokers with their overburdening of health care causes insurance premiums to go up for all of us in some form or another.

If someone wants to be a guardian of a displaced or homeless animal then fine. But acting as a guardian for the safety and well being of an animal is much different than wearing a white lab coat and pumping the animal you are responsible for with toxic agents and then vivisect it. Or, do you think they are the same?

If you were a being with the two possibilities staring at you to choose, which environment would you choose to placed in -- at benevolent guardian`s home, or with a white coated lab technician in a laboratory?

Oh, and yes, you can assume you will have pain killers while you are being vivisected on or forced to ingest things to toxic amounts.

[strongvoicesforward]

Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
As for the link you provided above -- that is just a list of pro-reasons for the argument for animal testing. It is not factual. Anyone can make a list and the antithesis exists which could be cited as fact, too -- although to do so would be erronious also. Or, are you assuming again that lists you cite on a BBC site are just factual information?
Show us a study Tokis-Phoenix that supports your point and not just a list of reasons for pro-animal testing.

I think SFV pretty much summed it up

Yes, I did. Thank you, RockLee, for pointing that out to Tokis-Pheonix.

It is factual- there are laws against animal cruelty in England, we have found many cures for deseases/illnesses, animal testing has helped us come along in strides in surgery etc- if you cannot face the facts, then deal with it.

Toks-Phoenix, are you actually going to say that just because there are laws on the book that cruelty and pain and suffering doesn`t happen in animal testing labs in the U.K.? Again, remember my racial discrimination analogy, please, and that should point you in the direction that just because something is legislated against, in no way is that like a magic wand that makes the reality dissappear.

If numbers of successes in preventing as little suffering and deaths as possible is the goal, then the billions of dollars used for animal testing could have been more efficiently used for promoting prevention. Efficiency of fund use and recourses dictates that funds should be used in a way which would save the most people. Again (as just one example), the hundreds of billions of dollars we have used in causing mice to have cancer and cure cancer in mice could have gone a lot further in saving lives through promoting prevention and better lifestyle choices.

Oh, and by the way, it is a study. Why don't you show me an accurate and up to date study that says otherwise?

No, the link you provided are pros for the reason to animal test. Look at it again. It is not a study.

Ah, so, i wasn't wrong in assuming that you would not give your life to save the lives of animals (would you do it for a 100 monkeys, heh?).

Another "if" question cleverly disguised. I don`t mind them. But you are still behind in not answering mine. So, I will wait for your answer.

I certainly wouldn't call climbing over a barb wire fence "risking your life"- i've been doing it since i was a little kid and the worst thing that ever happened to me was a torn sleeve on my jumper.

Did I say "barbed wire"? I thought I said "razor wire." That is usually the coiled stuff with razors on it -- not barbs. "Barbed" wire is the stuff usually farmers use -- razor wires is usually the stuff prisons and the military use. Razor wire can catch you up much more easily than barbed wire and cut you up really bad -- rusted razor wire could be a death knell if you don`t have your shots and infection sets in. Haven`t you seen it before?

Besides, did I say that (i.e. climbing barbed wire) was the actual threat to your life? I think I said:

In fact many animal rightists/liberationists who engage in direct action do so. To raid an animal breeding farm that supplies animals to labs is risking serious injury when suppliers employ razor wire that needs to be scaled or when a farmer has loaded weapons in their homes. Anytime a liberationist is caught by police or private security that has weapons, they are at serious risk to bodily injury that could result in death.

And if you break into somone's property, wether its somones home or workplace, and they have a right to protect themselves from tresspassers, you are breaking the law and to be honest, they have every right IMHO to shoot you if you break into their home and scare the hell out of them.

A different topic. But, I don`t disagree with you. Like I said, and now you have acknowledged -- animal liberationists do risk their lives in these direct actions.

No farmer will murder or injure somone just taking a stroll on their land unless they are inflicting serious damage to their property or refusing to go or brandishing weapons themselves.

Well, I sure should hope not. Again, you agree that liberationists do risk their lives in saving animals.

You might try to romantasize the fact you support criminal activities, and you believe you are honestly risking your life, but really when you break into other peoples properties illegally or steal or threaten/injure people, you are just a common criminal and deserve to be behind bars. You give a bad name to your cause.

lol. Yes, the status quo says that, too. I guess the Sons of Liberty who threw all the tea in the Boston Harbor were just all common criminals. To the British they may have been, but to the colonists, they were patriots. I guess in the end the side who has victory will decide if it were rather romantic or not, huh? Until victory or defeat is decisive, the status quo does get to label and prosecute according to their laws.

Though, I do like your country`s contribution to the world on direct action against injustice -- Robin Hood. What a common criminal he was doing all that "stealing from the rich and giving to the poor."

What more poor being is there than that being which does not have the ownership of its own life? He who commands them by the thousands is most often rich in blood money. And here comes little poor old activist relieving them of their beings, giving back to the beings the ownership of their life. You go Merry Band of Robin Hoods! The U.K. has created you as a part of their legend. Romantic indeed.

But, the storytellers of the future will have the final say in it, won`t they?

[strongvoicesforward]

Oh yes, and the cancer thing- well i think its really ironic that the guys very own life was saved via cancer treatments when he would have died for sure otherwise without them.

lol. Yes, he does admit to being a little "ungrateful." To use what has been deveoloped goes back to the concept of "fatali accompli" -- which you still have not addressed with my analogy of German products etc...

He certainly did not say that "all" animal tested medicine has not helped anyone. The point of his article is that the return for the investment has been very little and that those funds could be better used in more efficient ways. If saving as many people as possible were the goal, why wouldn`t you want to use funds as most efficiently as possible? The mouse has not been a model of success.

People are getting cancer more and more now days, but we are not losing the war so to speak on cancer itself...

Sounds like the Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfield gang. Soldiers and civilians' body counts are going up, but we are not losing the war so to speak in Iraque itself...

Sounds like Orwellian doublespeak to me.

But, in case you missed the part of the article that said:

"...we are far from winning the war."

and again:

...the annual death toll has risen 73%�\over one and a half times as fast as the growth of the U.S. population.

That doesn`t sound like winning to me -- unless you are Bush and the gang doing the spin dance.

... as we have come along in strides in medical treatments and research, yes the survival rates for somone in advanced cases of cancer are pretty much the same, but treating and curing cancer on people, the survival rates have gone up a lot.

Excerpt from Fortune Magazine: The War on Cancer:
Survival gains for the more common forms of cancer are measured in additional months of life, not years. The few dramatic increases in cure rates and patient longevity have come in a handful of less common malignancies�\including Hodgkin's, some leukemias, carcinomas of the thyroid and testes, and most childhood cancers. (It's worth noting that many of these successes came in the early days of the War on Cancer.) Thirty-three years ago, fully half of cancer patients survived five years or more after diagnosis. The figure has crept up to about 63% today.

Those numbers do not give the image of large "strides."

Btw, what of the most common cancers that kill the most are you referencing "a lot" with. Could you show us some numbers?

Are you saying we should keep testing on 85% of the lab animals (i.e. mice), numbering in the millions when it has been shown that they are a poor model? Using those large funds on an animal that has resulted in very little return for the investment?

The guy who wrote the article would not have even survived if it wern't for those treatments developed since the 70's.

And that is when all the major advances were made, and since then the mice as given us little for all that investment in funds. Whether he is a hypocrite or not (see Germany analogy above anf fatali accompli which I have been waiting for your address on) is irrelevant to the message.

By the way, the article you posted is not anti animal testing.

Never said it was -- did I? It is clearly critical of mice for our models and points that out as one of the reasons for us losing the war on cancer. In this regard, animal testing is failing us. It`s other main criticism is the inefficient usage of funds and recourses. In this regard animal testing is hurting us. I am all for efficiency if it means that 85% of lab animals (mice) are no longer subjected to cruel testing as models that are innappropriate.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Basically, you do not have any solid evidence that all animals that are tested on are subjected to cruelty, even even a large percentage. In fact, you have given no solid evidence for any of the explicit examples of animal cruelty in labs.
So, you are against animal testing because some animals are or may be (to be more accurate for now) cruely treated.
Some pets are cruely treated. Thus, you must be against the keeping of pets as well, it doesn't matter wether you may treat your pets well, that fact of the matter is that many thousands of pets are cruely treated everyday and by keeping pets you are encouraging others to have them and thus encouraging more animals to be bred and exposed to people.

If your reasoning that you are against animal testing is because some lab animals may be cruely treated, then you must be against all forms of keeping animals where they are also somtimes cruely treated.
It doesn't matter if you keep your dogs well, some scientists keep their animals well, you are against any situation where the animal may be mistreated and thus you must put an end to that situation.
If you put an end to animal testing, thousands of animals will be put down regardless.

As you said, america is against discrimination, but it sure still goes on- you seem to see this as reasoning enough for being against lab animals, so you must also be against the keeping of pets.
Your pet dog is essentially your slave, even if you don't personally see it that way.

By the way, the article is primarily against the funding issues over cancer research and not the way the mice were used- there are hundreds of scientists, and many in that article, that backed up the use of mice in cancer research. You may try to pretend that the guy cares more about the mice than his own sorry life, but unfortunatly thats not the case.
I agree, funding over the decades for cancer cures, as for cancer preventation (where there are also millions of dollars have been spent on) has not always been used efficiently at times, but that does not change the fact mice as still a very valuable way of finding cures for cancer amoungst other illnesses.

I have also already said i value human life over animal life many a time, so as for your "if" question/game thing, i thought to somone with your IQ it would be obvious what the answer would be due to this.
A human being can give consent to testing, an animal cannot (who's to say what goes on in the mind of a mouse though), because a human being has the ability to give consent they must be asked if they want to do somthing.

A human being is also capable of morality, there is practically no solid evidence of animals showing morality towards other animals. A mouse would never intentially save my live.
The rat does not care if it eats the starving mans last peice of food while he is asleep.
The lion does not care if the zebra is still alive and screaming when it rips out its guts and licks up the blood.
The fat pig does not care if it eats its dead owner, who cared for it with all his heart before he died.

Animals are less equal than human beings if only for their complete lack of awareness or ability of morality concerned animals that they do not know personally. This may be one of the main reasons why animals are not equal to human beings.
Human beings are capable of morality, and thus we should practice it when we can, but and animal life is not equal to a human life, so when one must be used to save the other, human life is more valuable.


Now, will you do me the honors of answering my questios throughout this thread?

[strongvoicesforward]

Now, will you do me the honors of answering my questios throughout this thread?

lol.

You still are behind in answering mine.

I answered your "if" question and you still have not reciprocated the courtesy of answering my question about the retarded children or the fatali accompli in regards to German companies that had profitted from Jewish slave labor.

-- not to mentioned you misquoted me with your "barb wire" comment. But, it was nice to see you finally acknowledged that ARists who engage in liberationist activities do risk their lives.

And don`t forget to comment on the 'criminals' who damaged propertery during the American Revolutionary war -- all that tea in the harbor and all their illegal acts of going against English authority. Don`t forget -- the victors write and choose who the romantics are and who were right. But even the loosers still get portrayed as right and romantic at times -- errrr Willam Wallace. Lots of heroes die and lose.

And then there is still Robin Hood you should brand as a criminal and not 'romantic' even though countless writers have bestowed his criminal activities with the mantle of hero/do gooder -- and the many fictional characters who have been penned/modeled after him.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

lol.
You still are behind in answering mine.
I answered your "if" question and you still have not reciprocated the courtesy of answering my question about the retarded children or the fatali accompli in regards to German companies that had profitted from Jewish slave labor.
-- not to mentioned you misquoted me with your "barb wire" comment. But, it was nice to see you finally acknowledged that ARists who engage in liberationist activities do risk their lives.

I honestly don't know about the retarded children in some respects, its a completely different topic, i do value human life more than animal life though and there would be some forms of experimentation that do agree with on people which already happens, so it depends on the circumstances- if you can kindly give me a true example of animal testing (with evidence to back it up that it actually happens in a civilised country like england) and ask me if i would agree to such a thing on people, then go ahead.
In general, i'm not one for answering vague/broad questions though, so please be more specific.

-- not to mentioned you misquoted me with your "barb wire" comment. But, it was nice to see you finally acknowledged that ARists who engage in liberationist activities do risk their lives.

Climbing over razor wire is neither a deadly experience either- you know how you get over it without any scrapes? Get a thick sheet of rubber and put it over the fence and then climb over the rubber (pond liner should be sufficient). It doesn't take a lot of brains to work than one out, tried and tested method by many people over time.

And don`t forget to comment on the 'criminals' who damaged propertery during the American Revolutionary war -- all that tea in the harbor and all their illegal acts of going against English authority. Don`t forget -- the victors write and choose who the romantics are and who were right. But even the loosers still get portrayed as right and romantic at times -- errrr Willam Wallace. Lots of heroes die and lose.

I hardly know anything about the American Revolutionary war, wasn't really one of those subjects i remember learning at school, but if you can give me a specific example then i may be able to answer it.

And then there is still Robin Hood you should brand as a criminal and not 'romantic' even though countless writers have bestowed his criminal activities with the mantle of hero/do gooder -- and the many fictional characters who have been penned/modeled after him.

Robin Hood is a fairy tale, a myth- please distinguish between real events and fairy tales. I suppose you will try and use king arthur or somthing next ;) .

[RockLee]

Seems you are desperately trying to find something to reply; You still didn't answer my last question either. I'd like it if you actually use arguements, not return the questions.

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Seems you are desperately trying to find something to reply; You still didn't answer my last question either. I'd like it if you actually use arguements, not return the questions.

Nope, not "desperately trying to find something to reply" at all, rather enjoying this thread with the guy who thinks a hamster should have the same rights as a billion people (i can't even start to write what is wrong with that, unless you really want me to) and the animal rights activist who just came back from an operation (what troubled you that caused you needed an operation by the way dear SVF?).
I'm not just returning questions either, i've used plenty of arguements (like the fact that many animals themselves cannot use morality at all which makes them less equal to us). If you can argue against that statement, like an animal like a rat can feel and show morality towards beings that don't directly personally interest it, then please go ahead.
Also, i have answered your question- if you want me to go deeper into it with you with have to give a particular circumstance, as i have mentioned to SVF, i'm generally not one for answering vague/broad questions that could apply to thousands of thinge etc...

[No-name]

Tokis-Phoenix-
I'm not certain that I am completely following the flow of this discussion. I too believe that humans are significantly more valuable than animals. I also have a heirarchy of which animals are worth more than others. As Maciamo's last post pointed out, there seems to be little reasoning for this value system, but I am still of the opinion that any human life is more valuable than Hamtaro the Hamster. Not only am I willing to test on animals to preserve human life, I am willing to allow it for our safety and certain conveniences as well. This is definitely a topic worth exploring.

[Mycernius]

In most peoples minds small, cuddly animals hold a higher rank above less cute animals.
Rabbits=cute and so more people object to testing on them
Rats= not so cute so less people care about them
Fruit fies=Ugly little brutes which nobody really cares, but are one of the most used animals for testing on, mainly because of their life cycle speed.

It isn't really down to moral objections for a lot of people, more down to looks and the 'Awww' factor. Sounds cynical doesn't it. but that is the real truth about it.