Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: ("AT stands for "animal tested" or "animal testing").

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • I wouldn’t take AT (whatever the animal)medicine/treatments even if my life depended on it.

    0 0%
  • I would take AT (whatever the animal) medicine/treatments if my life depended on it.

    10 52.63%
  • I would take AT medicine/treatments if I was in great discomfort but my life wasn’t at stake.

    8 42.11%
  • I would any AT medicines/treatments if I felt I needed them.

    10 52.63%
  • I wouldn’t support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments even if they needed it badly.

    0 0%
  • I would support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments if they needed it badly.

    9 47.37%
  • I would support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments depending on the situation.

    10 52.63%
  • I wouldn’t use AT animal hygiene products whatever they were- would rather live in dirt.

    4 21.05%
  • I would only use some AT hygiene products but only if I really needed them.

    7 36.84%
  • I would use any AT hygiene products If they were good/I needed them.

    4 21.05%
  • I wouldn’t support AT for warfare/weapons even if my countries survival depended on them.

    6 31.58%
  • I would support some AT for warfare/weapons if they would save loads of my peoples lives in war.

    9 47.37%
  • I would support AT for warfare/weapons if it enabled us to kick the enemies ass.

    2 10.53%
  • I would support any AT for warfare/weapons.

    0 0%
  • All AT is wrong whatever the animal involved.

    3 15.79%
  • Most of AT is wrong whatever the animal involved.

    3 15.79%
  • AT is only wrong if the animal is intelligent(like an ape).

    1 5.26%
  • Most AT is ok, but sometimes wrong.

    7 36.84%
  • AT is generally ok in my opinion.

    5 26.32%
  • Other…

    1 5.26%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 156

Thread: Animal testing, your feelings?

  1. #76
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom





    Do you have anything to say directly to my last post though?

  2. #77
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Researchers know how to get money from government grants and foundations. Use lots of mice with conclusions that read, “more research needed” -- of course after giving some ray of hope for future treatment built on this innitial research. Get published in a scientific journal and get that reputation machine in gassed up. The system is built on that and mice are the fuel.

    From the same source above in Fortune Magazine:

    ...the cancer community has published an extraordinary 150,855 experimental studies on mice, according to a search of the PubMed database. Guess how many of them have led to treatments for cancer? Very, very few. In fact, if you want to understand where the War on Cancer has gone wrong, the mouse is a pretty good place to start.


    "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
    --Albert Einstein

  3. #78
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Um yeah, SVF, but what do you have to say directly to my second last post?

  4. #79
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    Do you have anything to say directly to my last post though?
    Sure. You caught me between posts again. You should learn to give people some time before assuming they are avoiding your posts. I would say 20 to 30 mins is quite acceptable.
    -------------------------------------------

    I have nothing wrong with people finding a cure for cancer -- so long as the funds are used as efficiently as possible and do not violate the integrity of unwilling beings which suffer and feel pain.

    As for your personal anecdote about your friend -- personally I doubt it is or was as you described. Of course I have no access to his personal records and I don`t think you can provide them -- so I can`t give it credence. Sorry.

    The other parts of your post are touched on/addressed in my #75 and #77.

  5. #80
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Sure. You caught me between posts again. You should learn to give people some time before assuming they are avoiding your posts. I would say 20 to 30 mins is quite acceptable.
    -------------------------------------------
    I have nothing wrong with people finding a cure for cancer -- so long as the funds are used as efficiently as possible and do not violate the integrity of unwilling beings which suffer and feel pain.
    As for your personal anecdote about your friend -- personally I doubt it is or was as you described. Of course I have no access to his personal records and I don`t think you can provide them -- so I can`t give it credence. Sorry.
    The other parts of your post are touched on/addressed in my #75 and #77.
    So you are against animal testing for cancer research, despite it providing the large bulk or the medicines and knowledge we have today to treat cancer. So you basically value animal life over human life when one could be saved with the other.

    "A lot of new recipes that come every year that contain new ingredients are animal tested, like when people first invented hydronated vegetable oil, that would have had to have been animal tested to make sure it was safe for human consumption. The same goes for a lot of preservatives, flavorings, e-numbers etc."

    So thats my answer to your ignorance of animal testing on food products. Yes it does happen, even on vegetarian foods. Not everything vegetarian, or even vegan, is animal friendly u'know.
    And i don't have time to wait 20 to 30mins for you to answer, otherwise i'd be here night and day to wait upon you, which like most people, i see as unesarsary.

    Hey SVF, if you were dying of cancer, would you accept animal tested cancer treatments to cure you if they were you only chance of getting rid of the desease?

  6. #81
    旅人 Achievements:
    1 year registered
    RockLee's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-04-04
    Location
    Belgium, Limburg
    Age
    36
    Posts
    356


    Ethnic group
    european
    Country: Belgium



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    So you are against animal testing for cancer research, despite it providing the large bulk or the medicines and knowledge we have today to treat cancer. So you basically value animal life over human life when one could be saved with the other.
    Why should you value human life over animal life? Do you think you are better than animals because you can talk?

    "A lot of new recipes that come every year that contain new ingredients are animal tested, like when people first invented hydronated vegetable oil, that would have had to have been animal tested to make sure it was safe for human consumption. The same goes for a lot of preservatives, flavorings, e-numbers etc."
    So thats my answer to your ignorance of animal testing on food products. Yes it does happen, even on vegetarian foods. Not everything vegetarian, or even vegan, is animal friendly u'know.
    To show YOUR ignorance...You said "when people FIRST invented". Do you know when that "first" was? Do you know what happens in every vegetarian-food manufacturing company? Posting a random article isn't actually a good reference you know.

    And i don't have time to wait 20 to 30mins for you to answer, otherwise i'd be here night and day to wait upon you, which like most people, i see as unesarsary.
    If you are that impatient it's your problem, others don't have to be like you, do they?
    小豆研ぐか、人取ってくおか、ショキショキ〜♪
    Azuki togu ka, hito totte kuo ka, shoki shoki〜♪

  7. #82
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    I value human life over animal life. The talking, thinking, sentient, self aware, tool using, bipods get all the bonus points... all the priveleges and all the marbles in the jar. Do I need a reason? My reason is somewhat proximal because I identify with members of my species. It is our frame of reference... how we arange and direct our resources and how we as a species set our priorities.

  8. #83
    Satyavrata Achievements:
    Three FriendsRecommendation First ClassVeteran50000 Experience PointsTagger First Class
    Maciamo's Avatar
    Join Date
    17-07-02
    Location
    Lothier
    Posts
    8,696
    Points
    697,304
    Level
    100
    Points: 697,304, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 27.0%


    Ethnic group
    Italo-celto-germanic
    Country: Belgium - Brussels



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    I value human life over animal life. The talking, thinking, sentient, self aware, tool using, bipods get all the bonus points...
    This raises an interesting point for discussion. If we were to come into contact with a more intelligent species (e.g. from another planet), who also had more elaborate language and reasoning, deeper feelings, more self-awareness, better technology, etc., would you value their life more than a human life, despite being a human ? Or is what you mentioned above just bs and the real reason you value human life over animal life is because your are a human (and that's it) ?
    My book selection---Follow me on Facebook and Twitter --- My profile on Academia.edu and on ResearchGate ----Check Wa-pedia's Japan Guide
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "What is the use of living, if it be not to strive for noble causes and to make this muddled world a better place for those who will live in it after we are gone?", Winston Churchill.

  9. #84
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo
    This raises an interesting point for discussion. If we were to come into contact with a more intelligent species (e.g. from another planet), who also had more elaborate language and reasoning, deeper feelings, more self-awareness, better technology, etc., would you value their life more than a human life, despite being a human ? Or is what you mentioned above just bs and the real reason you value human life over animal life is because your are a human (and that's it) ?
    //If// that happens, we would have to decide then... I'm not certain that a more elaborate language and reasoning, deeper feeling and more self awareness is what makes our species superior. They would definitely cause greater consideration for that species. Better technology however, may make the point moot. I would however probably continue to be "human-centric" in my thinking. It is a common value system among my species as evident in our laws, customs and diets.

    I do not consider the life of a plant equivalent to the life of my cat... or a bug equal to a bird. Nor do I consider the value of the life of my dog equal to that of my son. There is a certain species superiority present in this chain of thinking that I feel strongly about-- don't dispatch an ambulance when a dog gets hit, in favor of the human for whom it is intended. If there was an epidemic killing humans and birds and a vaccine that would prevent it- I would favor giving the vaccine only to the humans and possibly destroying hundreds if not thousands of birds to protect the human population. It may just be because I am human that I believe this way, but that does not invalidate this value system that most of humanity shares.

  10. #85
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by RockLee
    Why should you value human life over animal life? Do you think you are better than animals because you can talk?
    Well if i was stuck on a desert island and there was some guy and a rabbit and i was starving to death and they were the only things i could eat, i would eat the rabbit without any question. Perhaps you would eat the guy, because you see no difference in human and animal life, but i would definately go for the rabbit.
    If you were in a burning house and there was a dog and a woman inside, who would you pull out first if you were the only person who could and it was a life or death situation?
    Just because i believe human life is more valuable over animal life does not mean i think we can do whatever we want to animals, but if one can be saved with the other, i think human life is more valuable.

    Quote Originally Posted by RockLee
    To show YOUR ignorance...You said "when people FIRST invented". Do you know when that "first" was? Do you know what happens in every vegetarian-food manufacturing company? Posting a random article isn't actually a good reference you know.
    "The first patent for the hydrogenation process was in 1903 by William Norman. The first patent for hydrogenated cottonseed oil was in 1911. This is the same year that Proctor and Gamble came out with Crisco oil. Crisco was acombination of hydrogenated palm and cottonseed oil, mixed with lard and animal fats. People then were not purchasing it, so P&G started giving it away, literally. The patent was purchased by a major food producing company. In 1937, a new patent was filed by a Dr. Ellis working for a major oil company. He improved the process by separating certain fats for commercial use. Since then, additional patents have been filed for different methods of these processes. These patents from 1976 to present can be found at the U.S. Office of Patents and Trademarks on the internet. Prior to 1976, patent searches must be done to find the original patents.";

    http://www.dldewey.com/columns/hydroilf.htm

    Hydrogenated vegetable oil is often used as a preservative in foods. Food preservatives are animal tested.


    Quote Originally Posted by RockLee
    If you are that impatient it's your problem, others don't have to be like you, do they?
    Rocklee, rocklee...

    "Animal testing to find a cure could save billions of lives.

    Who is more important; one hamster or a billion people?

    Finally, think of this - could you honestly look a dying person in the eyes and tell them they must die to protect the rights of a mouse?

    Who would you rather survived; one mouse or your mother?"


    The kid makes a good point;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/ne...00/4095612.stm

  11. #86
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    I believe that more human lives can be improved and saved by spending money on drugs that already exist for curable diseases in third world countries (or disaster relief etc.) than by spending it on research(animal or not) on predominantly western diseases.

    I also believe that more animal lives can be improved and saved by opposing factory farming rather than animal testing. And infact that visible protests against animal testing can have the reverse effect.

  12. #87
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by KrazyKat
    I believe that more human lives can be improved and saved by spending money on drugs that already exist for curable diseases in third world countries (or disaster relief etc.) than by spending it on research(animal or not) on predominantly western diseases.

    I also believe that more animal lives can be improved and saved by opposing factory farming rather than animal testing. And infact that visible protests against animal testing can have the reverse effect.
    Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like measles, rabies and mumps.

    Drugs to fight the effects of HIV and cancer rely on animal tests.

    Operations on animals helped to develop organ transplant and open-heart surgery techniques.

    Animal testing ironically has also help create medicines for animals.

    If it weren't for animal testing, then i wonder how many of us would be here right now on this forum...Perhaps quite a few of us wouldn't be here. You also have to consider that a lot of the current drugs we have to cure us of our deseases and things are animal tested, and if people like SVF were in charge they wouldn't be there at all.

    I wonder what he feels about animal testing for the benefet of animals (like finding cures for animal illnesses and things).

  13. #88
    旅人 Achievements:
    1 year registered
    RockLee's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-04-04
    Location
    Belgium, Limburg
    Age
    36
    Posts
    356


    Ethnic group
    european
    Country: Belgium



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    Well if i was stuck on a desert island and there was some guy and a rabbit and i was starving to death and they were the only things i could eat, i would eat the rabbit without any question. Perhaps you would eat the guy, because you see no difference in human and animal life, but i would definately go for the rabbit.
    What use if I would die afteral? The rabbit would only be a small meal, and after that I'd die from hunger anyways. Also, who says the other guy wouldn't try and kill me to get the rabbit?

    If you were in a burning house and there was a dog and a woman inside, who would you pull out first if you were the only person who could and it was a life or death situation?
    Honestly, I wouldn't know. I don't know how I would act in that situation, do you?

    Just because i believe human life is more valuable over animal life does not mean i think we can do whatever we want to animals, but if one can be saved with the other, i think human life is more valuable.
    I don't value animal life over human life, I think animals should be treated as nature intended to. We eat them for survival, I can agree with that. But I think animal testing is downright cruel and should be stopped. There are other ways to test medicines, etc.



    "The first patent for the hydrogenation process was in 1903 by William Norman. The first patent for hydrogenated cottonseed oil was in 1911. This is the same year that Proctor and Gamble came out with Crisco oil. Crisco was acombination of hydrogenated palm and cottonseed oil, mixed with lard and animal fats. People then were not purchasing it, so P&G started giving it away, literally. The patent was purchased by a major food producing company. In 1937, a new patent was filed by a Dr. Ellis working for a major oil company. He improved the process by separating certain fats for commercial use. Since then, additional patents have been filed for different methods of these processes. These patents from 1976 to present can be found at the U.S. Office of Patents and Trademarks on the internet. Prior to 1976, patent searches must be done to find the original patents.";
    http://www.dldewey.com/columns/hydroilf.htm
    Hydrogenated vegetable oil is often used as a preservative in foods. Food preservatives are animal tested.
    How can u say that for certain? Don't you think that using animals to test vegetarian food would be the opposite of their purpose?

    Rocklee, rocklee...
    Yes?


    "Animal testing to find a cure could save billions of lives.
    Who is more important; one hamster or a billion people?
    Finally, think of this - could you honestly look a dying person in the eyes and tell them they must die to protect the rights of a mouse?
    Who would you rather survived; one mouse or your mother?"

    The kid makes a good point;
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/ne...6004095612.stm
    But then again, it couldn't. So I guess it's just human nature to look for excuses and use the "but if..."

    I think 1 hamster should have the same rights as a billion people because it is as we are a living being. We should not deny another living creature the same rights we have.

    The kid is a kid, if he could think or reason at a more adult level he would see he is wrong. If that person is dying, nothing can save him imho.

  14. #89
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by RockLee
    Honestly, I wouldn't know. I don't know how I would act in that situation, do you?
    Yep, while you were thinking over who you are going to save first, i would be saving the woman.

    Quote Originally Posted by RockLee
    I don't value animal life over human life, I think animals should be treated as nature intended to. We eat them for survival, I can agree with that. But I think animal testing is downright cruel and should be stopped. There are other ways to test medicines, etc.
    Oh, so you think its fine if somone eats an animal for survival, but they are not allowed to use it to find a cure to help them survive a desease for example?
    Nature intended us to kill and eat animals, thats the way we are evolved- we are also evolved to do whats best for our species, and if that means saving human lives via animals then so be it.

    Quote Originally Posted by RockLee
    How can u say that for certain? Don't you think that using animals to test vegetarian food would be the opposite of their purpose?
    Not all vegetarians are vegetarians because they disagree with the way animals are treated, some people like my fiance simply don't like the way meat tastes for example, so no, it doesn't really oppose the point of vegetarianism depending on what you are in it for.

    Quote Originally Posted by RockLee
    But then again, it couldn't. So I guess it's just human nature to look for excuses and use the "but if..."
    I think 1 hamster should have the same rights as a billion people because it is as we are a living being. We should not deny another living creature the same rights we have.
    The kid is a kid, if he could think or reason at a more adult level he would see he is wrong.
    What is wishful thinking? We have already proven that animal testing works numerous times.
    Your wishful thinking is that a hamster should have the same rights as a billion people.

    Quote Originally Posted by RockLee
    If that person is dying, nothing can save him imho.
    If somone is dying then there can be plenty of things done to save their life depending on what they are dying of, and with more animal testing and better technology we can cure even more things that can kill people.
    If you were dying before your time, and your life could be saved via treatments that had been animal tested, would you take it?

  15. #90
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Pheonix
    Hey SVF, if you were dying of cancer, would you accept animal tested cancer treatments to cure you if they were your only chance of getting rid of the desease?
    Tokis-Pheonix, are you going to start playing personal hypothetical “if” game questions? If so, are you going to give me the same courtesy of answering mine? I don`t mind a little “quid pro quo” so long as we both agree to play.

    First off, what if I answer “no” to your question above? Does it change anything from your perspective? You wouldn`t be able to confirm anyway what I would or would not do in my personal life.

    Now, what if I answer “yes”? At worst, I am a hypocrite. But that still does not change the truth that to violate the integrity of a beings body or to cause them pain and suffering for one`s own benefit is wrong. My personal answer is independent of the message that it is wrong to cause suffering based on “might makes right.”

    Here is my hypothetical question for you: Many, if not most German companies that have survived from WW2 up to the present had benefitted from slave labor forced upon the Jews of that era. So, is everyone a hypocrite who professes to be against slavery but purchases, or in some way has a dealing with German companies who benefited from slavery in the past?

    Yes, they may be hypocrites, along with any animal rightist who takes an aspirin to soothe a headache -- but there is the concept of “fatali accompli” which relieves people from the burdens of trying to be so idealistic that they need not try to change everything in the past that was wrong.

    Sure, the contracts that the U.S. or colonial powers used to steal the American Indians’ lands were wrong and done under coercion or deceptive manners -- but the U.S. is not going to legislate itself out of existence, or the colonial powers are not going to empty their coffieurs to pay the compensation that is rightfully due. Why? Because of the concept of “fatali accompli.”

    But, back to the “if” game:

    If I had cancer and a cure or treatment for it could only be found by me pointing a finger at 100 monkeys in a breeding farm and command that they be tested on to create medicine for me -- I would not do so because I don`t think we personally have the right to make those decisions on other living beings.

    Here is your “if” 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, “take them to the experimental room”?

    Remember... just the two of us playing hypothetical “if” games.

    -------------------------------------------
    *Btw, thanks this time for being patient for my answer in coming. You didn`t rush me this time. I purposely didn`t post for a while so that others could come into the discussion and give a chance for Q&A without break-ins from me. I could see that it was going to turn into a "You and I" discussion, of which I think is less valuable compared to having more participants.

  16. #91
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    I'd eat the rabbit and the guy, and then take up fishing

  17. #92
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Tokis-Pheonix, are you going to start playing personal hypothetical “if” game questions? If so, are you going to give me the same courtesy of answering mine? I don`t mind a little “quid pro quo” so long as we both agree to play.
    First off, what if I answer “no” to your question above? Does it change anything from your perspective? You wouldn`t be able to confirm anyway what I would or would not do in my personal life.
    Now, what if I answer “yes”? At worst, I am a hypocrite. But that still does not change the truth that to violate the integrity of a beings body or to cause them pain and suffering for one`s own benefit is wrong. My personal answer is independent of the message that it is wrong to cause suffering based on “might makes right.”
    If you would accept animal tested treatments to save your lfie then you are very hypocritical. On the one hand, you would more than happily deny dying people of animal tested treatments if you could save the rights of animals, on the other hand you would take those very treatments yourself to save your own life.
    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. In fact, i think animal rights protesters like you should be denied medicines and treatments and things that have been animal tested- even if you die slowly and suffering for your cause, there's no point in preaching to others if you don't or wouldn't change yourself.
    Despite the many animal rights activist people here who are strongly against animal testing, not a single one of you have voted you would rather die than take animal tested treatments- if you are really honest about what you are in this for, maybe you should make an honest example to the rest. But i don't think you will, because deep down, you value your own life more than a rats.


    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Remember... just the two of us playing hypothetical “if” games.
    Ah, no "if game", just making a point

  18. #93
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Last night I was driving home up a winding mountain road when a field mouse darted across the road. I may have hit it, but I hope I didn't. I continued driving and quickly forgot and went to sleep.

    Had it been a human crossing my path-- I would have stopped to make certain that he or she was okay. The law would have required me to stop and render aid if a human was injured and to stay on the scene, but beyond that I would have had an ethical and moral duty to do so. A great number of costly resources would have been put into action involving dozens of people and expensive equipment. In spite of the fact that it would not have been my fault, I would have gotten no sleep.

    I do not give this field mouse equal consideration. I don't consider animals the equal of humans and I certainly place a significantly higher value on human life than on that of one mouse or a hundred mice. We kill mice every day to protect our food sources and as vector control for disease, and many others simply as an accidental by-product of human activity. If the death of a few dozen mice can actually improve the lives of humans, I would certainly support it.

  19. #94
    旅人 Achievements:
    1 year registered
    RockLee's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-04-04
    Location
    Belgium, Limburg
    Age
    36
    Posts
    356


    Ethnic group
    european
    Country: Belgium



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    If you would accept animal tested treatments to save your lfie then you are very hypocritical. On the one hand, you would more than happily deny dying people of animal tested treatments if you could save the rights of animals, on the other hand you would take those very treatments yourself to save your own life.
    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. In fact, i think animal rights protesters like you should be denied medicines and treatments and things that have been animal tested- even if you die slowly and suffering for your cause, there's no point in preaching to others if you don't or wouldn't change yourself.
    Stop assuming things. You don't know what other people think.

    Despite the many animal rights activist people here who are strongly against animal testing, not a single one of you have voted you would rather die than take animal tested treatments- if you are really honest about what you are in this for, maybe you should make an honest example to the rest. But i don't think you will, because deep down, you value your own life more than a rats.
    Again, who do you think you are? You should stop making assumptions.

  20. #95
    旅人 Achievements:
    1 year registered
    RockLee's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-04-04
    Location
    Belgium, Limburg
    Age
    36
    Posts
    356


    Ethnic group
    european
    Country: Belgium



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    Last night I was driving home up a winding mountain road when a field mouse darted across the road. I may have hit it, but I hope I didn't. I continued driving and quickly forgot and went to sleep.

    Had it been a human crossing my path-- I would have stopped to make certain that he or she was okay. The law would have required me to stop and render aid if a human was injured and to stay on the scene, but beyond that I would have had an ethical and moral duty to do so. A great number of costly resources would have been put into action involving dozens of people and expensive equipment. In spite of the fact that it would not have been my fault, I would have gotten no sleep.
    If it was a dog or a cat, would you not have gone back and checked either?

    I do not give this field mouse equal consideration. I don't consider animals the equal of humans and I certainly place a significantly higher value on human life than on that of one mouse or a hundred mice. We kill mice every day to protect our food sources and as vector control for disease, and many others simply as an accidental by-product of human activity. If the death of a few dozen mice can actually improve the lives of humans, I would certainly support it.
    It's not only mice that are used for tests. Do you agree on running tests on people then? Like history showed us, people used to do all kind of experiments on humans. Do you approve of this? An animal has feelings too, and emotions. It experiences pain, just like humans. But I doubt you'd approve on running tests on humans, the way they are done on animals.

  21. #96
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    A dog or a cat on our mountain road would be an anomoly, but I probably would not. I saw a black bear struck by a car and pulled over and then thought, "What the heck am I doing?" Either the bear was dead, in which case I was stopping for nothing, or it was alive... in which case I didn't need to stop.

    You are quite correct, I would not approve of running tests on humans the way they have are done on animals. And I already said that I do not consider humans and animals equally. I have no problem in general with using animals for tests. I do think a strong code of ethics needs to be applied. I do have a problem testing on humans, significantly more care needs to be taken. We do test on humans, but usually after animal trials are finished and with significantly more stringent safeguards and limits.

    I don't know if animals have feelings and emotions "just like humans." They do seem to have some faculty, but it is difficult to know if I am anthropomorphizing and reading more into their responses than is really there.

  22. #97
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by RockLee
    Stop assuming things. You don't know what other people think.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by RockLee
    Again, who do you think you are? You should stop making assumptions.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by RockLee
    It's not only mice that are used for tests. Do you agree on running tests on people then? Like history showed us, people used to do all kind of experiments on humans. Do you approve of this? An animal has feelings too, and emotions. It experiences pain, just like humans. But I doubt you'd approve on running tests on humans, the way they are done on animals.
    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.

  23. #98
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    If I hit a dog or a cat in a city, I would probably stop because it is likely to be someone's pet. It might have tags and numbers and there almost certainly would be a place to treat a wounded animal nearby. Picking up any animal in the mountains however would probably be ill advised.

    Also hitting a larger mammal would probably be a bit more disturbing and might give me a much greater pause. Small rodents, especially squirrels are quite common on our mountain roads and get hit every day. Neither contemporary social morals or California law require that we stop in such cases.

  24. #99
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by sabro
    If I hit a dog or a cat in a city, I would probably stop because it is likely to be someone's pet. It might have tags and numbers and there almost certainly would be a place to treat a wounded animal nearby. Picking up any animal in the mountains however would probably be ill advised.

    Also hitting a larger mammal would probably be a bit more disturbing and might give me a much greater pause. Small rodents, especially squirrels are quite common on our mountain roads and get hit every day. Neither contemporary social morals or California law require that we stop in such cases.
    If i hit a mouse in my car i may stop to move it to the side of the road (to prevent scavengers getting hit by cars trying to eat it in the middle of the road), but to be honest a mouse isn't going to survive a car going over it even at 10mph.

    If i hit a dog or a cat it would have more chance of surviving a car accident (although still pretty minimal), but as you said somone might own it and would appreiciate having it back instead of finding it flattened on the tarmac a week later.

  25. #100
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    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.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-03-19, 14:12
  2. Animal Rights
    By Tsuyoiko in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 20-10-13, 22:41
  3. Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty
    By strongvoicesforward in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 17-06-06, 15:28
  4. Animal speech
    By RockLee in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22-05-06, 09:06

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •