• Life Advice & Visual Arts Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    🌌 Share Your Dreams! 🌌
    📸 15 Years of Photo Contests 📸
  • LAVA Moderator: Shinji Ikari

Opinions on animal testing

K

KyloBeatz

Greenlighter
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
19
Location
SoCal
Sorry if this has already be posted before. I am new to bluelight and have not explored all its wonderful seas of posts yet. I'm just curious of people opinions on this. I myself love animals, all kinds (excluding spiders..those bitches freak me out). Yet, I'd rather have a new experimental drug tested on a rat before it's tested on me. I do feel terrible for what the rat (or any other animal) might possibly go through, but its better an animal than me or you...right? Well at least that's my logic, what's yours?
 
honestly i believe it should be voluntary for people to be given choice i'm sure there prob would be no shortage of people willing to try new things but forcing animals who can't consent is needless and forcing criminals no matter the crime would be a slippery slope although i do not defend rapists/ paedophiles i despise them but recognise there human rights just like all criminals.
 
Star-ratS said:
honestly i believe it should be voluntary for people to be given choice i'm sure there prob would be no shortage of people willing to try new things but forcing animals who can't consent is needless and forcing criminals no matter the crime would be a slippery slope although i do not defend rapists/ paedophiles i despise them but recognise there human rights just like all criminals.
Click to expand...

I mostly concur with this but I believe rapists and extreme pedophiles have given up their humanity and I would feel better seeing them subject to testing over defenseless creatures who do nothing but try to mind their own business and live among nature.
Who is to say an animal deserves possible death/injury/sickness over a shitty human?
I am quite misanthropic yes but I have always felt it so unfair what animals get subjected to for the sake and benefit of fat pathetic humans.
 
Necessary evil I'd say.

Nobody says a word about the animals who are raised to be slaughtered but for some reason people cant stand to see rats get cancer. The same rat you would be cursing out if it was in your house.

If it wouldnt have existed without the scientists anyway what is the big hooplah here?
 
If it's okay to kill and eat animals,
why can't we put substances on them and stick our dicks in them?
 
rickolasnice said:
New medicines should be tested on paedophiles and rapists.. 2 birds with 1 stone ;)
Click to expand...

Sure, but do you have a more or less endless supply of millions of them per year (25 million or so in the USA alone, just counting mice) to keep up with the demands of pharmaceutical testing, development and as well as other types of scientific research, like genetics, immunology, neurology, and other biological sciences? There about 134,000,000 human births per year worldwide. The number of vertebrate animals used worldwide almost certainly exceeds this. It's not a demand that you could even in principle meet with your strategy. Indeed, replacing animal testing with human subjects would quickly depopulate the world, particularly in the USA where, at the high estimate of 100 million per year, it would depopulate it to 0 in under 4 years, at the lower estimate, maybe 12 years.

If we want to replace invertebrates too (fruit flies, nematodes, etc) well...fuck, you'll extinct homo sapiens in about a month or so.
 
Though I feel a lot of it is vile and unnecessary (re: cosmetics animal testing), I still consider it on the whole to be a necessary evil. As is, the only opponents to animal testing that I respect are those that are vegan as well.
 
And by vegan, I hope you mean ones that also avoid taking any sort of pharmaceutical treatments, and also would have a DNR on their person in case they need to be intubated or have surgery, since those skills are frequently honed on animals.
 
Abject said:
If it's okay to kill and eat animals,
why can't we put substances on them and stick our dicks in them?
Click to expand...

Why would you want to have sex with an animal? Ugh. Is a human not good enough to have sex with? Fucking disgusting, IMHO. They cant fucking consent and they dont want your disgusting dick in them anyway. Do you kill helpless animals just for the selfish jollies, too? I'm not a PETA crazed person by any means but having sex with animals and putting chems in them to "see what happens" doesn't sit well with me.


My opinion: I don't agree with animal testing.
 
rangrz said:
Sure, but do you have a more or less endless supply of millions of them per year (25 million or so in the USA alone, just counting mice) to keep up with the demands of pharmaceutical testing, development and as well as other types of scientific research, like genetics, immunology, neurology, and other biological sciences? There about 134,000,000 human births per year worldwide. The number of vertebrate animals used worldwide almost certainly exceeds this. It's not a demand that you could even in principle meet with your strategy. Indeed, replacing animal testing with human subjects would quickly depopulate the world, particularly in the USA where, at the high estimate of 100 million per year, it would depopulate it to 0 in under 4 years, at the lower estimate, maybe 12 years.

If we want to replace invertebrates too (fruit flies, nematodes, etc) well...fuck, you'll extinct homo sapiens in about a month or so.
Click to expand...

Surely you can get more information from one paedophile than from 1000+ Mice? They live longer, they could be fixed after breaking and their DNA is very similar to ours ;)

It would at least reduce the number of animals needed..

And nah fuck invertebrates.. they're barely even conscious,
 
^

Really depends on the test in question, but 1000 mice will generally yield more information than 1 human. Statistical significance and all that. In a lot of cases, one mouse would give more information than one person would too. There are many specific (inbred) strains of mice (e.g. C57BL/6) and other model animals that are very well understood and have specific traits and more generally, since they are a controlled and familiar genetic composition makes the experimental results much more meaningful than an arbitrary hodgepodge mix of humans or any other animal would.
 
Aright fair play..

I'd still like to see rapists and paedophiles used as test subjects regardless :p
 
rickolasnice said:
Aright fair play..

I'd still like to see rapists and paedophiles used as test subjects regardless :p
Click to expand...

They'd be good for more macroscopic scale/non-specific types of testing and research where it's not targeting some single receptor or protein or whatever, but instead is generally applicable to all humans/similar animals. Like trauma resuscitation...tie them up, fire a few 9mm in the abdomen, and try new techniques to prevent death in the following few days. Radiation testing is pretty much independent of specific genetic traits in people, the nature of the damage/effect of radiation is completely stochastic at the molecular/cellular level, so they'd work for that. ICU and critical care medicine would be good too...cut a wound, rub some clostridium and Strap bacteria strains in, wait for sepsis, etc. That kind of stuff would work well.

But for highly specific things like testing a new monoclonal antibody targeting some aberrant protein in a hereditary disease, not really so useful. Animal models are far better suited to that sort of thing.
 
Didn't the EU just ban all animal testing? If that's the case, what's the backup plan for making sure products are safe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top