Animal Testing - Armor Games Community

66	11460

offline

Armed_Blade

1,482 posts

Shepherd

Posted February 5, '10 2:12am UTC

I think what they should do is instead of testing animals test death row convitcts (it better than the death penalty).

We would be set down in history as the legal men of inhumanity.
The global community would hate us.
China would spit in our faces for ever trying to USE the word 'Human Rights' on them.
The fact that I think you feel that a death row convict should be locked up to be treated inhumanely is sickening -- I understand that you feel that Animals are above such lowlife people, but they are still people and I can't understand how any researcher would feel about scrubbing shampoo and lotion of a man's skin for years trying to test out side effects.

It would be horrible and I doubt it would work well at all -- as they would likely be used for more experimental and stronger purposes that would ruin their skin fast for better testing and their mindset.
"Oh look he's insane"
"So duz that mean he has brain cancurz yet or is he just tired of teh shampew?"
"Idk"
____________________________
Its a cruel thought, and using a dog as shampoo testing to see how nice the hair his vs scrubbing it over a madmans forhead would be hard to do, something most people wouldn't try, and a pain in getting results.

___________________________________________________________________
Its all bullcrap anyway, Cosmetics industry is passed using new things. They have thousands and different combinations of doing things they've never tried. They're only two hopes are passing through government regulations and making something that doesn't burn -- everything else is put to the side.

I don't think its right, but thats a horrible solution --
Using animals to better the existence of the human race is a sole definition to the word 'Technology' -- Anything that helps make our lives easier, and I'm sorry to say but cosmetics is not one of them. Treatment for disease and ongoing inventions always are.

[quote]I think what they should do is instead of testing animals test death row convitcts (it better than the death penalty).[/quote]\r\n\r\nWe would be set down in history as the legal men of inhumanity.\r\nThe global community would hate us.\r\nChina would spit in our faces for ever trying to USE the word 'Human Rights' on them.\r\nThe fact that I think you feel that a death row convict should be locked up to be treated inhumanely is sickening -- I understand that you feel that Animals are above such lowlife people, but they are still people and I can't understand how any researcher would feel about scrubbing shampoo and lotion of a man's skin for years trying to test out side effects. \r\n\r\nIt would be horrible and I doubt it would work well at all -- as they would likely be used for more experimental and stronger purposes that would ruin their skin fast for better testing and their mindset. \r\n"Oh look he's insane"\r\n"So duz that mean he has brain cancurz yet or is he just tired of teh shampew?"\r\n"Idk"\r\n____________________________\r\nIts a cruel thought, and using a dog as shampoo testing to see how nice the hair his vs scrubbing it over a madmans forhead would be hard to do, something most people wouldn't try, and a pain in getting results.\r\n\r\n___________________________________________________________________\r\nIts all bullcrap anyway, Cosmetics industry is passed using new things. They have thousands and different combinations of doing things they've never tried. They're only two hopes are passing through government regulations and making something that doesn't burn -- everything else is put to the side.\r\n\r\nI don't think its right, but thats a horrible solution --\r\nUsing animals to better the existence of the human race is a sole definition to the word 'Technology' -- Anything that helps make our lives easier, and I'm sorry to say but cosmetics is not one of them. Treatment for disease and ongoing inventions always are.

offline

Sssssnnaakke

1,036 posts

Scribe

Posted February 5, '10 2:33am UTC

Hope this helps.

http://www.aahr.org.au/index.html

offline

moonbeam

43 posts

Nomad

Posted February 5, '10 4:18am UTC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eikrtueR8KE

Please watch this video. Animal testing is very wrong.

offline

German3945

996 posts

Nomad

Posted February 5, '10 4:24am UTC

The fact that I think you feel that a death row convict should be locked up to be treated inhumanely is sickening -- I understand that you feel that Animals are above such lowlife people, but they are still people and I can't understand how any researcher would feel about scrubbing shampoo and lotion of a man's skin for years trying to test out side effects.

Thank you.
There really is no plausible alternative, honestly. I wish there was. Unless someone can come up with one.

offline

moonbeam

43 posts

Nomad

Posted February 5, '10 4:44am UTC

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eikrtueR8KE]

Please watch.

offline

EnterOrion

4,220 posts

Nomad

Posted February 5, '10 4:57am UTC

They're animals. So what. We're above them, we control them.

In all technicality, they owe us a bit. We gave them life. We take it away.

Lab animals are specifically bred for their intended purpose. That is all they can do. They would not and cannot survive anywhere else.

It's no different from the extermination we do to animals on a daily basis is it? If animals were on par with humans, thousands, even millions would be on trial for war crimes and murder, simply because they need the pests ousted. What about the slaughter of millions of animals, simply to feed our endless lust for meat?

None of it is any different, except for the part about it helping humanity.

offline

sourwhatup2

3,660 posts

Jester

Posted February 5, '10 4:59am UTC

To be Honest Orion You have an amazingly great point.

offline

the_manta

4,536 posts

Peasant

Posted February 5, '10 5:05am UTC

No! Animals are cute! It's wrong I hate all of you! Especially Orion!

In all seriousness, I'd have to agree with Orion on the whole "they were bred for that purpose" thing, but they owe us? I wouldn't say that. To me, you don't owe anyone anything for giving you life... you owe them for taking care of you, or giving you food and whatnot, that stuff. Of course, that's just me.

offline

Armed_Blade

1,482 posts

Shepherd

Posted February 5, '10 5:05am UTC

The majority of your video focused on cosmetic reasons for Animal Testing. The problem is that laboratories of big business own this stuff, and I don't really think there is a way for the entire population to see it as something worth voting.
I'm not sure whether or not my family buys animal tested things, and its so far from me that, unfortunately, on a normal shopping basis, [though I am only 15] -- I could care less. :S

Not to say that I don't care, but again, it was (as most influential videos are) a bit too overrated. You see animal testing as some abhorrent massacre by the billions, the video blatantly expressed how it has nothing to do with Humans and that they all bleed, die, and suffer.

While that is true, many animals are euthanized before death and never treated that way. The video itself showed tapes that were pretty old and scratchy, obviously showing that it isn't too modern or in a modernized country.

You might also want to look at this. The entire video was just bricking me with tons of cute, fuzzy animals that we all want to cuddle with.

Graph: Its an uploaded image from wikimedia.org that I found ona wikipedia page,.

The majority are mice and rats. Not sure if you want to hug 'em. Many are used for medical research, and though they may [like your video said] be the best examples for animal research -- Cells are cells, and if people can figure out what triggers cancer (They found out things trigger cancer to begin with from the use of animal testing, by the way) -- They might GET somewhere. I'm not saying its 100% justified, but movies like this are way too biased. A little girl in the back whining about bunnies makes me feel, but I feel that she's a bit too brainwashed into thinking that someone takes a Bunny into a room and chops his head off. There, at least I hope, is some government regulation at least doing its best to control things like these.

Thank you.
There really is no plausible alternative, honestly. I wish there was. Unless someone can come up with one.

Its a small topic, but its controversial. Your right, too, there really isn't an alternative. Human rights violations already go against using it on convicts, though apparently it seems to be a popular idea to the small number that care.

The majority of your video focused on cosmetic reasons for Animal Testing. The problem is that laboratories of big business own this stuff, and I don't really think there is a way for the entire population to see it as something worth voting. \r\nI'm not sure whether or not my family buys animal tested things, and its so far from me that, unfortunately, on a normal shopping basis, [though I am only 15] -- I could care less. :S\r\n\r\nNot to say that I don't care, but again, it was (as most influential videos are) a bit too overrated. You see animal testing as some abhorrent massacre by the billions, the video blatantly expressed how it has nothing to do with Humans and that they all bleed, die, and suffer.\r\n\r\nWhile that is true, many animals are euthanized before death and never treated that way. The video itself showed tapes that were pretty old and scratchy, obviously showing that it isn't too modern or in a modernized country.\r\n\r\nYou might also want to look at this. The entire video was just bricking me with tons of cute, fuzzy animals that we all want to cuddle with.\r\n\r\nGraph: Its an uploaded image from wikimedia.org that I found ona wikipedia page,.\r\n[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e3/Types_of_vertebrates_v2en.png[/img]\r\n\r\nThe majority are mice and rats. Not sure if you want to hug 'em. Many are used for medical research, and though they may [like your video said] be the best examples for animal research -- Cells are cells, and if people can figure out what triggers cancer (They found out things trigger cancer to begin with from the use of animal testing, by the way) -- They might GET somewhere. I'm not saying its 100% justified, but movies like this are way too biased. A little girl in the back whining about bunnies makes me feel, but I feel that she's a bit too brainwashed into thinking that someone takes a Bunny into a room and chops his head off. There, at least I hope, is some government regulation at least doing its best to control things like these. \r\n\r\n[quote]Thank you.\r\nThere really is no plausible alternative, honestly.  I wish there was.  Unless someone can come up with one.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIts a small topic, but its controversial. Your right, too, there really isn't an alternative. Human rights violations already go against using it on convicts, though apparently it seems to be a popular idea to the small number that care.

offline

the_manta

4,536 posts

Peasant

Posted February 5, '10 5:08am UTC

Oof, that's a, er, big chart. :|

Whatever the case, I could honestly care less unless they start testing on my bunny or my dog.

offline

sourwhatup2

3,660 posts

Jester

Posted February 5, '10 5:09am UTC

I can't see the chart WAYY to big x.x

offline

tomertheking

1,751 posts

Jester

Posted February 5, '10 5:10am UTC

In all technicality, they owe us a bit. We gave them life. We take it away.

Explain please. I didn't understand that point.

offline

Armed_Blade

1,482 posts

Shepherd

Posted February 5, '10 5:13am UTC

Oh wow, Sorry for the gigantic picture.
I hope the mods or whatever aren't mad, I know some forums get pissed when you do stuff like that -- then again, they're fault for not giving us the widely used on like every forum -- EDIT feature! [Not that I'm saying its not my fault, My bad ]

Anyway,
___
Forgot to say!

They're animals. So what. We're above them, we control them.

In all technicality, they owe us a bit. We gave them life. We take it away.

Lab animals are specifically bred for their intended purpose. That is all they can do. They would not and cannot survive anywhere else.

It's no different from the extermination we do to animals on a daily basis is it? If animals were on par with humans, thousands, even millions would be on trial for war crimes and murder, simply because they need the pests ousted. What about the slaughter of millions of animals, simply to feed our endless lust for meat?

None of it is any different, except for the part about it helping humanity.

Thats quite a point, I kinda like it.
Then again, I'm not sure we gave them life. [If they were on par with us] I'm pretty sure that would be one hell of a human/livingthing right's violation to breed them just for their own extermination, or to say that we are the owners of their lives instead of (Depending on who it is) they're creater/the fruit of life/whatever.
Thats just from a moral standpoint.

It makes sense, to be honest, while I'm partial to Animal Testing and that it can be rather awful... the reason I lean to the side of it being 'a little OK' rather than 'Neutral' is simply because all other aspects of Animal Saving are a little stupid or not needed.

Ex: Vegetarianism, I know there was a thread on it, but I'm just saying, We need F00dz guys. Get over it. Not eating the already fried Hamburger won't change anything, there are countries [believe it or not] that have villages/towns that rely on meat as a big source of food. Cutting it off for the animals, which, by the way, would all die in the wild anyway -- makes no sense. They have been harnessed and kept under our control for years, If I let a cow lose the best will happen is some farmer will say "What the F@$##@K?@" and eat it anyway. The cow won't know wtf to do, its spent its life moving around in a nice pasture eating grass. The second it ends up somewhere else, it won't know where to go, where to find other cows, or where to find the grass it likes. It. Will. Die.

Did you guys hear about the Panda nursery in china? Its pretty tight, but thats what you got to do otherwise there will be loose pandas everywhere and they won't know where their little bamboo sticks are and then poof. Panda failure.

Oh wow, Sorry for the gigantic picture.\r\nI hope the mods or whatever aren't mad, I know some forums get pissed when you do stuff like that -- then again, they're fault for not giving us the widely used on like every forum -- EDIT feature! :( [Not that I'm saying its not my fault, My bad :p]\r\n\r\nAnyway,\r\n___\r\nForgot to say!\r\n[quote]They're animals. So what. We're above them, we control them.\r\n\r\nIn all technicality, they owe us a bit. We gave them life. We take it away.\r\n\r\nLab animals are specifically bred for their intended purpose. That is all they can do. They would not and cannot survive anywhere else.\r\n\r\nIt's no different from the extermination we do to animals on a daily basis is it? If animals were on par with humans, thousands, even millions would be on trial for war crimes and murder, simply because they need the pests ousted. What about the slaughter of millions of animals, simply to feed our endless lust for meat?\r\n\r\nNone of it is any different, except for the part about it helping humanity.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThats quite a point, I kinda like it. \r\nThen again, I'm not sure we gave them life. [If they were on par with us] I'm pretty sure that would be one hell of a human/livingthing right's violation to breed them just for their own extermination, or to say that we are the owners of their lives instead of (Depending on who it is) they're creater/the fruit of life/whatever.\r\nThats just from a moral standpoint.\r\n\r\nIt makes sense, to be honest, while I'm partial to Animal Testing and that it can be rather awful... the reason I lean to the side of it being 'a little OK' rather than 'Neutral' is simply because all other aspects of Animal Saving are a little stupid or not needed.\r\n\r\nEx: Vegetarianism, I know there was a thread on it, but I'm just saying, We need F00dz guys. Get over it. Not eating the already fried Hamburger won't change anything, there are countries [believe it or not] that have villages/towns that rely on meat as a big source of food. Cutting it off for the animals, which, [b]by the way, would all die in the wild anyway[/b] -- makes no sense. They have been harnessed and kept under our control for years, If I let a cow lose the best will happen is some farmer will say "What the F@$##@K?@" and eat it anyway. The cow won't know wtf to do, its spent its life moving around in a nice pasture eating grass. The second it ends up somewhere else, it won't know where to go, where to find other cows, or where to find the grass it likes. It. Will. Die. \r\n\r\nDid you guys hear about the Panda nursery in china? Its pretty tight, but thats what you got to do otherwise there will be loose pandas everywhere and they won't know where their little bamboo sticks are and then poof. Panda failure.

offline

sourwhatup2

3,660 posts

Jester

Posted February 5, '10 5:15am UTC

Did you guys hear about the Panda nursery in china? Its pretty tight, but thats what you got to do otherwise there will be loose pandas everywhere and they won't know where their little bamboo sticks are and then poof. Panda failure.

Lol that made me laugh.. thank you. xD

offline

Armed_Blade

1,482 posts

Shepherd

Posted February 5, '10 5:16am UTC

Look now!

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Animal Testing