|
Sweden33723 Posts
On October 12 2006 09:22 Chill wrote:
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.
They should test it on their most loyal consumers, they fit the less intelligent bill too.
Sorry, but, jokes aside, I find this point of view sickening.. Maybe if we ever run out of animals we could use handicapped people for tests.. Seriously, I think this kind of reasoning - that because we are feeling, thinking, intelligent, moral beings.. we can torture animals - is fucked up but I obviously am not going to convince you of this..
Maybe in order to understand this you have to have at least met an animal (one that's alive, not dead on your plate).
|
After reading all the replies and comments, this thread has left me in utter speechlessness ._.
|
Calgary26004 Posts
I wasn't condescending on your point of view, please respect mine.
The bottom line is, you'd rather take a chance and have people injured rather than animals injured, killed and tortured. I'm telling you I would kill 1000 animals to save one human life. I don't know why that's sickening to you, but I guess we disagree.
|
On October 12 2006 13:35 FrozenArbiter wrote:
[removed quote within quote]
They should test it on their most loyal consumers, they fit the less intelligent bill too.
Sorry, but, jokes aside, I find this point of view sickening.. Maybe if we ever run out of animals we could use handicapped people for tests.. Seriously, I think this kind of reasoning - that because we are feeling, thinking, intelligent, moral beings.. we can torture animals - is fucked up but I obviously am not going to convince you of this..
Maybe in order to understand this you have to have at least met an animal (one that's alive, not dead on your plate).
what about the simple fact that cosmetics add nothing to life... absolutely useless and unnecessary products, where as animals used for food supply us with... food! :o and animals used for medicinal purposes supply us with :o improved health!
so basically using animals for testing cosmetics is wasting a resource that could have been put to better use.
or wasting a life just so other people will label you as "pretty" instead of "ugly".
ps. i m a beast in bed... does that count as animal sex as well?
|
On October 12 2006 13:40 Chill wrote:
I wasn't condescending on your point of view, please respect mine.
The bottom line is, you'd rather take a chance and have people injured rather than animals injured, killed and tortured. I'm telling you I would kill 1000 animals to save one human life. I don't know why that's sickening to you, but I guess we disagree.
hmm i d like to see your answer... would you use the handicapped if there are no animals left? would you sacrifice 1000 handicapped people for one normal one?
and what if you run out of handicapped guys... would you start using... jews?
seriously, what would you do?
|
Calgary26004 Posts
It's like we're going in fucking circles.
Passion, cosmetics are a luxury, WE GET THAT. That doesn't change the fact that if they are improperly made they could be harmful. That's why you test, to make sure they don't hurt humans. It doesn't matter how you blinded or scarred someone for life, that's going to suck for them. So, to avoid that happening, we test on animals, get things right, then release them to the public.
Your other comments and questions are pretty silly, but I'll bite. If we were running out of animals then we would use them for food / necessity before testing (the human race isn't stupid). If every animal was dead I would ban the products until some new method of testing was developped to ensure that these products weren't harmful.
Now I'm going to flip the tables on you animal defended. You invent a new eye drop that apparently gives people requiring glasses temporarily restored vision. How are you going to make sure it doesn't blind people? If your answer is to test it on people, what if you find no one willing?
|
yea sorry, i didnt really read everything... but i just dont find it fair that something/someone has to suffer for luxory... if your luxory comes at a price i think you should pay the price yourself.
so in the situation you described, the people who would like to use the product would have to test it. obviously i'd test it on animals, if they would be available, and by doing so, i'd also rate one being as higher/more important as an other...
i m not saying you're wrong, but i do say that doing this is wrong, or feels wrong to me.
(btw i didnt think of drops to temporarily cure vision, just medicine in general... to cure some terrible disease or something)
so in the end, the conclusion i have to draw from this whole discussion is that our form of civilisation is doomed to fail, or doomed to turn us into very evil beings...
but yes, my comments and questions are a bit silly and confusing...
|
|
|
I don't wanna sound queer or nothin, but I think unicorns kick ass.
|
rinizim
Korea (South)187 Posts
Personal Conclusion
Examples of facts.
1. Human eat animals.
2. Human fuck animals.
3. More human eat, rather than fuck animals.
Examples of opinions
1. Animal fucking people are sick.
2. Boxer is heavenly cute.
3. Warcraft own Starcraft.
If you are a logical person who has the ability to discern an argument from obstinacy,
having read this thread carefully, you must find the distingushing difference betweein the two types of people here; One basing his argument on opinions, moral beliefs, and societal norm, and the other on logics, facts, and examples. The prior is just crude obstinacy, saying that its only own opinions are right. The latter are the real debaters headed for constructive discussion, whether it be pro/against animal fucking.
Is that what you think? screw it. What are the facts? Support your idea with facts. If I were to argue with my opinion with no facts supporting it, I'd say, "I think you are sick because you eat cereal in the morning, and not rice!."
There is no factual evidence that populations who have sex with animals are retards, sociopaths, and potential criminals. However, there is a factual research evidence that people can live without any animal related organic consumption.
If you are against animal fucking for animal's safety, stop eating meat, stop killing them, stop testing them for whatever reason, and then say you oppose animal sex. We all can confidently oppose pedophiliacs, because we do not eat, kill, harm children, or at least we try not to.
If you are against animal fucking for moral, religious values(beliefs), who cares about what you think? There is no evidence that those animal fucking population is doing harm to the society. If I morally disagree with you having sex with an opposite sex, will you stop? Neither will I.
You kids need to grow up, and respect others freedom, and humanity.
"I disagree with you, but I will fight by your side to protect the freedom for you to freely disagree with me."
who said that... hmm can't quite remember.
=============
Do I fuck animals? No, and I think it's wrong, sick, gross, and disgusting.
But, I am willing to stand by their choice. Just as they will stand by my choice of sleeping with a woman.
|
On October 12 2006 09:22 Chill wrote:
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.
Chill, its not like "if we dont blind these animals, people will go blind!" its like, "if we blind these animals, we can make money selling a beauty product that people dont need and most likely doesnt work anyways!"
Its not the people who are testing on animals, its the company that makes the product. However this is extremely minor in the over lack of moral values in big buisness these days. But hey, what are you gonna do.
|
Also, reputable companys have come out and said that we DONT need to test on animals, its simply cheaper. Now it might be that the alternative methods arent as effective as animal testing, but I would imagine its more about money than anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
