Originally Posted by thehappyhippo
""as people go veg*an for a variety of reasons" uhm that was kind of my statement so not sure what you are meaning here. Unless we are both wrong.
Your statement was shock and dismay that not all veg*ns were anti-testing, which is pretty silly to be shocked about if you know not all veg*ns are in favor of animal rights.
"Taken out of context" - not really as the quotes mean something even if they stand on their own. Numerous report have been published on the uselessness of using rats in cancer experiments yet they are still used. Why????
Well, as I don't know what reports you are refrring to, my guess would be that rats serve a purpose in testing certain cancer treatments, but probably not all.
And if you don't understand how not knowing the context of quotes matter, well, then we raelly can't go forward.
If you have read both side then how about giving some more nuggets of your wisdom. I find debating with someone whos only response is to find tiny holes in the other persons argument and not putting any real argument forward to support their point of view to be of limited use. Also it is a sure sign of the other person not having an adequate argument. Please give us some fact to support your pro-testing argument as that would make this debate really interesting and not just meaningless nitpicking.
*sigh* Will you actually listen if I do? I have linked many, many articles on VB
to show why animal testing is still a useful tool, and but I find they are wasted on ARAs with the intelligence of cupie dolls.
If you want, I will gladly pull up my links, but my core argument will be that researchers who achieve results credit the use of animal testing in their success. For me, that will be good enough.
My point was, my obtuse friend, was one that different species have different reactions. If something as benign as chocolate can kill a dog then how can we trust any thing tested on another non-human animal. Chocolate is one of many food products that are fine for humans but deadly to other species.
Different species = different reactions.
Which is why different animals are used for different research.
I don't understand why anti-testers have a hard time getting that concept.
But if you really wanted to get more complete information then google each drug and read about it.
I will get back to you on this one.
Firstly to dismiss something because it has the word "absurd" in the title just shows how narrow minded and pompous you are. The word "absurd" means "inconsistent with reason or logic or common sense" (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
) which is exactly what the article talks about.
When a website calls something absurd in the actual site name, then only a fool would believe what they are reading lacks an agenda.
Secondly why if medical science has advanced so far because of animal testing do we still need to test on humans before the drug is released to the general public. Could it be because they can not trust the results from the animal experiments??
No, it is because animal testing is a tool, and one step in the process. Keep in mind that all drugs, even thoselater recalled, undergo human
clinical trials as well. Would you like to argue that human testing is worthless as well?
Third and finally medical science has advanced so far not because of medical experimentation being correct but because it is used as a crutch to get things past the lawyers (at least in modern times). Like all proper sciences old theorems and techniques are replaced by newer, better, more reliable theorems and techniques. You see this at work in maths, computers, socioliogy, astrology, medicine etc. So why when you have computers and physical models that can accurately model the human body are we still using animals.
Because nothing has been developed, yet, that can account for the complexity of a living organism, human or animal.
Your first sentence in this paragraph isn't even worth addressing.
Granted to my knowledge there is no model for every human part.
I think that answers your own question.
Surely investing and developing this industry is far better than relying on an archaic form of "science" that has proven ineffective and misleading in countless millions of cases.
Let's see cancer survival rates are up, treatments are available for numerous diseases and conditions that were not even just a couple of decades back, new surgical techniques have been developed...yeah, animal testing has proven ineffective.
Hopefully "Tame" if you do reply your insightful comments will have pro-arguments not just nitpicking points. Remember no argument is perfect and ALL arguments have flaws.
I will address an argument in whatever manner I choose. I am glad you admit all arguments have flaws. Acceptance is the first step in the true path to recovery.