• Welcome to the Zelda Sages Forums!

    The Zelda Sages Community Forums are a fun and easy way to interact with Zelda fans from around the globe. Our members also have access to exclusive members' only content. Register and/or log in now! Please note that user registration is currently disabled. If you would like to register please contact us.

Somewhat Controversial Testing on Animals

Animal tesing

  • Good

    Votes: 5 27.8%

  • Bad but useful

    Votes: 8 44.4%

  • Just WRONG

    Votes: 5 27.8%
  • Total voters
    18
i am a teddy

i am a teddy

Graverobber
What say you all about testing on animals? Is the wrong? Is it wrong but helpful? Is it right? My gosh, give me you thoughts!
 
Animals don't "cry" when they are "hurt", and they're rarely physically hurt in testing anyway. It's not like cancer is gonna be tragic for a lab mouse.
 
D:< I don't like animal testing, and its unnecessary. If your not sure if it should be used on humans, it shouldn't be used int he first place.
 
How can you be sure anything can be used on humans? That's a terrible argument because if not for testing on animals, we wouldn't have most of the amazing pharmaceutical products we have today. We wouldn't be developing any drugs, since testing on humans would be just as bad as releasing without testing.
 
...

Animals are lower on the food chain. As such, no matter what we think about it, we can pretty much do anything to them. Animal testing is just the step before cloning and the step after farming.

It's still pretty bad though as far as the moral side of the argument is concerned.
 
I hate it when it's for trivial bull like makeup and cosmetics, but I do like the idea of using rats or whatever they use for medicine testing. It's much better than using untested medications on humans to me...
 
Animal testing is completely wrong and unnecessary with cosmetics and home products.

For example, its sick to think that someone would want animals such as monkeys(which are nearly emotionally and psychologically identical to humans) to be tortured to develop a newer shampoo. (Johnson & Johnson put raw, harsh chemicals into the eyes of monkeys over the period of months to develop new shampoo that's a little easier on human eyes.
[mod note: this has no source]

I switched to non-tested shampoo last year and didn't notice any loss in quality or cost of the product. Therefore it seems to me that it is unnecessary and cruel.
 
Dharma said:
Animal testing is completely wrong and unnecessary with cosmetics and home products.

For example, its sick to think that someone would want animals such as monkeys(which are nearly emotionally and psychologically identical to humans) to be tortured to develop a newer shampoo. (Johnson & Johnson put raw, harsh chemicals into the eyes of monkeys over the period of months to develop new shampoo that's a little easier on human eyes.
[mod note: this has no source]

I switched to non-tested shampoo last year and didn't notice any loss in quality or cost of the product. Therefore it seems to me that it is unnecessary and cruel.
Click to expand...
Yup, I agree, true, don't worry - it's fine, no personal experience but I believe it.

When we exit the world of cosmetics, however, the issue shifts a bit, and the question comes down to 'how valuable is the life of an animal?' and the even more touchy 'how valuable is the life of a person?'
 
animaldude said:
Human > Animal

Testing on animals is absolutely necessary for the progression of man kind. In order for new discoveries to be made, animals must be tested on.

This is interesting: http://sports.yahoo.com/ten/news?slug=reu-wimbledonpigeons&prov=reuters&type=lgns

Did they go to far?
Click to expand...
But is it moral to kill high-intelligence animals to speed research that could be done bloodlessly?

As for the article, Wimbledon could simply have hired more hawks. If they were effective in clearing the court, why not use more to secure the remainder of the grounds? The use of hawks produces a more instinctual reaction in other birds, and the unwanted pests learn within a single generation rather than simply introducing selection pressure for future generations.
 
animaldude said:
Well you wouldn't test using peacocks or gorillas but there is nothing wrong with testing on rats.
Click to expand...
Ah, but where can we draw the line? Rats are ok, but what about dogs and cats? If that's too far, can we test on reptiles? What about the green mamba, whose intelligence rivals said dog's?
 
Versac said:
Ah, but where can we draw the line? Rats are ok, but what about dogs and cats? If that's too far, can we test on reptiles? What about the green mamba, whose intelligence rivals said dog's?
Click to expand...
I don't see that as an issue... why would we need to test on dogs and cats?
 
Versac said:
The reasons are sciency. Mice are sometimes too distant genetically for any data to be meaningful, and so other species must be used.
Click to expand...
Well then it would depend how important the testing is. If its to find a cure for cancer then yes. If its to test a new hair product then probably not.
 
it depends on the resoan and the animal often the rats live painful lives but i don't want to die of cancer so i think the rat means less then me and don't hate me for saying it you would thinks so if it was you who was dieing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top