Places to Chat
Animal Testing!
Chatterbox: Down to Earth
Animal Testing!
Animal Testing!
Yes, there is already a thread: http://www.cricketmagkids.com/chatterbox/downtoearth/node/8433
Anyway, I think that was in 2009.
So, let us tell our opinions NOW!
My opionin is: IT IS CRUEL, MEAN, and not needed. I mean, it kills harmless helpless animals. I think that it should be illegle. O, no more needs to be said from me. Gimme your opinions now!!
submitted by Vida
(August 10, 2011 - 2:13 pm)
(August 10, 2011 - 2:13 pm)
I think I stopped by that thread while doing some reviving. I'll have to revisit it.
(August 10, 2011 - 4:55 pm)
If the animals are used to test medicine, then I don't mind because better they die than humans. It's the same with makeup.
And no, I don't hate animals, I just like humans more.
(August 11, 2011 - 3:08 pm)
When you say makeup... Do you mean genetic makeup or cosmetics? If you mean genetic makeup for science, I think it's only unacceptable when it harms the animal, but I support it wholeheartedly when it doesn't. If you mean cosmetic makeup... You are definitely not going to die from using makeup that wasn't tested on animals. In fact, that kind is healthier. Makeup is tested on animals because unhealthy chemicals are put in it that might be harmful, and they need to make sure that any harm they do is at least legal. Makeup that was not tested on animals does not include those chemicals because that would be dangerous. Since the chemicals are unhealthy even when not life-threatening, animal-tested makeup is really less healthy. What you said about prices is true, but considering the fact that you don't even need to wear makeup anyway, don't you think the animals' lives and welfare are worth spending a little bit more money?
I'm sorry if that came out the wrong way; I really don't want to offend you. You didn't know about this; it's definitely not your fault and the assumption wasn't unreasonable.
(August 13, 2011 - 2:17 pm)
I think that it wouldn't be necessary to test things on animals if things didn't have *a couple of not quite Cb-appropriate words go here* stuff in them!!!!!!! All products I own (shampoo, lotion, bug repellent, etc.) are animal friendly because they're all natural. The only thing in my bug stuff that isn't a nice-smelling plant is beeswax, my face wash is made of berries and volcanic ash, my body wash is made of carrots. I think all the chemicals and weird stuff are totally unnecessary.
(August 12, 2011 - 8:43 pm)
However, natural products are usually more expensive I think. *nodnod*
(August 13, 2011 - 11:01 am)
Yeah, but I can't see why in our society that being healthy and not putting horrible things on/in your body costs MORE MONEY!!!!!
(August 13, 2011 - 1:08 pm)
I think getting the chemical schtuff used in the products is easier and/or cheaper than getting the stuff that isn't all chemical'y. Yup...
APC says fard. Farid? FARID?!?!?! From the Inkworld series?
(August 13, 2011 - 1:51 pm)
Because companies are selfish and doing things in environmentally friendly and/or healthy ways are expensive. I agree, though. Whenever possible, I try to use non-animal-tested, organic, and/or recycled products of all kinds. My family also composts and doesn't use pesticides. We're going to move to a house with a vegetable garden soon, too, which will be great! We already grow tomatoes and some herbs, but this will be even better.
(August 13, 2011 - 1:57 pm)
I think that animal testing is definitely horrible and cruel when it isn't going to save any lives. Well, some experiments don't harm the animal in any way, like seeing if they can go through mazes (depending on how they're trained and what conditions they're kept in, that is; there need to be stricter, more heavily enforced laws about that), but many are torturous for the animals and don't even teach much.
When experimentation saves lives, I don't object. This is not because I value humans more than animals--in fact, I don't at all. It's because if seeing how a few mice react to a certain chemical will cure a major disease affecting hundreds, thousands, or millions, it will cause more good than harm. However, the people doing the experiments need to care about the animals and keep them in the best conditions possible that allow the life-saving experiments to work. This is not usually the case. It is also a good idea to use the types of animals that are least sensitive to pain, so that as little pain as possible is caused. There have been some studies in that area that seem quite logical, so by now we have some idea of which animals feel pain and how much, but we often don't apply that.
By the way, I don't object to the studies determining whether animals can feel pain because they show us something really, really important about whether other tests are ethical. They could potentially help us raise our animal welfare standards. Like the life-saving studies, they are capable of causing more good than harm. Unfortunately, these studies are not well-publcized and often ignored, but that's our fault, not the experimentors'. We need to tell people about it.
(August 13, 2011 - 1:52 pm)
I value humans more than animals, of course, (of course because humans have souls and reason and animals don't so it's kinda obvious who you should care and value more) so animal testing doesn't really bother me unless it's completely unnecessary.
(August 14, 2011 - 11:12 am)
I don't think it's not "of course." It's fine to value humans more than animals, but please don't say "of course." It just isn't that simple. You believe that humans have souls and other animals don't, which is a perfectly valid reason for believing that humans are more important. However, other people believe that all animals do have souls (and others don't even believe in souls). All 3 are valid points of view.
As for reason, reason isn't a clear-cut "either you have it or you don't" thing. It's a spectrum. (Come to think of it, some people also believe that having a soul is a spectrum, which is also valid, but let's not get into that). All animals, including humans, have some instincts. All animals, including non-humans, have reasoning of some sort, although it's often a very basic, elementary sort. I think that humans probably have the most reason, and because of that we don't need as many instincts, but we have both just like everybody else. When you see someone about to kill you, your instinct is to try to stop them from succeeding. Your reasoning just influences which way you choose. When a raven bends a wire into a shape that allows it to be used as a tool to get food, that is reason, although it is driven by the instinct to get the food. That is why animals with less reason are less likely to do things like make tools. Humans make the most tools, so it is pretty safe to say that we have the most reason. But that really doesn't mean that animals don't have any at all.
I can understand why you'd care more about someone with more reason. And if you think only humans have souls on top of that, then yes, to you it makes a lot of sense to value humans more. But please don't say that it's obvious because it really isn't. There are good reasons for believing that only humans have souls, and hopefully those are the ones you're using, so your viewpoint is valid. But it's certainly not the only valid viewpoint because there are also good reasons for the alternative opinions. When you say it's obvious, I'm sorry; you're just being way too definitive. I really don't mean to offend you, and I'm very sorry if I do; just please don't say it's obvious because that's dismissing all other opinions as illogical and foolish. They're not. Well, I'm sure some of them are. But not all.
Out of curiosity, how do you define necessary? Life-saving medicines are, of course, necessary, but do you really consider it necessary for products like shampoo?
(August 14, 2011 - 12:04 pm)
To answer your question, no, testing shampoos doesn't seem necessary. I'm not completely against testing soaps on animals, and I won't refuse to use an animal-tested product, but I don't think it's necessary... although I shouldn't talk. I really haven't given this subject much thought. :)
Sorry, I'm not going to get into this argument. I don't believe animals have souls. The end. If you're starving in a life or death situation, are you going to kill your dog or your friend to eat? That's really not that hard to answer is it? (and if you'd choose you're friend.. there's something wrong with you. :P:P) So why pretend you value the animals just as much?
(August 14, 2011 - 4:51 pm)
I think that whether animals have souls, well, it depends on what you mean. I think they are alive and conscious, and that is a good enough reason not to cause unnecessary harm to them. I even think it's quite probable that your pets will go to heaven... even if it is only because it is necessary to make you happy... but I'm not sure how it works. The Bible doesn't really say.
However the Bible does say humans are more valuable than animals. I think we shouldn't hurt animals just because we want to use dangerous chemicals in cosmetics, that is stupid. But if it was medicine or something, then fifty rats to one person is quite a reasonable trade in my opinion. People > animals.
It's not about various degrees of rationality to me, or else mentally ill or autistic people would be worth less than other people, and smart people would have more intrinsic value than the rest of us. Remember, "all men are created equal"?
(August 14, 2011 - 5:56 pm)
I personally don't base my value hierarchy on rationality, just so you know. I can understand why people would; that's all. I base it on kindness and overall effect on the world--how much joy it brings and how much joy it takes away. It seemed like it was part of R~D~'s argument, so I brought up that degrees varied, but I personally agree with you on that.
It is true that there are so many ways to define 'soul' that debating about whether or not something has one can be a bit pointless. I don't think I'l get into that.
I don't condone killing 50 rats to save one human (and I'm not talking about eating; my views on that are different for various reasons) if there is no reason to believe that anyone else will go under the same conditions in the future, but most medicinal testing is done for major diseases that affect way more people than the animals that need to be tested. Unfortunately, most researchers do not take all the pains they could to ensure the maxinmum welfare of the animals used, but that has to do with the way things are done, not the simple fact that they are done.
@ R~D~: I don't have a problem with you not believing animals have souls or as much value as humans. I was just a bit annoyed that you said it was obvious, but it's fine.
Re: Life or death: I'd probably decide that if my friend and dog were all I had to eat for the rest of my life, I'd eventually starve to death anyway, so there would be no point in killing someone I love just so that I lived maybe a month more. Yes, you could say that the same argument could apply to eating anything at all, but I think the amount of time it sustains you for matters a lot. I might live a hundred years longer than if I never ate, which I think is much more important than just a month. But if it was clear that I was going to die very, very soon anyway, I wouldn't bother. If my dog starved before I did, I would eat her, but I wouldn't kill her. And if my friend tried to hurt my dog, I can't even describe how furious I'd be. And I'd pray that we'd find something else edible before it was too late. Hopefully we could comfort each other.
(August 15, 2011 - 2:52 pm)
Yes, but if one month more of living meant rescue, it would be pretty ignorant not to eat the dog, wouldn't it? I heard people do many things they wouldn't normally do when they're on the verge of starvation and their survival instincts kick in. Of course you wouldn't want to eat your dog, (who would?) but if you must, you're life is more important. I will not continue arguing over animals having souls, because, it is completely obvious to myself and I will not be swayed so there's no point arguing. ;P
(August 16, 2011 - 11:49 am)