Animal Testing

[CypressDahlia]

Honestly, although most animals feel pain, causing a rat to feel pain is something I can live with. On the contrary, dogs and horses are much more intelligent and social. It wouldn't be the same thing.

How "social" a creature is doesn't determine their capacity for pain. This is a wrong way of thinking and the root of animal abuse. Pain is the most objective of animal senses.

And, for the record, Clockhand, vegetables are not really comparable to animals. I mean...really. The reasons are obvious. I understand where Blue_dragon is coming from, but B_D, people can drink milk, just get it from more reputable sources. It might cost 8 more dollars, but you can be sure those animals are treated better.

[Blue_Dragon]

SPOILER! :

Do you believe horse tests are the same as rat tests? A tests made over a dog is completely different and has its own reasons.

You've missed the whole point, Clock. Although we do share similar genes, my comment here is to demonstrate that although similar, species are still different. Even testing on humans isn't wholly efficient because I'm not allergic to any medications, but other people are. I'm have no gluten allergies, but some people do. I can eat peanuts, but one of my coworkers can't. If even other humans react differently to various chemicals/additives/etc, then you can see how testing on a completely different species has its holes. Yes, you can get an idea of how it will affect the general populous, but there's also a large population that will have a different reaction to the drug/med/etc. That's what I was trying to get across.

SPOILER! :

So? We do this all the time with plants to, and I don't see people saying "I'm not going to eat my broccoli by the way the companies had handle it". I agree, the way it's handled is the problem, not milking, but again, I don't see a real reason to stop drinking milk, and even more I still see more reasons to keep drinking (girls with earlier boobies? hell yeah).

There's quite a difference between a plant, which doesn't have a central nervous system, and has no memory (that we know of,) and an animal capable of learning and experiencing different things. Granted, there are people out there who won't eat anything that harms a plant--if they can do it, more power to them, I'm not one of those people--but over all consensus is that plants can't feel pain as far as we can scientifically tell. Further, I was offering up an answer to someone else who didn't know why vegans don't eat milk, so you're personal opinion is valued, but wasn't really being attacked in my statement.

And your comment on young girls getting breasts is bordering (if not) pedophilia, which I'm not going to touch--it's disgusting. I'm hoping your definition of "young" is different than mine, but in case you didn't know, girls sometimes younger than 12 are developing breasts. Just throwing that out there.

SPOILER! :

Apparently people think that animal's testings are done like this "Hey, can rats get on fire?". No, there are hypothesis, diagnostics, and others, "scientist's" don't do tests just because their balls are itching, they do when they have a real problem to solve and they use theories to try to get to the less harmful way to do the test.

Please don't think so little of my intellect that I don't know what type of testing has been going on. I've done plenty of research and have been in classes where I've had to do dissections (not high school) and other tests. I'm not so naive as to think people are catching rats on fire. Thank you.

SPOILER! :

We shouldn't fight against animals testing, animal's farms, milking animals or others just because we exploit animals, we should when it's done unethical.

I can agree to this, as I'm not the type of vegetarian to impose my life choices on other people (I don't give a crap what others eat so long as things are done humanely, and as I stated, I'm not completely against animal testing.)

Edit:

And, for the record, Clockhand, vegetables are not really comparable to animals. I mean...really. The reasons are obvious. I understand where Blue_dragon is coming from, but B_D, people can drink milk, just get it from more reputable sources. It might cost 8 more dollars, but you can be sure those animals are treated better.

Yeah, that's what I personally try to do, but as for vegans, there are other reasons why they don't drink milk. A big one, besides exploiting the animal, is that we're "technically" not supposed to drink milk after a certain age. Humans are the only creature (that I can think of, and that vegans argue) that drinks milk after its developing stages. They therefore argue we neither need the milk, nor should be taking a product from an animal. My personal ideal is to have a cow of my own to milk. But that's nothing to do with this thread...so I'll leave it at that.

[CypressDahlia]

I don't really understand that logic.

[Blue_Dragon]

That's why I'm not vegan. Ask them or go to PETA.com if you want a better explanation. I'm no longer Pres. of the Veggie Club on my campus, so I don't need to know.

Or are you talking about having my own cow? Because then I'd know the treatment it received and would be caring for it myself. Plus I'd have my own supply of fresh milk. Anywho, I'm getting off topic. Sorry.

[ClockHand]

You've missed the whole point, Clock. Although we do share similar genes, my comment here is to demonstrate that although similar, species are still different. Even testing on humans isn't wholly efficient because I'm not allergic to any medications, but other people are. I'm have no gluten allergies, but some people do. I can eat peanuts, but one of my coworkers can't. If even other humans react differently to various chemicals/additives/etc, then you can see how testing on a completely different species has its holes. Yes, you can get an idea of how it will affect the general populous, but there's also a large population that will have a different reaction to the drug/med/etc. That's what I was trying to get across.

We are different, but also we are similar. Which mean that if something work for one it MIGHT work for the other, or at least that is the first hypothesis.

There's quite a difference between a plant, which doesn't have a central nervous system, and has no memory (that we know of,) and an animal capable of learning and experiencing different things. Granted, there are people out there who won't eat anything that harms a plant--if they can do it, more power to them, I'm not one of those people--but over all consensus is that plants can't feel pain as far as we can scientifically tell. Further, I was offering up an answer to someone else who didn't know why vegans don't eat milk, so you're personal opinion is valued, but wasn't really being attacked in my statement.

I was joking at your point, but if you want I can be more clear. We manipulate plants and animals, but we care about animals because they feel pain, but still a plant carry nutrients and others that being damaged also hurt us. I could say "I'm not going to eat this broccoli because it has been genetically modified in a way I don't know, so I don't trust", which is a good option. But as I was joking at, people only care about if the animal feel pain or not. Not about the real consequences of the manipulation.

And your comment on young girls getting breasts is bordering (if not) pedophilia, which I'm not going to touch--it's disgusting. I'm hoping your definition of "young" is different than mine, but in case you didn't know, girls sometimes younger than 12 are developing breasts. Just throwing that out there.

You find weird that a girl develop breast at 12 years old, and not when she develop it at 16? I don't know but the range of boob growth in womans is pretty wide, my cousin start developing at 12 years old and a friend at 17. I have never seen this related to cow hormones, especially because in here those practice have never been popular.

Please don't think so little of my intellect that I don't know what type of testing has been going on. I've done plenty of research and have been in classes where I've had to do dissections (not high school) and other tests. I'm not so naive as to think people are catching rats on fire. Thank you.

Was I pointing to you? As far as I know I wasn't. I have never dissected a animal (I find that practice extremely stupid), and neither the one of the mouse in the maze. If we are gonna do tests for the sake of education, we better do some relevant tests.


Also if you are concerned about the care of the animal you are eating, go and buy meat from your local butcher. They should know about the meat you are buying, where they grow up, and how was the care of it (actually they know more of meat and animals than all of us).

[Blue_Dragon]

We're cool, I just thought the comments were directed at me. My apologies.

On the early development, though: it is happening: 12 is about normal, (I think I started around that age...but not really more until later) but there are more extreme cases becoming more common.

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-03-31/h...s?_s=PM:HEALTH

http://www.livescience.com/1824-trut...y-puberty.html

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08...-consequences/

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/health/08real.html

Anyway, reading these articles, so say it is milk, some say it's not, some say we just don't know. I tried to post a variety of different articles.