PETA claims that it is working for animals, and that we are the ones abusing animals by eating them, wearing them, and using them for other various purposes. However, according to a recent article over 20,000 animals have been "ut down" by PETA since their launch in 1998.
In addition, during all of 2008 they found homes for merely 7 of the 2,216 animals they took in. Excuse my language but, what the f***? They give us hell for swatting flies, while they kill all the animals that they can't find homes for.
If you read the article, you'll see that they have a budget of $32 million every year, so what happens to that?
Oh, right, they use that to attack us for eating that hamburger. It was probably made using a cow they killed.
That really makes no sense, they don't use that money to help find the animals homes, but for advertising.
So guys what do you think? Does PETA stand for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or does it stand for People Eating Tasty Animals?
I wonder if more people would back PETA if they would have stuck to their main cause of Animal Testing in extreme cases? The Silverspring Monkey case was a bastardazation of science in general. And what they did to those monkeys was downright disgusting. If they would have kept with that main premise, of exposing people doing animal testing when the animals are in terrible living conditons, I would have been a PETA activist all the way.
PETA is a waste. They wish animals had more rights then humans which in todays society seems to be true.
Classic human superiority, thanks for proving my point.
I do think animal testing with cosmetics and **** is kind of stupid but they are making sure it isn�t going to burn your skin or something. You want them to test them on humans?
You know what? I'm just going to go full out and say yes. We're the ones using these products, not the animals, so make the people who are actually going to benefit from it test it. If you don't find anyone willing, well, I guess they just don't want the product that badly.
We're the ones using these products, not the animals, so make the people who are actually going to benefit from it test it. If you don't find anyone willing, well, I guess they just don't want the product that badly.
That's actually how I feel about testing on animals. Like he said, we're the ones using them, so why should we test them on animals. They're not going to benefit from the products at all, so why should we make them test it?
Because there's no suitable substitute. Personally I only advocate animal testing for medical not cosmetic research, but really, there's no other viable alternative.
The humans themselves would be perfect substitutes. Sure, for medical purposes it can be excused. That is necessary, and it would be impractical to test on humans. However, cosmetic products aren't necessary. If we're going to put an animal through something that could potentially kill them it should be something that is mandatory, not a product that will make us look better. Like Mike said, if there's no one willing to test them then they must not have wanted it very badly.
It's impractical to test cosmetics on humans. Many of the raw chemical compounds could cause significant harm to a human or indeed an animal.
Humans are the ones that are going to be using these unnecessary products, not animals. How do we have the right to force the testing upon an unwilling and defenseless individual? It wouldn't be right to force another human into testing it, so we shouldn't force animals into it either.
I am sure many people would not be willing to put themselves through medical testing, but that doesn't lower the potential demand for the product.
That can be excused in most instances however because it is mandatory. We're not better than the animals that we're testing it on, but at least they are important tests we're performing on them.
Humans are the ones that are going to be using these unnecessary products, not animals. How do we have the right to force the testing upon an unwilling and defenseless individual? It wouldn't be right to force another human into testing it, so we shouldn't force animals into it either.
There are many other products that are 'unnecessary', however as there is sufficient demand for cosmetics, there will be a supply.
Animals do not have the same legal rights as humans, so we do not need the 'right' to do so.
That can be excused in most instances however because it is mandatory. We're not better than the animals that we're testing it on, but at least they are important tests we're performing on them.
That's where we differ. I prioritise the enjoyment and wellbeing of humans above those of animals. As long as these experiments adhere to the set out laws I see no reason why they should not continue.
Animals do not have the same legal rights as humans, so we do not need the 'right' to do so.
The only reason that they don't have the same legal rights as humans is because we consider ourselves better. Which isn't necessarily true. We only because more advanced than them because of a lucky chain of events, it could have happened to any species. I'm not saying that we should treat them as human, since they aren't, but we should have a bit more respect for animals. We didn't evolve past them because of anything we consciously did, but because of luck.
That's where we differ. I prioritise the enjoyment and wellbeing of humans above those of animals. As long as these experiments adhere to the set out laws I see no reason why they should not continue.
That's the source of the problem. While we place our own personal happiness above others and think only about ourselves and material things, we don't care who gets hurt in the process. I guess its within human nature, judging by how easy it is for people to become corrupt in politics, business, ETC, but shouldn't we at least make an effort to maintain a balance? What happens when we view ourselves as so superior that we forget just how important animals are to maintaining the environment? Take the bees for example. They're dying off, and without them, a major ecosystem collapse is set to happen. We don't care about that though, since it doesn't impact our daily lives, at least not yet. The reason why I'm arguing this is because I don't think we're superior. Yes, we have our fancy cars and buildings, but we don't have anything even remotely considered balance with the Earth, which every other species has. While we're busy thinking we're superior because we made cities, we forget about what was there before the people and the buildings. Basically, we're a blight upon the Earth. I know that by this point, I sound like a crazed animal activist, and probably a hypocrite for expressing this through "advanced" means, but I honestly believe that we're not superior, we're only superior in our own eyes because we define the parameters that test superiority, so of course we're going to win every time.
Testing people is not just about the fact we're better than lab rats that are brought up to be test subjects. You fail to realize that it takes 18-21 years for a human to become ready for testing, however a rat can become ready for testing in 3 months tops. These are not animals that are generally considered 'ets.' They are a special breed that are specifically designed to be test subjects. Not to mention we can use millions as opposed to hundreds for testing purposes. Even cosmetics, which everybody uses, require hundreds of tests on 10 plus rats to become even close to safe.
