revival of an old one

[bobbyshinton 59]

All you animal rightds wallers, those against animal testing.

 

You would not refuse treatment if you found out it had been developed at some lab would you?

 

Cosmetics, lasses do you make sure it's not tested on little Babbit?

 

Fur, howay lasses it looks better on you

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

I agree with animal testing for medical research but not with fur-farming or hunting for sport.

[The Fish 11121]

disagree with blood sports and cosmetic testing, but don't really care about medical research or such things.

 

like the Goat that produces spider silk in it's milk.

[Gemmill 47553]

disagree with blood sports

 

That's not gonna go down well with your new breed of chums.

[Isegrim 10049]

I think the testing should be done with the kind of neighbours I don't want to live next door to me.

[Meenzer 15897]

I think the testing should be done with the kind of neighbours I don't want to live next door to me.

Poles?

[Gemmill 47553]

I think the testing should be done with the kind of neighbours I don't want to live next door to me.

Poles?

 

They can live in the annexe.

[Isegrim 10049]

I think the testing should be done with the kind of neighbours I don't want to live next door to me.

Poles?

No, that was already unsuccessfully tried 60 years ago...

[Fop 1]

All you animal rightds wallers, those against animal testing.

 

You would not refuse treatment if you found out it had been developed at some lab would you?

 

More medical experimentation on Chavs I say (not to mention seriously much better and wider genetic research).

 

I'd rather see a chavs brain probed than most apes, monkey or dogs etc.

 

Cosmetics, lasses do you make sure it's not tested on little Babbit?

 

Fat slappers that wear next to nothing should be forcibly collected and used for this, do the world a favour.

 

Fur, howay lasses it looks better on you

 

Heh fur is like carbon footprints, trendy to scream insanely and throw paint on it one year, back in fashion as a must have item a couple of years later.

Edited April 19, 2007 by Fop

[The Fish 11121]

disagree with blood sports

 

That's not gonna go down well with your new breed of chums.

it doesn't, believe me.

 

They argue they're doing a service to the rural community, I argue thats a bunch of shite peddled by people afraid of their traditions disappearing.

 

they have stricken me off the regatta VIP list for that one

[Guest Patrokles]

Animal testing is pretty cowardly, if you ask me. It's not as if they even test anything that could benefit the fucking animals, either. If you want to benefit humans, test on them.

[Gejon 2]

Sounds harsh but I don't really give a crap about animals, if they are used to test things that could help me or friends and family then tough shit.

[Guest Patrokles]

Sounds harsh but I don't really give a crap about animals, if they are used to test things that could help me or friends and family then tough shit.

 

I'd rather test on criminals, who deserve it, than animals, who clearly don't.

[GeordieMessiah 2]

Sounds harsh but I don't really give a crap about animals, if they are used to test things that could help me or friends and family then tough shit.

 

I'd rather test on criminals, who deserve it, than animals, who clearly don't.

 

And what about criminals who have been wrongly convicted?

[Gejon 2]

Sounds harsh but I don't really give a crap about animals, if they are used to test things that could help me or friends and family then tough shit.

 

I'd rather test on criminals, who deserve it, than animals, who clearly don't.

 

And what about criminals who have been wrongly convicted?

 

 

Good point. Never going to happen anyway so Animals it is. If the shoe was on the other foot they would do it to us, look at poor Steve Irwin

[Guest Patrokles]

Sounds harsh but I don't really give a crap about animals, if they are used to test things that could help me or friends and family then tough shit.

 

I'd rather test on criminals, who deserve it, than animals, who clearly don't.

 

And what about criminals who have been wrongly convicted?

 

 

Good point. Never going to happen anyway so Animals it is. If the shoe was on the other foot they would do it to us, look at poor Steve Irwin

 

1) I was referring to criminals as in those who commit crime. I wasn't suggesting implementing a system by which those convicted are tested upon. Just saying, in terms of justification.

 

2) It's a completely different thing. Man is the single most monstrous, calculating species on the planet today. We're intelligent, etc, and all that is claimed to elevate us above animals; and yet we inflict pain and death upon others on a whim- not to eat, not from instinct, not from necessity. There are people who will kill a spider because they don't like spiders. I don't see how that's civilized, which is what we're supposed to be. We're monsters.

[Gejon 2]

Sounds harsh but I don't really give a crap about animals, if they are used to test things that could help me or friends and family then tough shit.

 

I'd rather test on criminals, who deserve it, than animals, who clearly don't.

 

And what about criminals who have been wrongly convicted?

 

 

Good point. Never going to happen anyway so Animals it is. If the shoe was on the other foot they would do it to us, look at poor Steve Irwin

 

1) I was referring to criminals as in those who commit crime. I wasn't suggesting implementing a system by which those convicted are tested upon. Just saying, in terms of justification.

 

2) It's a completely different thing. Man is the single most monstrous, calculating species on the planet today. We're intelligent, etc, and all that is claimed to elevate us above animals; and yet we inflict pain and death upon others on a whim- not to eat, not from instinct, not from necessity. There are people who will kill a spider because they don't like spiders. I don't see how that's civilized, which is what we're supposed to be. We're monsters.

 

Run, RUN FOR THE HILLS!

 

Yeah I kind of know what you mean and I don't believe in hunting and the likes where the toffs just fanny about on their horses being pricks but animal testing which can actually help humans I don't mind.

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Sounds harsh but I don't really give a crap about animals, if they are used to test things that could help me or friends and family then tough shit.

 

I'd rather test on criminals, who deserve it, than animals, who clearly don't.

 

And what about criminals who have been wrongly convicted?

 

 

Good point. Never going to happen anyway so Animals it is. If the shoe was on the other foot they would do it to us, look at poor Steve Irwin

 

1) I was referring to criminals as in those who commit crime. I wasn't suggesting implementing a system by which those convicted are tested upon. Just saying, in terms of justification.

 

2) It's a completely different thing. Man is the single most monstrous, calculating species on the planet today. We're intelligent, etc, and all that is claimed to elevate us above animals; and yet we inflict pain and death upon others on a whim- not to eat, not from instinct, not from necessity. There are people who will kill a spider because they don't like spiders. I don't see how that's civilized, which is what we're supposed to be. We're monsters.

 

Pharmaceutical testing on animals is to determine potential toxicity, i.e. if it will kill or irreversibly damage you.

 

If it doesn't, the testing transfers to humans, so what you're basically advocating is random death of convicted criminals. All I say to that is have a look at how many U.S. states currently have a moratorium on the death penalty, as the number of innocent deaths has become 'unnacceptable'

[Guest Patrokles]

Sounds harsh but I don't really give a crap about animals, if they are used to test things that could help me or friends and family then tough shit.

 

I'd rather test on criminals, who deserve it, than animals, who clearly don't.

 

And what about criminals who have been wrongly convicted?

 

 

Good point. Never going to happen anyway so Animals it is. If the shoe was on the other foot they would do it to us, look at poor Steve Irwin

 

1) I was referring to criminals as in those who commit crime. I wasn't suggesting implementing a system by which those convicted are tested upon. Just saying, in terms of justification.

 

2) It's a completely different thing. Man is the single most monstrous, calculating species on the planet today. We're intelligent, etc, and all that is claimed to elevate us above animals; and yet we inflict pain and death upon others on a whim- not to eat, not from instinct, not from necessity. There are people who will kill a spider because they don't like spiders. I don't see how that's civilized, which is what we're supposed to be. We're monsters.

 

Pharmaceutical testing on animals is to determine potential toxicity, i.e. if it will kill or irreversibly damage you.

 

If it doesn't, the testing transfers to humans, so what you're basically advocating is random death of convicted criminals. All I say to that is have a look at how many U.S. states currently have a moratorium on the death penalty, as the number of innocent deaths has become 'unnacceptable'

 

Alright. Playing Devil's Advocate: On the assumption that some lives are worth more than others, then, why don't we test on the severely mentally handicapped? When you think about it, they actually serve less purpose than, say, a bee, and- in fact- cause a drain on national resources.

 

Also, my point wasn't that we should test on convicted criminals, as I went at pains to point out. I was just saying that in terms of fairness, I'd prefer to see testing done on those who are truly guilty of something, rather than animals. I'm not saying we should, because of the whole ' but what if they're innocent?' brouhaha.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Patrokles

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Sounds harsh but I don't really give a crap about animals, if they are used to test things that could help me or friends and family then tough shit.

 

I'd rather test on criminals, who deserve it, than animals, who clearly don't.

 

And what about criminals who have been wrongly convicted?

 

 

Good point. Never going to happen anyway so Animals it is. If the shoe was on the other foot they would do it to us, look at poor Steve Irwin

 

1) I was referring to criminals as in those who commit crime. I wasn't suggesting implementing a system by which those convicted are tested upon. Just saying, in terms of justification.

 

2) It's a completely different thing. Man is the single most monstrous, calculating species on the planet today. We're intelligent, etc, and all that is claimed to elevate us above animals; and yet we inflict pain and death upon others on a whim- not to eat, not from instinct, not from necessity. There are people who will kill a spider because they don't like spiders. I don't see how that's civilized, which is what we're supposed to be. We're monsters.

 

Pharmaceutical testing on animals is to determine potential toxicity, i.e. if it will kill or irreversibly damage you.

 

If it doesn't, the testing transfers to humans, so what you're basically advocating is random death of convicted criminals. All I say to that is have a look at how many U.S. states currently have a moratorium on the death penalty, as the number of innocent deaths has become 'unnacceptable'

 

Alright. Playing Devil's Advocate: On the assumption that some lives are worth more than others, then, why don't we test on the severely mentally handicapped? When you think about it, they actually serve less purpose than, say, a bee, and- in fact- cause a drain on national resources.

 

Devil's Advocate or total sick bastard?

[Guest Patrokles]

Sounds harsh but I don't really give a crap about animals, if they are used to test things that could help me or friends and family then tough shit.

 

I'd rather test on criminals, who deserve it, than animals, who clearly don't.

 

And what about criminals who have been wrongly convicted?

 

 

Good point. Never going to happen anyway so Animals it is. If the shoe was on the other foot they would do it to us, look at poor Steve Irwin

 

1) I was referring to criminals as in those who commit crime. I wasn't suggesting implementing a system by which those convicted are tested upon. Just saying, in terms of justification.

 

2) It's a completely different thing. Man is the single most monstrous, calculating species on the planet today. We're intelligent, etc, and all that is claimed to elevate us above animals; and yet we inflict pain and death upon others on a whim- not to eat, not from instinct, not from necessity. There are people who will kill a spider because they don't like spiders. I don't see how that's civilized, which is what we're supposed to be. We're monsters.

 

Pharmaceutical testing on animals is to determine potential toxicity, i.e. if it will kill or irreversibly damage you.

 

If it doesn't, the testing transfers to humans, so what you're basically advocating is random death of convicted criminals. All I say to that is have a look at how many U.S. states currently have a moratorium on the death penalty, as the number of innocent deaths has become 'unnacceptable'

 

Alright. Playing Devil's Advocate: On the assumption that some lives are worth more than others, then, why don't we test on the severely mentally handicapped? When you think about it, they actually serve less purpose than, say, a bee, and- in fact- cause a drain on national resources.

 

Devil's Advocate or total sick bastard?

 

Devil's Advocate. Why are animal lives worthless? If we're going to be completely detached and clinical about this, why not really stupid people? Or suffers from severe brain damage?

[Super_Steve_Howey 0]

Sounds harsh but I don't really give a crap about animals, if they are used to test things that could help me or friends and family then tough shit.

 

I'd rather test on criminals, who deserve it, than animals, who clearly don't.

 

And what about criminals who have been wrongly convicted?

 

 

Good point. Never going to happen anyway so Animals it is. If the shoe was on the other foot they would do it to us, look at poor Steve Irwin

 

1) I was referring to criminals as in those who commit crime. I wasn't suggesting implementing a system by which those convicted are tested upon. Just saying, in terms of justification.

 

2) It's a completely different thing. Man is the single most monstrous, calculating species on the planet today. We're intelligent, etc, and all that is claimed to elevate us above animals; and yet we inflict pain and death upon others on a whim- not to eat, not from instinct, not from necessity. There are people who will kill a spider because they don't like spiders. I don't see how that's civilized, which is what we're supposed to be. We're monsters.

 

Pharmaceutical testing on animals is to determine potential toxicity, i.e. if it will kill or irreversibly damage you.

 

If it doesn't, the testing transfers to humans, so what you're basically advocating is random death of convicted criminals. All I say to that is have a look at how many U.S. states currently have a moratorium on the death penalty, as the number of innocent deaths has become 'unnacceptable'

 

Alright. Playing Devil's Advocate: On the assumption that some lives are worth more than others, then, why don't we test on the severely mentally handicapped? When you think about it, they actually serve less purpose than, say, a bee, and- in fact- cause a drain on national resources.

 

Devil's Advocate or total sick bastard?

 

Devil's Advocate. Why are animal lives worthless? If we're going to be completely detached and clinical about this, why not really stupid people? Or suffers from severe brain damage?

 

I fully endorse your application for the program.

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

What happened to the folks who volunteered for the drug testing program last year that went wrong and they swelled up / lost fingers etc.?

 

Did they get a flat-rate "I'm a drug test guinea pig" payment or were they able to sue?

[Gejon 2]

As crazy as this may seem I think most people value human life a lot higher than animals. Its just the way it is. Suppose its on the same lines as you value your family more than you value other humans, then you value friends more than you do strangers etc....