On October 12 2006 01:10 alphaentity wrote:
But if a dog starts humping my leg, (or a woman's vagina), I would say that it serves as a perfectly fine indication of consent from the dog.

Thus, if the animal starts it, then i think it's fine to enjoy it. .

AHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAH

HOPE YOU HAVE FUN FRIDAY NIGHT!!!!!!!!!!

CoralReefer

Canada2069 Posts

October 11 2006 23:43 GMT

#244

Poll: What's your preference?
(Vote): Sheep
(Vote): Cow
(Vote): Pig
(Vote): Duck
(Vote): Other

IntoTheWow

is awesome32282 Posts

October 11 2006 23:44 GMT

#245

Wheres the "eels" option?

Nyovne

Netherlands19141 Posts

October 11 2006 23:47 GMT

#246

Fucksake is this thread still going? Roflskates, is it actually worth reading? (Aka is all the crap spewed in it actually funny)

Liquid`Jinro

Sweden33723 Posts

October 11 2006 23:49 GMT

#247

On October 11 2006 17:35 Chill wrote:
[removed quote within quote]

Animals did nothing to deserve being hurt. Animals should be hurt before humans because they are less intelligent and live shorter lives. I don't test it on myself because I can test it on a less intelligent animal. If I'm going to deprive something of its life, it makes more sense for it to be an animal than a human. If there's some third option that comes into the mix, like computer simulation, then that would be a good alternative, but until that's the case, testing on animals makes sense to me. If some new species arrives, and lives longer lives than us with more intelligence, and they can only test their products on us or them, it would make more sense for them to test them on us.

I'm sure you'll have some emotional response instead of a logical one, as all your responses have been in this thread, so let me sum up by saying:

Animal testing is done for a reason; people in the scientific world generally aren't cruel to animals without reson.
I don't think it's good, but there usually are no better alternative.
You test things on a few animals to make sure a mass marketed product doesn't hurt a large number of humans. If you made a drug that was supposed to cure a disease but instead stopped heart function, and you didn't test it on an animal (terrible example, I know, but you get the point) you would kill thousands of people. By kill that animal you've essentially saved thousands of lives. Even if you do the test hundreds of times you're still, essentially, saving lives.

I'm not entirely opposed testing medical products, but earlier in this thread you defended testing >COSMETICS<.

COSMETICS.

You want to test a cure for cancer? Ok, I can buy that. You want to test your latest mascara by rubbing it on the eyeballs of a hamster? Fuck you.

CoralReefer

Canada2069 Posts

October 12 2006 00:06 GMT

#248

FA, i know it doesn't sound nice,

but putting some shampoo on a guinea pig isn't really any more cruel than what we do when we raise animals for consumption.

also, did you know you can hypnotize chickens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_hypnotism

Dametri

United States726 Posts

October 12 2006 00:07 GMT

#249

On October 12 2006 09:06 ml1710 wrote:

also, did you know you can hypnotize chickens?

Steve Fairnie, 1980s British musician: "You have to dominate the chicken and be right above it staring into its eyes. Then it will either go under or it will attack you, so you have to be a bit careful..." (Fan-club magazine, 1983)

Almost sounds like it fits into our bestiality discussion.

Chill

Calgary26004 Posts

October 12 2006 00:22 GMT

#250

Yea, I mentioned cosmetics for the same reason. They test if they damage your skin or if they get in your eyes whether they blind you. Although it's just cosmetics, which is a luxury, there still needs to be a level of safety when giving a product to the public. It doesn't matter what the product is, if a mascara blinds you or the supposed cure for cancer blinds you, the blind people aren't going to care. So, once again, it's better to blind a few animals than a large number of humans.