[Stradlater]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
ehm, what part of "some of this thread" did you not understand??

overlooked it, sorry; regardless, some things are more off-topic than others. save your factory farm issues for the vegans thread.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
true. so what do you want to know? i have to tell you that i don't know exactly what they're research was about. does that matter?

Of course it matters. Time and again in this thread, you've proven the illegitimacy of all your arguments.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Again, you don't make sense... you are simply blabbering on about things you don't have a clue about...

Cheers, I'm out...

wtf???? logic wrote that there are supposedly "many" people who don't have access to "fruits and vegetables"?!

to which i responded "places like india and china" (where MANY MANY people live).

judging from his posts there isn't any shortage of "fruits" where he comes from.

then you start posting shyt about the middle east and vegas????? pass the crack pipe please.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Of course it matters. Time and again in this thread, you've proven the illegitimacy of all your arguments.

It doesn't matter, he is going to simply talk out his arse at a different angle. You can't argue with a fool.

Well, you can, but then you get this type of thread...

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Of course it matters. Time and again in this thread, you've proven the illegitimacy of all your arguments.

what, because i didn't take part in the experiments, my arguments that laws trying to prevent the abuse of animals for testing purposes aren't enforced???

how does that follow?

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
what, because i didn't take part in the experiments, my arguments that laws trying to prevent the abuse of animals for testing purposes aren't enforced???

how does that follow?

Refer to the previously "it's probably not as bad as you think" post. It's not the "abuse" you label it and make it out to be.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Refer to the previously "it's probably not as bad as you think" post. It's not the "abuse" you label it and make it out to be.

how in the fu<k do you know what i've seen, or even begin to know what goes on everywhere...



"oh, nothig to see here...please move on"

[fireside]

the earliest form of humans were gatherers. meaning, they gathered plants and fruits and such to eat. then, once they got tools and such, they became hunter-gatherers, meaning that hunted other animals and gathered plants and fruits to eat. so, the neanderthas and earlier humans actually did start out by just eating veggies. but as their intelligence grew, so did their reliance on meat.

also all the essential amino acids and proteins are found in practically every type of meat out there (beef, pork, chicken, fish) while you have to eat many different types of fruits and vegetables to get your essential amino acids and vitamins and minerals.

[fireside]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
how in the fu<k do you know what i've seen, or even begin to know what goes on everywhere...



"oh, nothig to see here...please move on"

well maybe once you start talking about what you have seen and done about it, maybe we'll listen to you. but now you're just beating around the bush, buddy.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by fireside:
the earliest form of humans were gatherers. meaning, they gathered plants and fruits and such to eat.

ehm no. most of the human ancestors were omnivors.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by finboy:
As others have pointed out -- do your homework.

You must be mistaking me with someone else in this thread. Nobody has suggested I do my homework so far.

Originally posted by finboy:
Ask some anthropologists about finding "tree bones". If folks didn't eat meat in ages past, it's because they were poor and downtrodden.

Ummm. That's what I said. People couldn't afford to eat meat for most of the last couple of thousand years. Therefore... being a vegetarian isn't a modern luxury at all, as suggested by the post I was responding to.

[fireside]

[why cant we delete our posts]

[Cipher13]

Wow. I read about the first 10 posts in this thread, and would simply like to say this:

Sherwin, you're a fool.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Wow. I read about the first 10 posts in this thread, and would simply like to say this:

Sherwin, you're a fool.

Like I wasn't expecting that from you Ciph.

Please explain which part you though was foolish. And why. Come on Ciph, enlighten us all with your wisdom.

[Rev-O]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Wow. I read about the first 10 posts in this thread, and would simply like to say this:

Sherwin, you're a fool.

Hypothetically typing: if my daughter had some very unpleasent ailment, and snuffing a lab full of chimps would cure her, or even move us closer to a cure... well... those f***ing apes are history.

I would help, and I would go to sleep with a smile on my face knowing I MIGHT have helped my child.

Animal rights. Sheesh. Some people just have an over developed set of ethics.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Rev-O:
Hypothetically typing: if my daughter had some very unpleasent ailment, and snuffing a lab full of chimps would cure her, or even move us closer to a cure... well... those f***ing apes are history.

hypothetically typing: if i had kids, and they had some very unpleasant ailment, and snuffing a lab full of people would cure them, or even move us closer to a cure...well...those f***ing people are history.

but then of course, when looking for REAL cures, no snuffing of anybody or any animal is absolutely necessary (no matter what stradlater says). in some cases it MIGHT save time (which is actually more about pharma companies making money than finding cures that aren't potentially dangerous when used on humans), but most of the times it is not necessary at all.

like logic pointed out, there are many very strict regulations on this, and if they were followed (or at least enforced), there wouldn't be such an urgency to protect animal rights. but, alas, laws aren't worth the payper they are typed on, if the local police force don't do anything about it. in addition, people are usually pretty good at finding loopholes.

i'm also curious, what are these diseases, where research using animal testing is absolutely necessary to find a cure to eliminate the ROOT of the disease, not a quick fix to remedy the symptoms, or save time, to make more money...?

[sidenote] what is happening in thailand and vietnam right now is terrible, but necessary to save human lives...[/sidenote]

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
hypothetically typing: if i had kids, and they had some very unpleasant ailment, and snuffing a lab full of people would cure them, or even move us closer to a cure...well...those f***ing people are history.

Exactly.

The real question as to whether this hypothetical typing is backed up by any kind of ethics other than personal environment preservation is: Would Rev-O snuff his pet dog to save Cipher? I think not.

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
[sidenote] what is happening in thailand and vietnam right now is terrible, but necessary to save human lives...[/sidenote]

[sidenote]If the animals in question had been treated with a little respect instead of as just another commodity, the problems in Asia wouldn't be happening. All of our recent food problems here in the UK were caused by treating the animals as nothing more than commodities.[/sidenote]

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
[sidenote]If the animals in question had been treated with a little respect instead of as just another commodity, the problems in Asia wouldn't be happening. All of our recent food problems here in the UK were caused by treating the animals as nothing more than commodities.[/sidenote]

[Rev-O]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
Exactly.

The real question as to whether this hypothetical typing is backed up by any kind of ethics other than personal environment preservation is: Would Rev-O snuff his pet dog to save Cipher? I think not.

Which Dog? Just kidding... of course I'm not gonna snuff either of my pooches for Cipher, unless saving Cipher was a by-product of hypothetically saving my child. But then, I'd be saving my child.

Sorry, I'll be the first to admit that ALL my ethics and morals are entirely situational. Anyone else who denies this is sheltered, dishonest, or foolish. Or a college student. Inflamatory enough?

By the by, I would be willing to snuff my cat for Cipher...

[Cipher13]

Sherwin, you don't deserve an analytical response.

Your comment about Jews on the first page is enough to show us all you barely understand the topic of discussion, let alone the ideas being presented here by either side.

Since ignorance is bliss... enjoy your euphoria.

Additionally, I wouldn't hesitate to euthenise a pet dog, if that could save the life of a person.

[g. olson]

Interesting fact: the first "animal rights" laws were passed in Nazi Germany and, of course, Hitler was a vegetarian.

How should animal products and medical procedures be tested? One of my dogs recently had chemo (without success I'm sorry to report.)

I eat grass-fed Buffalo meat -delicious, by the way. Nothing they eat is edible by humans. Same with free-range chickens. Pigs will eat just about anything, including the heads and feet of the free-range chickens.

There is more than enough quality human food for everyone on the planet; the problem is getting it to them because of war and human corruption.

I believe we have a moral obligation to see that animals are treated humanely but it would help if we could start by treating humans humanely.

I've read some very reasonable and rational posts on this topic. You know who you are and I thank you.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by g. olson:
Interesting fact: the first "animal rights" laws were passed in Nazi Germany

nope. "animal rights" laws were passed in india long! before that.

Originally posted by g. olson:

and, of course, Hitler was a vegetarian.

nope

Originally posted by g. olson:

How should animal products and medical procedures be tested? One of my dogs recently had chemo (without success I'm sorry to report.)

i'm sorry to hear that. there are other ways to develop animal products and medical procedures, that don't involve unnesseccary testing on animals.

Originally posted by g. olson:

I eat grass-fed Buffalo meat -delicious, by the way. Nothing they eat is edible by humans. Same with free-range chickens. Pigs will eat just about anything, including the heads and feet of the free-range chickens.

?

Originally posted by g. olson:

There is more than enough quality human food for everyone on the planet; the problem is getting it to them because of war and human corruption.

I believe we have a moral obligation to see that animals are treated humanely but it would help if we could start by treating humans humanely.

[mitchell_pgh]

I feel this conversation is too black and white on the animal issue.

Going back to the analogy of "my daughter" where she has a horrible ailment that will surely cause death.

1) There is no cure that would cause the senseless killing of animals. You insinuate that animal testing is horrifically barbaric (which in the past it has been). I'm not saying that this still doesn't happen in some countries, but in most of the main research countries, scientists are heald to a much higher standard with regards to animal research.

2) There is no cure that would cause the senseless killing of humans. You are placing the value of one human over the value of another human which simply doesn't fly.

MY VIEW

1) Animal testing should NEVER occur on anything non-medical.

2) Animal testing should only occur when no other testing measure is possible.

3) Animal testing should only be tested in the very final stages of research/testing.

I'm a vegetarian, but realize that if you place animals on the same level of humans, we should also place plants on that same level. I've come to realize that we are part of the food chain. I don't get angry at the mountain lion for eating the deer... I don't get angry with the deer eating the grass... I don't get angry with one blade of grass blocking the sunlight that another grass seed needs to grow...

In that same breath, animals should be treated with high regard. Chickens stacked 10 high inside of cages just large enough to hold the chicken in a barn the size of a football field isn't right! Raising cows that are chained to the floor so they don't develop muscles to produce a better grade of meat isn't right.

I guess I just don't agree with either side.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Sherwin, you don't deserve an analytical response.

Your comment about Jews on the first page is enough to show us all you barely understand the topic of discussion, let alone the ideas being presented here by either side.

I thought you were supposed to be intelligent Cipher.

You really can't see the correlation?

� You believe animals to be lower than you, therefore unworthy of "rights".
� The Nazis believed Jews to be lower than them, therefore unworthy of "rights".
� The slave traders believed Africans to be lower than them, therefore unworthy of "rights".

Your view of animals can't be tempered with a "but they're just animals". Why? Because if you were a Nazi you'd have the very same excuse: "they're just Jews". You're using exactly the same reasoning.

If you can't actually see this, then you might like to think about whether in fact you're actually more intelligent than the animals. After all, one of the main differences between us and animals is supposed to be our ability to perform abstract thought. It would appear that you don't have any capacity for this, so draw your own conclusions.

And you'd snuff your own pet dog (a family member) to save the life of someone you don't know? That just says "tw@t" to me.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
MY VIEW

Is the correct answer.

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
1) Animal testing should NEVER occur on anything non-medical.

2) Animal testing should only occur when no other testing measure is possible.

3) Animal testing should only be tested in the very final stages of research/testing.

4) Animal testing should be centralised and standardised. No point in the UK testing for drug A when the US has already tested it to accepted international standards. No point in France testing for cure B when Spain is already testing for exactly the same thing. No point in UCLA testing for the same thing that UIUC is testing for.

[Spliffdaddy]

Bottom line:

phoenixboy never explained his role in those 'factory farms'.


So tell us, phoenixboy, what were your job duties?

[jaiqua]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
nope. "animal rights" laws were passed in india long! before that.

I wouldn't call it animal rights. The sanctity of an animal, such as the cow, didn't extend to it taking presidence over a human. They might have worshipped them, but it wasn't unkown for them to hack the cow to pieces for food.

[g. olson]

Here is an excellent article on Hitler's dietary habits and the animal rights laws supported and passed in Nazi Germany. Whether Hitler was a vegetarian or not is really just making a point to people who claim or feel morally superior because of their food choices. Hitler's diet did not make him evil. He was also a real dog-lover, as am I. Anyway, here is the link to the article in case anyone is interested in the parallels between the modern animal rights movement and Nazi Germany:
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id11.html

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
So tell us, phoenixboy, what were your job duties?

wtf are you talking about? - i never said i worked in a "factory farm".

[mfdynusore]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
- herbal medicine
- witchcraft
- prayer

You are kidding right?

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
There is no cure that would cause the senseless killing of animals. You insinuate that animal testing is horrifically barbaric (which in the past it has been). I'm not saying that this still doesn't happen in some countries, but in most of the main research countries, scientists are heald to a much higher standard with regards to animal research.

the question is: do they follow these standards? and what happens if they don't?

it happens in lot of western european countries, the us, japan, asia...

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by mfdynusore:
You are kidding right?

to a certain extent i was, of course. logic asked me to name three alternatives to animal testing for scientific research. the question of course is so vague, that i couldn't possibly give a specific answer.

animal testing is being done for a very large variety of purposes. i couldn't possibly come up with three general solutions to cover all of them.

but witchcraft is going to be the medicine of the future.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by g. olson:
Here is an excellent article...

Irrespective of whether Hitler, Goebbels or other leading Nazis were, in fact, devout vegetarians, their self-serving rhetoric, claiming the moral high ground, is consistent with that...

of the bush administration...

[mfdynusore]

This thread is very interesting in it's structure if not so in it's content. The original poster posted a link to a controversial article and has not returned to the thread in almost three pages. That reminds me of a 1970ish book called "Games people play" one of these games was "Lets you and Him fight" and it certainly seems to be working. In the spirit of the game I will now mention one of my favorite vegan baiting quotes. "If god hadn't wanted us to wear fur coats she would have given the assualt rifles to the snow leopards.". I return to lurking.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by mfdynusore:
This thread is very interesting in it's structure if not so in it's content. The original poster posted a link to a controversial article and has not returned to the thread in almost three pages. That reminds me of a 1970ish book called "Games people play".

nah, it's just dimph being himself...i think he's on probation or something...

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by mfdynusore:
T"If god hadn't wanted us to wear fur coats she would have given..."

the flu to chickens...

[entrox]

As a member of ELEAWTA (Eating Lethal and Endangered Animals While They're Alive), my stance on this topic is clear: just as every lion has the right to eat tasty gazelles, I have the right to eat tasty lions (or cows for that matter). That's the way nature wants it to be.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I thought you were supposed to be intelligent Cipher.

You really can't see the correlation?

� You believe animals to be lower than you, therefore unworthy of "rights".
� The Nazis believed Jews to be lower than them, therefore unworthy of "rights".
� The slave traders believed Africans to be lower than them, therefore unworthy of "rights".

Your view of animals can't be tempered with a "but they're just animals". Why? Because if you were a Nazi you'd have the very same excuse: "they're just Jews". You're using exactly the same reasoning.

Sorry, going to have to disagree with you on this one, Sherwin. There are similarities to your comparisons, but they are far from "exactly the same."

Nazi: They're just jews.
Person: But they're humans, the same animal as you.
Nazi: But...damn.

VS.

Person: They're just animals.
Activist: And Nazis were "just" killing Jews, huh!?
Person: Nazis killed Jews intentionally-cruelly for malicious reasons, we're talking about systematic rules-and-regulated animal testing for research with the sole intent of saving millions of human lives in the future. Regardless, Jews are humans, the same "animal" as you and me, and even Nazis, for that matter; we're not testing on humans, we're testing on somewhat less-complex animals.
Activist: But...damn.

It just doesn't work if you think about it.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
(no matter what stradlater says)

I'm glad you're the authority on such matters, seeing as you've been inside of a testing place once or twice in your life. Oh yeah, and factory farms, I forgot about how relevent those are. We NEED animal research for many ailments in order to make any REAL progress in curing them. Name a few scientifically-viable and time-feasible alternatives to things like those listed in the article: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's, et cetera. You can't? Oh, that's right, you can't.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
It just doesn't work if you think about it.

Not until you realise that in the mind of a rabid Nazi the Jew isn't actually human.

Your first example doesn't hold up if the Nazi is thinking like a Nazi (rather than how you've put it which is you thinking like a normal person trying to imagine what a Nazi would say). Subtle but important difference.

I believe you're making the mistake of assuming that the Nazis thought like the rest of us do. To the Nazis, the Jews were animals, not human.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Name a few scientifically-viable and time-feasible alternatives to things like those listed in the article: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's, et cetera. You can't? Oh, that's right, you can't.

give an exact reason why animal testing is absolutely necessary (none of this it saves us time and money ********, or it's okay because in the process we might be successful) to find a cure against alzheimer's, parkinson's and huntington's, et cetera. you can't? didn't think so.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Person: Nazis killed Jews intentionally-cruelly for malicious reasons,

the nazis sure didn't think so...

Originally posted by Stradlater:

we're talking about systematic rules-and-regulated animal testing for research

in which rules and regulations are often violated...

Originally posted by Stradlater:

with the sole intent of saving millions of human lives in the future.

..and a lot of times cutting corners, saving money for the sake of profit...

Originally posted by Stradlater:

Regardless, Jews are humans, the same "animal" as you and me, and even Nazis, for that matter; we're not testing on humans, we're testing on somewhat less-complex animals.

less complex in what sense? thought process? there is no intrinsic right to use and abuse life which we deem "less complex". the nazis certainly thought that the jews were "less complex"...

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
the nazis sure didn't think so...

Depends who's justifying, I guess.

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
in which rules and regulations are often violated...

Where are you getting this ********? From your 2-time experience?

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
..and a lot of times cutting corners, saving money for the sake of profit...

Cutting corners means saving time (and saving human lives, although I don't think you should call it "cutting corners" so much as "the only quick, feasible way to go about testing"), saving money means...well, saving money.

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
less complex in what sense? thought process? there is no intrinsic right to use and abuse life which we deem "less complex". the nazis certainly thought that the jews were "less complex"...

Scientifically on the whole, there are much more striking differences between you and a Jew and you and a rat.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
give an exact reason why animal testing is absolutely necessary (none of this it saves us time and money ********, or it's okay because in the process we might be successful) to find a cure against alzheimer's, parkinson's and huntington's, et cetera. you can't? didn't think so.

How is it ********? Common sense tells us that you have to test some things if you want to know results. There's more of a reason than you've given. I'll expand if common sense doesn't make sense to you.

However, I explained something, now your turn:
Name a few scientifically-viable and time-feasible alternatives to things like those listed in the article: Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's, et cetera. You can't? Oh, that's right, you can't.

COME ON: What is "********" about saving time (a LOT of time) and saving money, oh yeah, and saving LIVES?

[WiggMuffin]

Organisms will always eat other organisms, whether they are plants or animals. Animals eat other animals, so how is us eating animals is wrong? It's completely natural, and in my opinion meat will probably always be used as a primary food source.

As for medical purposes, finding cures for medical problems such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's IS a good reason to test on animals. Far more people suffer or die from medical problems such as these than animals that are tested on. Also, as stated earlier, most of us would much rather have animals tested on than human beings.

[maxintosh]

On the (1) train yesterday, a few PETA protestors came through the door. This woman was carrying a trash bag and started yelling at everyone on the train about fur coats. Then she pulled out a dead, bloody mink from the garbage can and started waiving it in people's faces, while two little short guys ran around handing out flyers. They passed through to the next car...

Of course the lady sitting across from me was wearing a fur coat.

FWIW I think that fur coats are repulsive. But I do eat meat... I don't think it's unnatural or morally reprehensible to kill animals for food. After all, they kill each other for food all the time... it's just part of the food chain. It's quite natural really... we're responsible to kill sensibly and with respect for the environment. In some cases, thining the population of a species is environmentally beneficial; deer season in New England is one such case.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
- herbal medicine
- witchcraft
- prayer

From this, I know you're not serious - you're only trolling.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Depends who's justifying, I guess.

what do you mean "who is justifying"? in the nazis' minds "jews" were "lower" than regular humans, and if "testing" on jews meant saving time, money and the lives of many "better" arians, then yes, "in their minds" they were totally justified.

Originally posted by Stradlater:

Where are you getting this ********? From your 2-time experience?

where are you getting this crap about my "two time" experiences. i have taken an interest in "animal rights" etc. for a few years now, and i have talked to people (no, they were neither liars, nor ill informed, nor mindless radicals) and informed myself about this issue. "my experiences" also involved "personal observation", so don't fu<kin' tell me what i have experienced or seen, and it sure as hell doesn't make any difference wether i worked in these labs/factory farms.

Originally posted by Stradlater:

Cutting corners means saving time (and saving human lives, although I don't think you should call it "cutting corners" so much as "the only quick, feasible way to go about testing"), saving money means...well, saving money.

well, if this means "abusing", and in some cases even "torturing" animals, it is NOT OKAY! who gives a fu<k wether it saves time and money. actually, this is exactly the reason why people aren't willing to try any alternative methods of testing.

Originally posted by Stradlater:

Scientifically on the whole, there are much more striking differences between you and a Jew and you and a rat.

but where it counts, the similarities completely outweigh the differences.

[phoenixboy]

Originally posted by WiggMuffin:
Organisms will always eat other organisms, whether they are plants or animals. Animals eat other animals, so how is us eating animals is wrong?

animals eat other animals because they "need to" in order to survive. you would be surprised how quickly they would stop being carnivores, if circumstances changed, and adapting (in order to ensure survival) meant becoming a herbivore.

in the 21st century, a meat based diet is completely unnecessary for humans. it, in fact, is a luxury (and to many a serious health problem (though not necessarily so)). so, per se, there is nothing "wrong" with eating animals (though rather superfluous in our times), BUT there is something very much wrong with "raising", and "stocking" animals in, a lot of times, rather barbaric environments, to sustain our lazy a$$ meat eating habits...

Originally posted by WiggMuffin:

As for medical purposes, finding cures for medical problems such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's IS a good reason to test on animals.

not if there are alternative ways of finding cures.

Originally posted by WiggMuffin:
Far more people suffer or die from medical problems such as these than animals that are tested on.

...

Originally posted by WiggMuffin:

Also, as stated earlier, most of us would much rather have animals tested on than human beings.

LOL. i think i'd agree to a certain point...

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
what do you mean "who is justifying"? in the nazis minds "jews" were "lower" than regular humans, and if "testing" on jews meant saving time, money and the lives of many "better" arians, then yes, "in their minds" they were totally justified.

Ummm...very little of the mass genocide was the result of "testing". Unless you think they were mostly testing gas chambers and bullets. We're talking about scientific testing on animals.

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
where are you getting this crap about my "two time" experiences. i have taken an interest in "animal rights" etc. for a few years now, and i have talked to people (no, they were neither liars, nor ill informed, nor mindless radicals) and informed myself about this issue. "my experiences" also involved "personal observation", so don't fu<kin' tell me what i have experienced or seen, and it sure as hell doesn't make any difference wether i worked in these labs/factory farms.

Again, factory farms are irrelevant to the picture we're focusing on here. And what are these experiences? You haven't cited even one.

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
well, if this means "abusing", and in some cases even "torturing" animals, it is NOT OKAY! who gives a fu<k wether it saves time and money. actually, this is exactly the reason why people aren't willing to try any alternative methods of testing.

It's rarely "abusing" or "torturing", maybe in countries without set guidelines, but most humane countries DO have strict rules and regulations. In fact, I looked into it, and it doesn't save money to use animals, but sometimes they're just necessary.

Originally posted by phoenixboy:
but where it counts, the similarities completely outweigh the differences.

OK, bottom line:

The vast majority of animals used in testing, something over 4/5 are rodents. Testing of dogs, cats, and primates are under 1% of the animals used for testing.

People are working on finding alternatives to using animals, but at the moment, sometimes there IS NO ALTERNATIVE.

Without animal-testing, we wouldn't have things like general anesthesia, coronary bypasses, and many organ transplants, otherwise resulting in millions of human deaths each year. There's a bunch more we've learned through animal research that we would not have nearly the handle we have on today had it not been for the scientific use of animals.

Scientists have strong ethical, economic and legal obligations to use animals in research only when absolutely necessary. In fact, let's take the Animals Act of 1986 into account:

Basically, it requires:
--a certificate of designation: for a specific lab, and the experiment may not be conducted outside of it
--a project license: the program of work must be approved
--a personal license: each scientist conducting the research must be declared competent

Licenses are also only granted provided that:
--the potential results are important enough to justify the use of animals
--the research cannot be done using non-animal methods
--a minimum number of animals is determined and used
--dogs, cats, and primates are only used when absolutely necessary
--any discomfort or suffering is kept to a minimum by appropriate use of anesthesia or pain killers
--researchers and technicians conducting procedures have the necessary training, skills and experience
--research premises have the necessary facilities to look after the animals properly (laid down in a home office code of practice)

These are pretty strict rules. A lot of care is taken. You say that there are alternatives, but when there are, animals aren't used.

IN ADDITION: it's illegal to expose patients to new medicines and procedures without being confident that they are likely to benefit and not be seriously harmed, much of the time, animal-testing is needed in the latest stages for this, otherwise none of these medicines or procedures would ever make it to those who need it.

For someone that's taken such an interest in these issues, I'm surprised that you didn't know about these things.