Animal Testing: For or Against? - Chess Forums - Page 15

kiwi-inactive · 2015-02-23T23:19:04-08:00

ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST ANIMAL TESTING? Background A History of Animals and Chess Animal themes can make popular board games, especially for people who are not normally gamers. Modern releases like Takenoko, where players care for a panda, and Hive, an abstract battle between insects, have found man

SomeoneYouKnew

Jul 13, 2015

0

#281

We do test on humans anyway, its justifying the testing on any form of higher living being.

Its a good thing but a bad business.

kiwi-inactive

Jul 14, 2015

0

#282

Thomas9400 wrote:

Well i lack a certian amount of empathy that most people have so that might explain a bit haha jk jk in all seriousness. we have three choices

1 test products on animals

2 test products on humans

3 dont test and whatever happens to the humans happens

its your choice

We can always try to explore and develop new methods that don't have to necessarily cause intentional harm to any human or animal, or something to at least minimise the usuage of animals.

But point 3, is what pushes and advocates the use of animals.

AkumaX

Jul 14, 2015

0

#283

Why test it on innocent, furry animals when you can do it on prisoners (murders, drug dealers, etc)? I mean what did that little mouse ever do to you? It was probably just trying to feed its family.. T_T

kiwi-inactive

Jul 14, 2015

0

#284

In the UK animal testing for cosmetics is banned as well as EU states, but the real problem is the lack of self-esteem, or the pressure of looking good, if people were not so hell-bent on 'looking better' regardless of how the product was made, perhaps super rich business men wouldn't tweak about with cosmetics to make sales...

Animal testing for cosmetics is stupid.

kiwi-inactive

Jul 14, 2015

0

#285

JennbeIoved wrote:

Why test it on innocent, furry animals when you can do it on prisoners (murders, drug dealers, etc)? I mean what did that little mouse ever do to you? It was probably just trying to feed its family.. T_T

Why test it out on any human or animal at all? Volunteering and wavering your rights is another issue.

As humans have rights, so should animals.

kiwi-inactive

Jul 14, 2015

0

#286

science and a court room cannot always clear innocent suspects, which can result in wrongful convictions, also if it were a family member or perhaps your child is in the hot seat for getting sentenced, if we can loudly state 'test on him/her' with no remorse, then your claim to that statement has more purpose.

plus, rights rights rights, for all and everything living.

kiwi-inactive

Jul 14, 2015

0

#287

Fkey wrote:

"science and a court room cannot always clear innocent suspects, which can result in wrongful convictions"

That is true, however we do not dump the whole system because it is not perfect do we ?

Those on death row might be given a choice, as might those with life sentences.

Not necessarily for freedom, but some other form of "appreciation"

Hence why it is should an 'open-application' to all healthy adults, regardless if you're in prison or not.

Can't help but think about 'A Clockwork Orange'.

kiwi-inactive

Jul 14, 2015

0

#288

Fkey wrote:

Sorry I have not seen that.

It's worthy of a watch

But the main character is threatened with imprisonment and offered a quick fix way out by tempting him into a 'study program' for the benefit of the human race, that way he will leave early. Things don't go so well for him after... etc

sftac

Jul 14, 2015

0

#289

I think animal tests should be done in a fair, humane fashion (and if they test poorly, tact should be used when discussing their grade with them).

sftac

kiwi-inactive

Jul 14, 2015

0

#290

sftac wrote:

I think animal tests should be done in a fair, humane fashion (and if they test poorly, tact should be used when discussing their grade with them).

sftac

But what is a fair humane way?

Also, can humans 'dictate' to other humans how they should live or conduct their day to day activities?

How does the decision come about to 'oh lets test on animal, it doesn't speak nor can it complain' ?

kiwi-inactive

Jul 14, 2015

0

#291

Here is an analogy to help...

Receiving 10000 lashes or 15000 lashes, both are stupendously high and after some point of being whipped (not a good thing at all, nor promoting it) it is just excrutiating. So would a difference of 5000 make much difference?

There isn't a way to exactly determine the threshold point...

Scaling this to toxins, chemicals, drugs and the concentrations they expose animals too (in the case of concentration testing), does it make much a difference ?

It is the act in and of itself some people challenge, not the duration, intensity or frequency, rather the actual act.

bigpoison

Jul 14, 2015

0

#292

Humans barely have any rights. The other animals have none.

Senior-Lazarus_Long

Jul 14, 2015

0

#293

Fkey wrote:

Is it ?

For something that may save lives, perhaps.

For deodourants, cosmetics, shaving creams, shampoos and so on ?

Sweet smelling deodorants may contain toxic chemicals. I remember my parents reliling the kitchen with asbestos tiles.

Senior-Lazarus_Long

Jul 14, 2015

0

#294

Horrible idea. People have greater rights than animals. Maybe have drug companies beef up the border patrols? Sheesh!!

kiwi-inactive

Jul 14, 2015

0

#295

Anyone advocating for someone or animal to be tested on, is lacking compassion or intellect. You pick.

SilentKnighte5

Jul 14, 2015

0

#296

I think it's a waste of taxpayer money to test animals since they can't read or write.

lisa_zhang_tok

Jul 15, 2015

0

#297

I'm for testing on people, but not Animals.

fissionfowl

Jul 15, 2015

0

#298

kiwi wrote:

To present one of the many opposing opinions:

"Nearly every Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine since 1901 has relied on animal data for their research and the past 2 decades has brought many medical breakthroughs thanks to animal testing. Without it, we would have surely not been so successful in our battle against TB, Polio or Cancer to name a few.

Does this justify animal testing? It is a small price to pay for so much good to come.

This seems to be assuming that human welfare supersedes everything else, which is the cause of so many problems.

If you find yourself on the surgical bed or in need of medication to combat a life-threatening disease, would you go as far to reject all proposed and current methods of treatment due to 'animal testing' certified products?

I'm going to risk sounding like Elubas here, but: I wouldn't reject it because like everyone I'm naturally selfish. That doesn't mean though that I can't hold theoretical views just because I'm not perfect enough to act on them. To give an example; I agree with veganism as I don't believe any animals should be subject to humans, but lack the willpower to even be a vegetarian.

It is human nature for an inclinition of good, or greater good. We wouldn't want to necessarily hurt anyone or anything on purpose just for the pure satisfaction or sake of it, it's not something to be purely proud of when it concerns animal testing, but it is something that has helped advance science & technology.

Again, I don't see it as a given that that's a good thing (sitting here with my macbook).

There are alternatives to animal testing, but new ideas, new ways of going about things naturally brings skepticism and fear. Until we have sufficient means of replacing animal testing, expect little change. Most if not all would happily convert to the new method that doesn't cause harm to animals once it is an economical and cost effective way. We're not evil, simply trying to survive and better ourselves.

Animal testing is not something we proudly parade about, but it is something that is helping to save lives."

(http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-animal-testing-a-good-thing)

njeznisport

Jul 15, 2015

0

#299

marcomarco13 wrote:

Instead of euthanazing people in terminal cancer phase, we should use them to test cosmetics, new treatments, car crashes , on a volunteer basis of course to have no trouble with professional humanrightists

lol, this has potential. similar as organ donors.

Thomas9400

Jul 15, 2015

0

#300

I would just like to point out that the people who are saying that humans and animals should have the same rights are nuts. First of all humans are animals lets get that clear. second of all its called artificial selection. The top species(in this case humans) will ARTIFICIALLY chose whch animals should go through the process of animal testing and which shuldnt. I dont belive artificial selection should be thought of any diffrent then say..natural selection in which animals in the wild must adapt to become the top predator. if you are against animal testing why not also be against animals killing each other.