so, today. out english class started a debate on animal testing. i was assigned to the the pro testing group. i was a bit frustrated to hear the anti-testing group's comments.

"oh your hurting animals."
- don't you hurt animals when you eat meat? i mean if you against hurting animals, then you should skip meat altogether. i am aware that there are vegetarians and vegans that say this. but when you eat meat and go as far to say this wouldnt that be just plain out hypocritical?

then they go on to say that
"you're killing them"
- but by reasearch we can save more lives and prevent diseases, not only in humans but also in animals.

okay.

what are your opinions?

to tell the truth [in my opinion] we shouldnt have animal testing to a certain level, it is true that we eat animals but thats just slaughther so the animal wont feel pain for long but animal testing is animal torture, if you look more into depth on animal testing then you will know why some of the testing is not necessary, like some scentist "double check" if you know what I mean, and I have seen some animal testing videos and they are horrendous, after the 1st day of testing I wouldnt even consider then animals, more like robots because the scientist are getting the results they want from the testing but they continue to do it and i think a better answer for your friends who were anti, would have been that animal testing is paid out of government taxes, so when we pay and extra 8 cents to buy a certian thing, a portion of that money is going to testing which could be the reason why we have so much useless testing because like any other person the scientist are after the money :]

Ummmmm... ya sure test on em.

Moved to Debate.

Killing animals for food is a way that the world keeps in balance. A documentary film maker filming in the wild does not intervine with nature and jump in to save the lions prey.

I do, however, find animal testing cruel. Unless the product it's self is going to be intended for animal use, there really isn't a need to test it on an animal.

u winnaaa no wattt moii gittaa say...

u winnaa no..


well... rite noww.. alll u ppll datt sayy shiett alll da NUB crapp inn hurr alll dumass... so wenn u gitt moo ppll in hurr n sayy sumthangg goodd denn moi telll u wat moii gittaa sayy..

u noo ritee.. ...

What about the totality of biomedical science? Almost all of our biomedical understanding has casually preceded scientific animal research (often involving animal psychic and physical death). For example, the cure for Polio was derived and made possible by animal testing - without it, millions and millions more people would be dieing still to this day. Our modern medicine is reliant on animal testing, and... if you argue that animal testing is only justified in cases in which the end-product is intended for "animal use," I would like to emphasize the fact that human beings are also animals.

noopee.. NUB...

I don't agree with animal testing, because then animal trainers just "teach for the test", and animals miss out on a lot of important lessons. I think we should get rid of all animal testing requirements, and just let trainers use their best judgment in teaching.

ye... litt alll daa pppll dyee...

I..... I don't get it Is it English?

^ yeah let all the people die. :puke:

We should be careful about what we test on animals. Universal things like shampoo and stuff like that I think is ok.
Other things like medications should not be tested on animals

1. Shampoo is not "universal."
2. Medications actually need to be tested on animals.
3. If we don't test medications we can't be sure that they are safe for human consumption.
4. Further, we can't develop new medicine unless we have a realistic biological model to work off of (i.e. animals).

I am not too sure why we would test shampoos on animals. Personally, what we test on them isn't the issue with me, but it is how some of the animals have been treated.

Testing on animals is just plain wrong. I've always been hugely against it. Animals suffer the same way we do; they fear, feel pain and suffer just like us.
Do animals wear mascara in the wild? They don't therefore why should they be forced to endure the pain because their eyes are not the same as ours.

Animals systems are not the same, and therefore act differently to medicine. Therefore, putting out faulty results. Its unscientific and we can not accurately apply the results to humans.

Bottom line: ITS CRUEL.

STFUU NUBB..

mangg.. princc winnaa eet datt dogg..

Registered Jul 29, 2005

COMPARED TO:

Registered Oct 30, 2007

Who's the Noob?

that's just wrong... animal testing is just one cruel punishment...
if ppl are so eager to find the solution for something why don't they just test them on themselves or other ppl... what would you feel if you were the one being tested on? huh?

yeahh bet you wouldn't like that, because if it were wrong then you would be all messed up or deformed

uhh YUUUUUUuuUuUuuuuuuuUuuUuuuuuuuuuUuUuUuuUuUUuUUUUUuuuuu

EY.. u gaayy r watt..

wtf, hell no

the question here is.. are you??

u teell princc..

o ye.. u lill lamee animmall testt crabb lamee..

i think you are

but that's your problem...

u no lykee gaayy ppl r sumthangg..

o ye.. u no u wron boutt animaall testtenn crabb..

did i said that...? i think not

and no i am not wrong

BAM bietchh.. u donee SON... u done SON..

round 1 ROCKGUY vs PRINCE

u startt y u thinkk animalll testenn wrongg.. den me tell u whyy u wrong.. GOGOGOGO

wtf.. whatever


they get deformed