Personaly, i don't mind doing things to already cut out body parts but live animals, ican't bring myself to it.

But it also depends on the reasons for what you are about to do to the animals, for example:

cosmetics: a big huge NO!!!!!
lab testing on new medecins: ...yeah
sick minded children: just learn to say no
pervs: NO


basicly, if it helps a human being's life, do it but for any other reasons, I doubt I wouldn't call it animal cruelty

I kinda really like animals

I don't know if you realize this, but you're gonna eventually die anyway too. Sacrifice yourself for the good of the landfill, then.

I'll have you know, I keep away from animal-tested products. I believe someone else mentioned that just because a majority of the population does it, it does not mean everyone does.

I like to think of myself as an animal lover, not an animal torturer, mind you.



I wish you wouldn't act so smarter-than-thou about this. Just because some of the ones who are on the anti side are giving misled information, does not mean all of us ignorant fools with pitchforks and whatnot. I'm just speaking my beliefs. You said yourself it's one thing to speak your opinions, and another to try to force it on others.

You seem to be crossing the line yourself.

you're using a computer right now. i assume that means you have embraced some sort of technology.

it doens't matter who you are, if you're not someone who shuns all modern tech, you've used animal tested produces. during your birth, or early childhood. probably didn't stop, and you probably still use some (unknowingly) but i'll grant that you probably don't use any products tested directly on animals. also, unless you make your own natural shampoo, it's probably been tested on animals.


my shampoo said (i changed) 'never tested on animals' but a little research revealed that the shampoo itself had never been tested on animals, but the active ingredient had, by someone else.


my point is, anyone using a computer must have had used animal tested products sometime. it's inevitable.


eunie03- the following would be an example of misled information found on this thread...



cosmetics- benifits a human's life
lab testing on new medicines- benifits a human's life
sick minded children- benifits a human's life
pervs- benifits a human's life

cosmetics, as i have already said before in the thread, must be tested for safety reasons. the only way to aviod usuing animal tested products is to use no products at all, because just because the bottle says 'never tested on animals' doesn't mean you're not supporting animal testing, it means the completed product was never tested on animals, and the manufactures didn't test part of it on any animals. what it neglects to mention is someone else has already tested the active ingredient, and that's how they know it's safe, and if it was not already animal tested, they would not be using it.

lab testing on new medicines- well you said yes. so i guess it's pretty obvious to everyone else too, why this benifits humans.

sick minded children-

i'll ignore the fact that you are most likely refering to children like me, who take classes specifically for the dissections, eh? and everyone else who does dissesctions in school.

how is this not benifiting a human's life? first (and the only one that you'll probably accept) is that you're training the future doctors. If no children dissect animals, then none of them will become doctors. If they do disect animals, some of them will become doctors. and benifit many human lives.

second- the kid's lives are benifited. is everyone who dissects something an animal tourturer? there was a girl in my class who loved animals- but knew that she needed to learn the stuff. she could have taken a class without dissection, but she said she knew it was a good experience.

pervs-

now who would this be? really. who? can't be the kids in disection class, you alredy mentioned them...

oh... so that leave laboratory researchers, right?
well, i'll let you explain this one before i crush the argument. because even if it's just perverted people disecting animals for fun, and then throwing them away, well. it makes a human happy. so it benifits thier life.

^ i think she means bestiality..which has nothing to do with this topic..

Really? I didn't know that... just to satisfy my curiosity, cann you prove this?

And about cosmetics... I really don't see how they can benefit human life... I'm not against them, mind you. I do use foundation just to cover some scars I have in my face... is that what you mean by cosmetics being beneficial? To preserve a person's self conciousness?

^ and, if a kid got in a fire and there's like one big scar across their face, and they use makeup to cover it up, it prevents them being made fun of for it, which, in turn, is beneficial to their lives.

Bah, I'm a major animal supporter and I think it's very unfair to do dissections. I'm dreading highschool or whenever I'm going to have to dissect an animal. I'm not going to give a whole speech, but I really think people are being profusely narrow-minded. They think it's okay to torture animals because they can't fight back. If animals could talk and tell us how they felt, perhaps we would compromise, but for now we take advantage of our powers and use innocent creatures as subject of experimentation. They use monkeys for laboratory testing and don't at all think it's wrong. Bottom line, I'm against dissection, animal testing, or animal abuse in anyway.

I already said a lot of misled people exist. Just like misled people exist on your side of the story (I'd like to see some proof as well.. of your shampoo argument. I use Garnier Fructis, if that helps). Just the same, a lot are NOT misled. We have our own strong beliefs. This is just petty business to you, but this is one of my passions. I believe just one animal's life is worth saving, and that NONE... or as little as possible... should be sacrificed for our own good. (A lion comes charging at you, you shoot him. Fine. That's defense, leading us back to the need for survival).

And I strongly... strongly doubt people test the computer I'm using on animals -.-;;

I think we both agree life is sacred. The difference between you and me is that I believe a human is no more valuable than an "animal's", whereas you seem to believe a human's life should be upheld (even for a "perv's" benefit....). I don't aree with you. If you don't agree with me.... then okay.

My bottom line is that I'd choose to save an animal's life over a person's self-image and self-enlightenment.

I'm done here.

I think it's wrong. Ever heard of posters? Diagrams? SYNTHETIC FROGS?! lol

pyrithione zinc is the active ingredent in Garnier Fructis.

here is the paper on Pyrithione Zinc, and if it is safe to use in cosmetics.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_risk/c...s/out225_en.pdf

you will see that they say they try to use alternates to animal testing. keep reading.

go to the toxicology report

it reads:




This is on page 5 of the PDF.

as you can see, Pyrithione Zinc has been tested on rats and dogs. The Pyrithione Zinc was administerd to the orally.


additionally:
page 6




as you can see, the dogs were force fed, and some vomited blood. emesis means vomiting.




Pyrithione Zinc has been tested on rabbits (applied to their skin)



monkeys, rabbits, pigs, and dogs were injected with Pyrithione Zinc untill they died.


more testing on monkeys.

note that the monkeys experience fatiuge, diarrheoa, and death. Also, Brain damage.




Read that carefully. Rabbits were locked up so they couldn't move, and Pyrithione Zinc was dumped on them. they all died. after substantial brain damage.




These are various mentions of animal testing i caught when skimming the first 10 pages.

there are 36 pages.

if your bottle of Garnier Fructis says that it was never tested on animals, this is becuase the completed product was never tested on animals.


Now i realize that your Garnier Fructis may be a different type, with a different active ingredient.

please read your bottle and post the complete name of your shampoo and the active ingredient, if you wish.

the point of this is, everything is tested on animals.

who else wants to try thier shampoo?

The last post was just too long for an edit to add more; plus this is a different arguemnt.



she said "benefit a human's life"

cosmetics industry provides jobs to many.
it doens't save lives, it doesn't cure disabilities. But that wasn't the requirement.


i won't defend the use of cosmtics- i think they're stupid. i just think they must be tested as long as they're used.





or are you? refer to my previous post. next time, consider that shampoo you're using, even if it says never tested on animals.




come on... it's debate. the point is to argue.

i don't believe a human's life is always better. it was just the question of would it benifit a human, and yes all those things would.

you have beliefs and i'm not trying to change that. I respect those beliefs, i'm just saying it's nearly impossible to hold completely true to them, even if you exclude testing for medicenes.

I do belive a human's life is worth more than an animal's. I don't want to mistreat animals, i'm not advocating kicking dogs. it's just my belief that humans are better than the rest of the animals, just as i belive a lion is better than a zebra, and a bird better than a worm, and a spider better than a fly.

and yes, i don't really think your computer is tested on animals... but how would you know? it very well could have. If you have a cell phone, that has been tested on rats, so why not a computer?

read the bottom of your keyboard. (there should be a warning there. if not, go find another keyboard)

they say that it might cause cancer.

how did they find out it causes cancer? animal testing most likely...

ithink you've won the debate to be honest

i really can tbe bothered to do any research, ive got more other things to do

i still dont agree, i think animal testing is deeply wrong, and ive been in a debate about this before, and found reasonable alternatives which are becomng more available and widely used, but ive lost the notes from that debate, and dont want to look it up again

in terms of this debate, youve won, though. well done

I am well aware of what emesis means... don't treat me like a child. I took the SAT's as well.

Good job on the research, and I guess I can't get around that. Curse this nation. I will do some research myself and find a friggin shampoo (God... how do you test something as petty as shampoo --;; ). I do say I am disturbed by this. But I swear I will never EVER willingly use a product tested on animals. Even if its just an ingredient.

However.... you yourself make it sound like the actions are cruel. And I still don't agree with animal testing to no degree. Or dissections... which is animal testing to some extent.



That helps me understand your view a bit more. Thank you. I myself do not think that way. My world is not based on the food web (No, I do not eat food.... I eat food's food) Thus the friction.

God... I should just move to England or something. I can't stand America's policies... but that's a whole 'nother argument.

well that's not fun...

someone should try to prove me wrong...

cant be assed. revel in your victory



sure come visit, w'll campaign to stop medical testing

we don't want to. you're intelligent, we like you.

yea, you won. wooo go..justin i think your name is..whatever you call yourself these days.

wow. i don't think this has ever happened before..

Well... I certainly cannot given that I agree with at least 90% of what you said...
But go you!

can we close this? i mean, it would be nice to end it on a serene note...

Maybe I will one day

^^

lookin forward to it...