Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

UK to stop testing household products on


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

100% certain. It brought me to tears when my dog was lost for a few hours. I can't even bare the thought of harm coming to them. They are a huge part of my life and I love them with all my heart.

So when I see something like this in the video below from an undercover agent in an animal testing facility, I can tell you with almost certainty that if I was to see someone harming my dog in this way then the only thought in my mind would be to save my dog. I wouldn't be responsible for my actions. All I would be able to think about is my dog so their lives wouldn't mean anything to me, i'd just want to save my dog and I'd risk my own life doing it. I can definitely see myself causing fatal damage in this situation, not by choice, but because I see my dog as a very big part of my family.

In Yorkshire, at the animal testing facility there are puppies rigged up to tubes, forced into cramped cages while they are fed poison intravenously. A report showed that a third ar enot given an anaesthetic and euthanasia is not applied at the right time, so they are left to die of the poison.

*snip*

You know, in WW2 Jewish people were treated with the same respect. Do you think that's right? Obviously not, testing on humans will never be acceptable to you. But the only difference in animal testing and the death camps is your perception. And in both cases, it is the ultimate abuse of power. You can't cause so much harm and suffering because you think it will "make the world a better place". It wasn't acceptable in the death camps of WW2 and it should not be acceptable for animals to be treated in the same way.

It is people like you, who would call yourselves "moral citizens" who support such atrocities that allow this to happen. These testing facilities are death camps to abuse life for your own selfish purposes. How can you say you have morals when you allow animals to be tortured like this? These facilities bring little lives into the world and make them suffer. They didn't ask to be born, they don't want to be fed poison and tortured, what gives humans the right to treat them like this? The simple answer is we DON'T have the right, we simply abuse our power through our perception that theyr life is somehow worth less than ours, just as the Nazis did to the Jews. The comparisons are startling.

The only difference between me and you is that I see an animals life as much more, which is why I certainly am capable of killing someone if they harm my dog, just like I would if they harmed my children.

I don't think you people understand exactly what happens in these facilities. you sit and say "oh it is for the good our human kind".

3 million a year. Are you seriously going to condone actions like this 3 million times a year int eh search for supposed "miricle cures" which still escape us?

*snip*

I do know and understand what goes on and support vivisection 100%, you keep dogs to satisfy your own emotional cravings it has nothing to do with their well-being, it sounds as if you've lost touch with reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • mattavich123

    22

  • H.H. Holmes

    14

  • Dougal

    10

  • hetrodoxly

    6

I do know and understand what goes on and support vivisection 100%, you keep dogs to satisfy your own emotional cravings it has nothing to do with their well-being, it sounds as if you've lost touch with reality.

There will always be people like you who are indifferent to the pain of others and lack empathy with those around you.

However it is very hard for me to comprehend how someone can be so cold at the sight of another in excruciating pain. If someone is lacking the emotional structure to feel an empathy for others then they are losing grasp on reality.

What you call 2motional cravings" I call love. My dog is happy, I brought this dog to a great loving home and she is a part of my family.

Now, regardless of how I feel about my dog, there is a large gulf between "support vivisection 100%" and feeling empathy.

Do you not wonder how this animal feels while they bleed it for research which has already been completed and utterly useless as in the video I sent you?

You're going to tell everyone here you're happy to watch 20 dogs lay on the ground in pain with parts of their thigh muscles removed in research that was funded by dog food manufacturers that was also ultimately pointless?

I honestly just do not understand how people can say they support such brutality to animals. Most people simply do not realize and have not seen what happens in these facilities. They butcher these animals. Think of the worst pain and these animals will have felt it. How can you accept this?

Let me ask you a question. The Nazis conducted vivisection on Jewish people for the "greater good". Can you tell me why this was wrong of them to conduct this research?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will always be people like you who are indifferent to the pain of others and lack empathy with those around you.

However it is very hard for me to comprehend how someone can be so cold at the sight of another in excruciating pain. If someone is lacking the emotional structure to feel an empathy for others then they are losing grasp on reality.

What you call 2motional cravings" I call love. My dog is happy, I brought this dog to a great loving home and she is a part of my family.

Now, regardless of how I feel about my dog, there is a large gulf between "support vivisection 100%" and feeling empathy.

Do you not wonder how this animal feels while they bleed it for research which has already been completed and utterly useless as in the video I sent you?

You're going to tell everyone here you're happy to watch 20 dogs lay on the ground in pain with parts of their thigh muscles removed in research that was funded by dog food manufacturers that was also ultimately pointless?

I honestly just do not understand how people can say they support such brutality to animals. Most people simply do not realize and have not seen what happens in these facilities. They butcher these animals. Think of the worst pain and these animals will have felt it. How can you accept this?

Let me ask you a question. The Nazis conducted vivisection on Jewish people for the "greater good". Can you tell me why this was wrong of them to conduct this research?

Who gets to decide that puppies are akin to humans, but rats and insects aren't?

Sorry if it wasn't clear btw but my question about the insect and rat poison was aimed at everybody. Would you mind answering that please? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will always be people like you who are indifferent to the pain of others and lack empathy with those around you.

However it is very hard for me to comprehend how someone can be so cold at the sight of another in excruciating pain. If someone is lacking the emotional structure to feel an empathy for others then they are losing grasp on reality.

What you call 2motional cravings" I call love. My dog is happy, I brought this dog to a great loving home and she is a part of my family.

Now, regardless of how I feel about my dog, there is a large gulf between "support vivisection 100%" and feeling empathy.

Do you not wonder how this animal feels while they bleed it for research which has already been completed and utterly useless as in the video I sent you?

You're going to tell everyone here you're happy to watch 20 dogs lay on the ground in pain with parts of their thigh muscles removed in research that was funded by dog food manufacturers that was also ultimately pointless?

I honestly just do not understand how people can say they support such brutality to animals. Most people simply do not realize and have not seen what happens in these facilities. They butcher these animals. Think of the worst pain and these animals will have felt it. How can you accept this?

Let me ask you a question. The Nazis conducted vivisection on Jewish people for the "greater good". Can you tell me why this was wrong of them to conduct this research?

There will always be people like you who are indifferent to the pain of others and lack empathy with those around you, otherwise you'd support vivisection.

As anyone in your family been castrated? do you allow your dog to have a sex life? how many members of your family are attached to a chain when you go out? what other animals do you think should be kept to please the whim of Humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will always be people like you who are indifferent to the pain of others and lack empathy with those around you, otherwise you'd support vivisection.

As anyone in your family been castrated? do you allow your dog to have a sex life? how many members of your family are attached to a chain when you go out? what other animals do you think should be kept to please the whim of Humans.

I'm not indifferent to the pain of others, which is why I clearly do not support vivisection.

Your argument which tries to imply I am indifferent to the pain of animals because I allow one to live with me is retarded and weak. You are trying to outline hypocrisy without having a valid argument. My Cat and Dog enjoy their lives in my company. Emotionally they need me about as much as I need them.

In your attempt to accuse me of hypocrisy the only thing you've really done is highlight your own because we wouldn't be here if people didn't feel the need to pay attention to their emotions. So what you're really doing is accusing me of being a caring person, with which you are right.

Worst of all, you are trying to make the point that giving an animal a loving home is somehow equally as cruel as pointlessly testing poisons on the same animals is research facilities which exist mostly for ass kissing blue collars to get fat contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who gets to decide that puppies are akin to humans, but rats and insects aren't?

Sorry if it wasn't clear btw but my question about the insect and rat poison was aimed at everybody. Would you mind answering that please? :)

I don't know.

What I do know is when an animal is in excruciating pain.

I've been with dogs all my life and i've recently become accustomed to cats. They are very sensitivity and emotional creatures. I grew up with another dog called Max, he is still alive today and well cared for in my mother's house. He has the ability to smile when he gets excited. I don't know how he picked it up, but very often when I would come home, he would want to run to me, but he would stop and become shy and I would say his name as if he was a naughty child. He would smile and become embarrassed until I finally gave him some love, then eh was happy.

If a dog is capable of these type of emotions, then they are perfectly capable of being extremely scared, alone, cold, hurting emotionally. Worst of all is that these dogs did not ask to be born, they are here as a conciousness that can feel emotions just like we can and yet they are subjected to these horrific acts of cruelty and while the people subjecting them to this cruelty see them nothing more than disposable objects. Just as the Nazis did with the Jews.

Edited by mattavich123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not indifferent to the pain of others, which is why I clearly do not support vivisection.

Your argument which tries to imply I am indifferent to the pain of animals because I allow one to live with me is retarded and weak. You are trying to outline hypocrisy without having a valid argument. My Cat and Dog enjoy their lives in my company. Emotionally they need me about as much as I need them.

In your attempt to accuse me of hypocrisy the only thing you've really done is highlight your own because we wouldn't be here if people didn't feel the need to pay attention to their emotions. So what you're really doing is accusing me of being a caring person, with which you are right.

Worst of all, you are trying to make the point that giving an animal a loving home is somehow equally as cruel as pointlessly testing poisons on the same animals is research facilities which exist mostly for ass kissing blue collars to get fat contracts.

Your barking up the wrong tree,you appear to be stuck in a loop of wanting to be praised for being a caring person? i don't give two hoots if you are or not, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, you give animals the same rights as humans and go as far to suggest there's no difference from Nazis torturing Jews to animals being used in vivisection? using your logic it would have been OK if if the Nazis made Jews lie in the corner or put on a chain to be taken for a walk once every day? would you have one of your children castrated? etc, instead of coming back with abuse or a tale of how wonderful you are answer the question or admit animals don't have the same rights as humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your barking up the wrong tree,you appear to be stuck in a loop of wanting to be praised for being a caring person? i don't give two hoots if you are or not, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy, you give animals the same rights as humans and go as far to suggest there's no difference from Nazis torturing Jews to animals being used in vivisection? using your logic it would have been OK if if the Nazis made Jews lie in the corner or put on a chain to be taken for a walk once every day? would you have one of your children castrated? etc, instead of coming back with abuse or a tale of how wonderful you are answer the question or admit animals don't have the same rights as humans.

Your attempt at pointing out hypocrisy is completely flawed. You're trying to say that having the intelligence to keep my animal safe from getting knocked over by a car is somehow bad? What are you 12? I fulfil all the needs for my dog. I don't treat them like a human because they wouldn't understand. You want me to sit down and talk to my dog about safe sex now she is of age? Don't be ridiculous.

You are clearly not understanding what point i'm making. Animal testing facilities have startling similarities to how the Nazi's treated the Jews. Normal people know how the treatment of Jewish people by the Nazis was wrong. Yet people like you who support vivisection believe vivisection for animals is fine.

Nazis held the perspective that it was ok to abuse their powers for research and people like you hold the perspective that it is ok to abuse your power for research concerning animals.

In both cases the only difference is in perspective. It is highly hypocritical and very wrong.

You basically support torture. So you have no right to even question people who give animals a loving home with your hypocrisy.

Edited by mattavich123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your attempt at pointing out hypocrisy is completely flawed. You're trying to say that having the intelligence to keep my animal safe from getting knocked over by a car is somehow bad? What are you 12? I fulfil all the needs for my dog. I don't treat them like a human because they wouldn't understand. You want me to sit down and talk to my dog about safe sex now she is of age? Don't be ridiculous.

You are clearly not understanding what point i'm making. Animal testing facilities have startling similarities to how the Nazi's treated the Jews. Normal people know how the treatment of Jewish people by the Nazis was wrong. Yet people like you who support vivisection believe vivisection for animals is fine.

Nazis held the perspective that it was ok to abuse their powers for research and people like you hold the perspective that it is ok to abuse your power for research concerning animals.

In both cases the only difference is in perspective. It is highly hypocritical and very wrong.

You basically support torture. So you have no right to even question people who give animals a loving home with your hypocrisy.

The Nazi's medical research gained from abusing human prisoners was, almost without exception, useless to modern day academia.

Modern day vivisection and animal testing has yeilded great results contributing to the development of treatments for a number of conditions. Reference the list that I posted a couple of pages back.

Plus, you are forgetting the main point here that totally invalidates any comparison that you try to make with the Nazi medical experiments. Animals are not human beings. What the Nazis did was infinitely worse than any animal testing clinic. I actually find it insulting that you would make these animals analogous to the jews, since a common derogatory word for the jews was to think of them as "dogs" or "sub-humans". Sorry, but the two situation are not even comparable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nazi's medical research gained from abusing human prisoners was, almost without exception, useless to modern day academia.

Modern day vivisection and animal testing has yeilded great results contributing to the development of treatments for a number of conditions. Reference the list that I posted a couple of pages back.

Sorry but that's not true, more often than not the animal testing results are disregarded anyway. The same tests are run over and over again pointlessly and a third of animals are not euthanasia/anaesthetic at the correct time meaning they die a painful death.

Plus, you are forgetting the main point here that totally invalidates any comparison that you try to make with the Nazi medical experiments. Animals are not human beings. What the Nazis did was infinitely worse than any animal testing clinic. I actually find it insulting that you would make these animals analogous to the jews, since a common derogatory word for the jews was to think of them as "dogs" or "sub-humans". Sorry, but the two situation are not even comparable.

The only difference between animal testing supporters and a Nazis is their perception of the victims. Nazis perceived Jews to be lesser beings and you perceive animals to be lesser beings.

One thing is certain, perception is not fact. However, what is fact is that humans are also animals. All animals currently alive today are equally as evolved as us by the fact they are alive. Other animals also feel pain and emotions like us, especially evident in social animals like dogs.

Do you deny that animals are unwillingly subjected to testing and torture in animal testing facilities which resemble and work like death camps?

Anyone who is unbiased can easily see similarities between the death camps and animal testing facilities. The only difference is the animal being tested on. Each have cesspit's full of bodies. Each torture and run unnecessary tests on their victims. Each run a facility which prioritizes abusing the victims in a never ending cycle until death.

I have read Victor Frankl's "A man's search for meaning" and I have always paid a lot of interest to what happened in the death camps in Poland, so I perfectly understand the similarities.

Fighting animal testing is ultimately a battle of perceptions, because the fact will always remain, no matter how much you argue it, that these animals are being abused and tortured. You are supporting some real horrors, but again, you perceive the species of animal being victimized as much lesser beings. Which is a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your attempt at pointing out hypocrisy is completely flawed. You're trying to say that having the intelligence to keep my animal safe from getting knocked over by a car is somehow bad? What are you 12? I fulfil all the needs for my dog. I don't treat them like a human because they wouldn't understand. You want me to sit down and talk to my dog about safe sex now she is of age? Don't be ridiculous.

You are clearly not understanding what point i'm making. Animal testing facilities have startling similarities to how the Nazi's treated the Jews. Normal people know how the treatment of Jewish people by the Nazis was wrong. Yet people like you who support vivisection believe vivisection for animals is fine.

Nazis held the perspective that it was ok to abuse their powers for research and people like you hold the perspective that it is ok to abuse your power for research concerning animals.

In both cases the only difference is in perspective. It is highly hypocritical and very wrong.

You basically support torture. So you have no right to even question people who give animals a loving home with your hypocrisy.

I suggest it's your argument that's flawed in every aspect, you consider animals to have the same rights as humans but own them? for your argument and reasoning to work you should oppose pet ownership,you justify it for the sole reason "you" want to own one, i keep many animals i work on conservation, bird ringing etc. i love animals but I'm not hamstrung by some misplaced sentimentality, would i be right in thinking you are a vegetarian? if so your perversion prevents you from reasonable debate.

Edited by hetrodoxly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest it's your argument that's flawed in every aspect, you consider animals to have the same rights as humans but own them? for your argument and reasoning to work you should oppose pet ownership,you justify it for the sole reason "you" want to own one, i keep many animals i work on conservation, bird ringing etc. i love animals but I'm not hamstrung by some misplaced sentimentality, would i be right in thinking you are a vegetarian? if so your perversion prevents you from reasonable debate.

Exactly, it is hard arguing with someone with such distorted views. He clearly cannot understand the difference between a human being and an another animal, let alone the difference between the rights held between non-humans and humans.

Also, he fails to make the distinction between vivisection for medical research and those done for cosmetic companies or commercial purposes. I made it clear that I don't support any animal testing that isn't for the purpose of advancement of medical knowledge or to test new treatments for conditions, but he still PM's me research that was not done under real scientific scrutiny, nor did they represent the whole of the animal testing community or the common practices they use. He takes the worst cases of animals abuse in laboratories and extrapolates those instances to represent the whole of animal testing across the world.

That is faulty logic on it's face and he won't admit to it.

He also keeps spouting off this nonsense about how animal research isn't accepted or has been of value to medical research when I gave a list of scores of treatments which were developed, in part, due to animal research. The Nobel commitee disagrees with him, but I guess they are just part of the "sheeple" (as he put it) that are being duped by the evil researchers who profit from this testing (I don't know how, but apparently they do.). :rolleyes:

I don't really like debating with people who use insults to make a point, since it shows they have little to no substance to their actual argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lastly. I KNOW that scientists respect these animals because I've worked with them. I did a degree in Biochemistry and I worked day in day out with people who had to work on animals, I saw them get attacked by animal rights protesters, and I saw them try and explain to these people how 100 dead animals can save 100 million lives. Kindly, refrain from saying that I'm full of crap when you have no idea about me. It's rude and to be honest it makes you look pretty damn stupid.

Oh REALLY??? :rolleyes: Do you know every single scientist out there that has respect for the animals? :unsure: I think not. So please don't use your own personal experience with scientist when you don't know every single one in the world it's a rather pointless argument to say something like that. Also for you're information some scientist really don't care for the animal or have any respect at all for the animal. Some use them for experiments where they offer NO drugs to lessen the pain. In fact some seem to be sadistic in nature loving to see how the animals suffers to the pain from poisons, drugs, amputation, etc.... Let me get this straight you would like to have animals killed just SO YOU CAN have a better cleaning soap? :wacko: REALLY????? And no its not about babys being killed its about all humans from all ages YOU DON"T know who it will be anyone can be harmed, but I disgress. Also this about HOUSEHOLD PRODUTS that we already have we just want to make better.... SO you APPROVE of killing a few animals just to have a better cleaning material that is sad it really is..... Care to explain to me how this isn't torture by scientists after all you said scientists "respect" animals. :w00t:

Edited by Light009
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh REALLY??? :rolleyes: Do you know every single scientist out there that has respect for the animals? :unsure: I think not. So please don't use your own personal experience with scientist when you don't know every single one in the world it's a rather pointless argument to say something like that. Also for you're information some scientist really don't care for the animal or have any respect at all for the animal. Some use them for experiments where they offer NO drugs to lessen the pain.

So because I don't know every scientist personally I'm not allowed to say that they have respect for animals, yet other people are allowed to say that scientists have no respect and are sadistic? That's some rather intriguing logic you use there. Do you know every scientist personally.... no, yet you feel you can talk in generalisations about them as well.

In fact some seem to be sadistic in nature loving to see how the animals suffers to the pain from poisons, drugs, amputation, etc....

Evidence of this rather bold claim please, a youtube video will not be sufficient...

Let me get this straight you would like to have animals killed just SO YOU CAN have a better cleaning soap? :wacko: REALLY????? And no its not about babys being killed its about all humans from all ages YOU DON"T know who it will be anyone can be harmed, but I disgress.

If the testing ensures that a human life is saved, yes, I do support it. I might not like it, but there are certain necessary evils in this world that have to be accepted unfortunately. Personally I'd like there to be no animal testing, I'd like world peace and I'd like a toilet made of gold. These wishes are just that, wishes, we have to work with what we have, and right now animal testing is the best alternative to human testing we have.

Also this about HOUSEHOLD PRODUTS that we already have we just want to make better.... SO you APPROVE of killing a few animals just to have a better cleaning material that is sad it really is..... Care to explain to me how this isn't torture by scientists after all you said scientists "respect" animals. :w00t:

Where have I ever said that I support it for a "better cleaning material"? I do wish people would argue the point and not what they want to hear. I said I support animal testing to ensure that human lives are not put at risk, there's a whole world of difference.

Torture is far more about breaking somebody's will to get what you want from them, be it a confession or information. This is done to advance knowledge and to ensure that products being released to the public won't inadvertently kill people.

Also, please could you also answer my question about pesticides and rat poisons? I'd like to petition to the person who gets to arbitrarily decide that "vermin" and "pests" aren't important enough to complain about killing.

@Mattavich

I don't know.

What I do know is when an animal is in excruciating pain

Have you ever seen a poisoned rat, not the most pleasant thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So because I don't know every scientist personally I'm not allowed to say that they have respect for animals, yet other people are allowed to say that scientists have no respect and are sadistic? That's some rather intriguing logic you use there. Do you know every scientist personally.... no, yet you feel you can talk in generalisations about them as well.

No you shouldn't believe every single scientist has respect for the animals they test on when you only know a few furthermore when you say it like that it implies all of them do in which case not all do. Like I said some don't that does not mean I think all of them don't that is the reason why I said some.

Evidence of this rather bold claim please, a youtube video will not be sufficient...

Here's a few links to some: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animals-in-laboratories.aspx

http://www.veganpeace.com/animal_cruelty/animal_testing.htm

http://www.covancecruelty.com/

Do you think this is correct? =/

If the testing ensures that a human life is saved, yes, I do support it. I might not like it, but there are certain necessary evils in this world that have to be accepted unfortunately. Personally I'd like there to be no animal testing, I'd like world peace and I'd like a toilet made of gold. These wishes are just that, wishes, we have to work with what we have, and right now animal testing is the best alternative to human testing we have.

Again this is for HOUSEHOLDS PRODUCTS not some cure for cancer. I do support it if it were for certain things such as for the cure for cancer, however only if it’s done in a HUMANE way is there really any need to not give the animals some type of drug to lessen the damage they might get instead some don't give them anything to lessen the extent of damage they suffer.

Where have I ever said that I support it for a "better cleaning material"? I do wish people would argue the point and not what they want to hear. I said I support animal testing to ensure that human lives are not put at risk, there's a whole world of difference.

This:

However, if somebody starts making "fairy liquid" with a different chemical in it, yes, it should be tested. As I've said, I'd rather have a dead dog, as sad as that is, than a dead baby. I'm sorry if that offends you but I happen to value human life quite alot.

When matt was talking about "fairy liquid" he was talking about household products such as Clorox, bleach, soap, etc... Cleaning material falls into that category. If we already have such materials that are good enough why do we need to test it on animals just so we can have better one's? There's no need for it since most of the house hold products we have already do a good job.

Torture is far more about breaking somebody's will to get what you want from them, be it a confession or information. This is done to advance knowledge and to ensure that products being released to the public won't inadvertently kill people.

Allow me to give you 5 different meanings of what torture can mean:

1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

2. a method of inflicting such pain.

3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.

4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.

5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

Surely out of those 5 definitions 1 or 2 of them would fall under torture so YES some animals are tortured.

Also, please could you also answer my question about pesticides and rat poisons? I'd like to petition to the person who gets to arbitrarily decide that "vermin" and "pests" aren't important enough to complain about killing.

You did not ask me this until now perhaps you're confusing me for someone else? As for your question no I’ve never used rat poison. I've only used pesticides to kill roaches or other bugs. And before you say what's the difference the main difference is bugs feel NO PAIN.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you shouldn't believe every single scientist has respect for the animals they test on when you only know a few furthermore when you say it like that it implies all of them do in which case not all do. Like I said some don't that does not mean I think all of them don't that is the reason why I said some.

It's called speaking in generalities, admittedly perhaps not right, but I'm not really gonna sit here and list the people I know who've worked with animals.

No offence, but I think the website names kinda give away the stance of these websites already. Hugely biased websites rarely present unbiased evidence, rather they're much more likely to cherry pick the information that they want and present it in a not so flattering manner.

Again this is for HOUSEHOLDS PRODUCTS not some cure for cancer. I do support it if it were for certain things such as for the cure for cancer, however only if it’s done in a HUMANE way is there really any need to not give the animals some type of drug to lessen the damage they might get instead some don't give them anything to lessen the extent of damage they suffer.

If you see, my quote isn't refering to making a "better cleaning product" it's about ensuring that whatever changes are made don't lead to injuries down the line because a chemical wasn't tested thoroughly before being put into houses all over the world.

Allow me to give you 5 different meanings of what torture can mean:

1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

2. a method of inflicting such pain.

3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.

4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.

5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

Surely out of those 5 definitions 1 or 2 of them would fall under torture so YES some animals are tortured.

Because torture done to somebody/something is different than the noun torture in my opinion. What the animals feel may indeed be "torturous" however the scientists aren't torturing them. I'm sure that there may be a few scientists who enjoy causing animals pain, however I'm also certain that they're in the minority. I see absolutely no reason why animal testing should be stopped because a few scientists enjoy it.

You did not ask me this until now perhaps you're confusing me for someone else? As for your question no I’ve never used rat poison. I've only used pesticides to kill roaches or other bugs. And before you say what's the difference the main difference is bugs feel NO PAIN.

It was more a general question to everybody rather than directed at any specific person. Why though, is animal testing receiving so much attention whilst rat poisons are ignored? I'm all for people supporting what they believe in, but it irks me when people ignore much larger issues that are the same, to handle the cuter cuddlier ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't accept any evidence from sites like PETA, vegan sites, or militant animal rights groups. I don't trust them at all. I'm all for banning animal testing, but those organizations lie through their teeth.

I have no idea how a scientist could stand to watch a helpless animal be in horrible pain or die right in front of them. Even if it's for human good, you're seeing extreme suffering right in front of you. I doubt many of them really give a crap about the animals. How could they?

And I've heard of plenty stupid and useless tests done on animals. Separating a mother chimp from her baby to study levels of stress and depression. Crushing a dog's legs to test pain medication. Sewing cats' eyes shut.

What's more, labs are still supposed to follow animal rights laws, but they're rarely supervised. Laws stating that animals must be given pain medication unless it interferes with the test's results, for example. This is rarely done.

I agree with the above poster also! I believe inhumane rat traps and poisons should be banned. Unless it snaps their necks within two seconds, it's animal cruelty, and should be illegal. And I have no idea why people have such disdain for rats and mice. If you must kill them, fine, but there is no reason for cruelty. Why should it be acceptable to set sticky traps that you just throw away while the rat staves to death just because you think they're ugly?

Edited by clockworkgirl21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, I'm all ears if you know of a better means of testing the safety of various household products.

I must point out.....cruelty free versions of almost all household chemicals exist, and have done for a long time.

So Im not sure why you're worried that suddenly things are going to change drastically. There are very clearly safe ways of testing these products without torturing animals, because they've been available for many years.

I am against animal testing, and only buy products that are BUAV approved, from my make-up to my bleaches and toilet cleaners. The idea of household chemicals being animal friendly is not a new one, its just a new one en masse, and most people, sadly, don't give a damn if horrendous animal torture went into making their oven cleaner or washing up liquid.

In fact, until some years ago, even I didn't check what I bought. I knew full well the abuse that went on in these labs, and hated it, but I for some reason didn't make the step to actually boycott it until about 6 years ago.

But now, I will rigidly check labels. If its not animal friendly, I don't buy it. If I can't find an animal friendly alternative, I go without. You will not die without these products; it just makes life a little more awkward.

But Marks and Spencer and Co-Op have all their own brand make-ups and toiletries BUAV approved, so thats two options right there. As well as this, a lot of Tesco's own brand cleaners and such are animal friendly.

In fact, Im even a little more committed than just my cosmetics and cleaners: I won't buy anything made by procter and gamble, palmolive/colgate or unilever as they're the three biggest players in animal testing. So that means no pringles for me!

Its weird, its one area of animal abuse that people just seem to bury their heads in the sand about, yet you KNOW that if they had to watch these animals being tortured for their make-up or cleaning products, they'd find it incredibly distressing. I even know vegetarians who will fiercely argue about the cruelty involved in meat production, then you go to their house and find all their cleaners, make-ups, and chemicals are not animal friendly.

Im really not sure why there is this hypocrisy present. In fact, most veggies I know aren't too strict about the household products they buy, but are rabid about buying meat.

At the moment, you have to check the label of everything you buy to ensure it is either BUAV approved or at the very least, carries an alternative 'not tested on animals by us or our suppliers' label. I won't say its always easy. In fact, I went into Tesco the other day and couldn't find one single female shampoo that wasn't animal tested. Herbal essences, vosene, tres'ame (sp?), pantene etc, they're all animal tested. There wasn't one alternative to these brands on sale there.

So I went without. So yeah, sometimes its a pain in the rear. But well worth it.

I have 44 pet rats; whats the difference between them and the rats in the lab that are tortured to make these products?

Nothing. I would defend my own pets to the death against that kind of abuse, so I can't, in all good conscience, support it being done to other rats.

Clockworkgirl, I 100% agree with you on the poisons. Its a horrendous way to die. It takes a rat about 6-7 days to die of poison, and they slowly bleed to death from the inside. I've personally seen wild rats suffering from poison, and its absolutely heart-breaking to know the agony they're in (and yes, I did do the humane thing for them rather than leave them to suffer more days)

When you realise a rat is estimated to be as intelligent as a 3 year old child, you really understand the suffering they experience.

In our society here in the UK, we would not tolerate someone who was dishing this slow, painful death out to dogs or cats or most other animals. And yet people do it to rats without a second thought. It sickens me. Even people who claim to be 'animal lovers' will happily put out poison without even thinking of the torment they're inflicting on an animal that has equivalent intelligence to their toddler >:/

Added to which, poisons just don't work long term. All they do is kill off a few rats for as long as it takes the remaining ones to breed again, which is about 3 weeks. And the cycle begins again.

Take it from someone who has lived alongside rats every day for 14 years: the only way to get rid of rats successfully, long term, is to remove what attracts them, which is food. They don't stay where there isn't a food source. Remove the food, and the rats will move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He also keeps spouting off this nonsense about how animal research isn't accepted or has been of value to medical research when I gave a list of scores of treatments which were developed, in part, due to animal research.

There is also a huge list of drugs and treatments deemed safe for humans because of animal research, which later went on to kill or maim or deform a hell of a lot of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People don't care about "vermin". They just want to save the "cute and cuddly" animals because they have infantile features that appeal to a deep seeded need to nuture in all of us.

Stupidity being that if they actually looked at a rat, they'd see those exact same adorable features they see in dogs and cats. I mean.....tell me the below is not cute. I find rats much cuter than dogs or cats.

http://www.shadowrat.com/rats/roly1.png

http://www.shadowrat.com/rats/roly2.png

And this is without even acknowledging their incredible intelligence, sensitivity and social habits.

Yet people don't even give these animals a chance. Just today I had a woman come over to do a market research survey who found out I had pet rats, and instantly proceeded to tell me how she kills them, what methods are used, how dirty and diseased they are etc. People are incredibly ignorant when it comes to this species.

Edited by Rat Girl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They didn't outline any alternative means of testing these products.

Is there a viable substitute to animal testing in assessing the safety of these products? If not, then I think it is a bad idea. I'd rather have a couple hundred rabbits die than to have unsafe products out on the market which could potentially harm a person. Just my opinion, though.

Have you thought about trying it on politicians? After all they are useless, they are overbread and they cost too much to maintain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you thought about trying it on politicians? After all they are useless, they are overbread and they cost too much to maintain.

That would be a great idea if the demographics of politicians were less homogenous. Most of them seem to be rich white men, so there is not much diversity in that group, atleast in the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Herbal essences, vosene, tres'ame (sp?), pantene etc, they're all animal tested. There wasn't one alternative to these brands on sale there.

You could always make your own shampoo. I started doing that years ago and it's done wonders for my hair. It's also cheaper. Depending on how you make it, there won't be any sudsing action, but it still gets your hair clean and shiny. I've concocted a shampoo recently that makes my hair so soft and shiny I don't need conditioner any more. :yes:

I make my own cleaning products, too. Mainly because I have very low tolerance for commercial products. They give me migraines and asthma attacks.

This entire thread reminds me of the first real debate I ever really got involved in on UM. I still feel the same answer would please across the board. . .

Take prisoners sentenced to death, guilty of violent crimes, and test things on them!

That opinion aside. . .

We have come a long way in understand the human body since the early era of animal testing. It won't be long before the biochemical pathways that cause toxicity in humans will be found. It may take some time, it will probably be as daunting a task as the human genome project, but we are at least well on our way. New testing methods are being discovered all the time that reduce animal testings. Human cell-based genotoxicity tests are still flawed, but there have been improvements since its introduction. Even if it doesn't produce a viable alternative, it could lead to something that will.

Animal testing is horrible and awful, and should definitely not exist in a civilized world. However, if scientists truly loved it, they wouldn't be working so hard to find viable alternatives. The National Research Council and Society of Toxicology are working to do such right now. The process is moving towards something more mechanical, which will, in the end, dramatically reduce animal testing in that area.

Scientists are not all bad guys, and only the immensely cruel and evil ones would actually enjoy testing on animals. But if they were all like this. . .if even the majority was like this, we would not see the movements we see now. There are also companies that give out rewards to scientists that do discover viable alternatives that meet all government safety guidelines, which is extra incentive.

But it takes time, and a lot of it. In order for things like a computer simulation to work, we have to have A LOT of information, and that information takes a long time to discover.

That makes me happy, as I can't stand the thought of anything suffering. I don't like bug sprays, rat poisons, or anything else of that nature. I see no difference between a pest or something cute and cuddly. And, to be honest, the things that most people consider pests, I consider adorable. :wub:

But, to be honest, the only way to truly be a part of ending animal testing isn't to just be angry and shout about. Why not use the passion to become part of the solution? Go to school and get into the biology or medical field. The more people working out the intricacies of how the human body works, the closer we are to formulating new testing methods. :yes:

Edited by theGhost_and_theDarkness
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post, Ghost. I agree that alternatives to animals testing are the best route to go.

I don't agree with the notion that using poison or other means to exterminate harmful or invasive species is wrong.

I believe that some species are so harmful to the environment and ecosystems that their elimination is actually the morally vindicated action to take. Just look at the mice infestations of crops in India and Australia that have put farmers out of business and risk causing famine if not controlled properly. Or the feral pig infestations that destroy native fauna in Australia, Germany, Australia, and parts of North America. The only practical way to get rid of these species so that human and native species suffering is avoided is to kill them. I have no problem with that.

Mouse infestations of crops in Australia

Wild pigs can cause a variety of damage. The most common complaint is rooting (sometimes called grubbing), resulting in the destruction of crops and pastures. Damage to farm ponds and watering holes for livestock is another common problem. Predation on domestic stock and wildlife has been a lesser problem in North America.

Damage to crops and rangeland by wild pigs is easily identified. Rooting in wet or irrigated soil is generally quite visible, but can vary from an area of several hundred square feet (m2) or more to only a few small spots where the ground has been turned over. Rooting destroys pasture, crops, and native plants, and can cause soil erosion. Wallows are easily seen around ponds and streams. Tracks of adult hogs resemble those made by a 200- pound (90-kg) calf. Where ground is soft, dewclaws will show on adult hog tracks. Wild pig depredation on certain forest tree seedlings has been a concern of foresters in the South and West. Wild pigs have destroyed fragile plant communities in Great Smoky Mountains National Park and other preserves. They have been known to damage fences when going into gardens and can do considerable damage to a lawn or golf course in a single night.

In California, wild pigs have entered turkey pens, damaging feeders, eating the turkey feed, and allowing birds to escape through damaged fences. Wild pigs in New South Wales, Australia, reportedly killed and ate lambs on lambing grounds. Producers in Texas and California reported to USDAAPHIS- ADC that 1,473 sheep, goats, and exotic game animals were killed by wild pigs in 1991. Predation usually occurs on lambing or calving grounds, and some hogs become highly efficient predators. Depredation to calves and lambs can be difficult to identify because these small animals may be killed and completely consumed, leaving little or no evidence to determine whether they were killed or died of other causes and then were eaten. Determining predation by wild hogs is possible if carcasses are not entirely eaten, because feral hogs follow a characteristic feeding pattern on lambs (Pavlov and Hone 1982). Photographs and additional information on wild pig predation may be found in the booklet by Wade and Bowns (1982).

Always be aware of the potential for disease transmission when feral hogs are associated with domestic livestock. Cholera, swine brucellosis, trichinosis, bovine tuberculosis, foot and mouth disease, African swine fever, and pseudorabies are all diseases that may be transmitted to livestock (Wood and Barrett 1979). Bovine tuberculosis was transmitted to beef cattle by wild hogs on the Hearst Ranch in California in 1965. Pork that was infected with hog cholera brought into Kosrae Island in the East Carolinas resulted in the decimation of all domestic and feral hogs on the island.

Feral Pig Info

While I think that demanding that an animal's life is to be respected and that humane treatment should be a top priority, I don't believe that being humane is always the wisest decision in dealing with some animals, especially when they are damaging to native ecosystems. Humans can't let species damage crops and destroy livelihoods, either. To expect farmers and those who subsist off agriculture to just let animals overrun and damage their only source of income is totally irrational, so is the reaction that I see from many who claim to be "animal lovers" who demonize these people for killing these species out of necessity.

There is a point where "animal rights" goes too far and ignores the realities that societies face in dealing with what are traditionally called "pests". It would be great if we could live in harmony with nature, not have to constantly fight a battle against it. However, the reality is that sometimes some animals do need to suffer so that human prosperity can go on. Nature doesn't care whether the human race is here tomorrow or not, it is up to us to sustain our existence by any means possible.

Killing animals for medical testing is a part of that, as long as it is necessary, and I believe that the sacrifices of those animals who do get tested will benefit not only mankind, but even other animals as well. How many animal treatments for a variety of conditions were tested on animals, from heartworm medications to diabetes medications that are used to treat diabetic dogs (there are diabetic dogs out there)? Why do people tend to focus only on the sacrifices instead of the end result, which is usually beneficial for all life, including human?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the notion that using poison or other means to exterminate harmful or invasive species is wrong.

Poison is not the way to deal with 'harmful' species. Its inhumane, ineffective and potentially damaging to other species.

If people must kill 'harmful' or 'invasive' species, poison is the inhumane route.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.