PETA sent me a nickel. 38 replies

Please wait...

Inyri Forge VIP Member

[Insert User Title Here]

55 XP

15th March 2005

0 Uploads

25,940 Posts

0 Threads

#31 13 years ago
Karmaand you know all those prisoners on death row? Test your stuff on them.

Excellent idea, except for one thing. What if they're innocent? People are getting acquitted every day because of new technology. How would you feel if you permanently disfigured an inmate that turned out to be innocent?

I really think there's no solution to this problem. You can't test on people, you can't in good conscience test on animals, but you can't not test. What to do?




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#32 13 years ago

What I especially like about that letter was that it used words like "kittens", when no one deliberately tests on kittens instead of just normal cats.* But seriously, they expect us to change this? Animal testing works better than just getting some human cells. A pig or rabbit eye responds to chemicals much more like a human eye than just some human skin cells. I will always eat meat and wear leather. I know that as an individual, my choices will do nothing besides make me miserable. If it is cold, then I will wear leather. If my pants are a bit loose, then I will wear a leather belt. I will still use my leather wallet. I will eat beef(bison is better). I don't care about animals as much if they aren't my pets. Also, they aren't people. I don;t consider them as important. *Note: Does not apply to Evil Bastard Inc., Kitten Killer Corp., or Tide




Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#33 13 years ago

Inyri ForgeExcellent idea, except for one thing. What if they're innocent? People are getting acquitted every day because of new technology. How would you feel if you permanently disfigured an inmate that turned out to be innocent?

I really think there's no solution to this problem. You can't test on people, you can't in good conscience test on animals, but you can't not test. What to do?

I can see the use for medicinal testing.. a neccesairy evil. But for cosmetics and other eyecandy related things, its wrong, and evil any way you turn it.

Its a good thing no other humanoid species developed on this planet along with our own, else it might have been us getting slaughtered for cosmetics.. and that.. of course would be evil and wrong.. right? :rolleyes:




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#34 13 years ago

Actually, we killed our competition a long time ago.(Remember Neanderthals? Homo Sapiens killed them). I also agree with the no-cosmetics-testing idea. It serves no good purpose.




Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#35 13 years ago
Crazy WolfActually, we killed our competition a long time ago.(Remember Neanderthals? Homo Sapiens killed them). I also agree with the no-cosmetics-testing idea. It serves no good purpose.

I know, but suppose a superior kind evolved along with us, one day deciding we made good shoes.. :D




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#36 13 years ago

I don't know, its so hard to shine skin. The only people really good at it are Wild Bill and Dr. Lecter




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#37 13 years ago

Inyri ForgeExcellent idea, except for one thing. What if they're innocent? People are getting acquitted every day because of new technology. How would you feel if you permanently disfigured an inmate that turned out to be innocent?

I really think there's no solution to this problem. You can't test on people, you can't in good conscience test on animals, but you can't not test. What to do?

True, but even assuming one would be guilty without any doubt what so ever it still would be "wrong" to test on humans. Don't do to somebody else what you don't want an other person to do to you. Yes it's also wrong to test on animals but as I said (and you seem to agree with) there simply is no alternative except for volunteers. It remains a "lose lose" situation. Testing on humans lowers your own credibility "How dare you to have commited such a crime, now we shall punish thy and make you suffer in the name of science!" but the same goes for animals since they never asked to be tested on and in never will be "the right thing" either. :(

edit: Hmm I just realized, what if we were to artificially grow parts of the human body? I remember they were experimentating with this kind of stuff and possible options of artifially "created" humans could be used as organ donors. Those would make the perfect test dummies, however they shouldn't have any form of awarness since am exact copy (clone) would be too human to test on. If I remember correctly they would just create a few organs and not entire humans, if we were to "create" eyes, skin etc. we could test on that. But I think we hav a long way to go before we can artyfically create seperate human organs (or complete humans).




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,568 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,161 Posts

6 Threads

#38 13 years ago
The 13th RaptorI know, but suppose a superior kind evolved along with us, one day deciding we made good shoes.. :D

Enjoy what you can while you're at the top because from there the only way is down and you want to make sure you've crushed everything bellow you to soften the landing. There's that quaint old saying 'If you want to know if something's fair, turn it around.' But we know this isn't fair, and to be frank most of us don't care. If these species can be of service to us then we should use them as such while we have the chance.




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#39 13 years ago
Grossadmiral Doenitzedit: Hmm I just realized, what if we were to artificially grow parts of the human body? I remember they were experimentating with this kind of stuff and possible options of artifially "created" humans could be used as organ donors. Those would make the perfect test dummies, however they shouldn't have any form of awarness since am exact copy (clone) would be too human to test on. If I remember correctly they would just create a few organs and not entire humans, if we were to "create" eyes, skin etc. we could test on that. But I think we hav a long way to go before we can artyfically create seperate human organs (or complete humans).

Yes. For testing the effects of a product on an eye, or in the bloodstream, or in the GI tract, it is a lot cheaper and a lot more effective to test on full animals. Maybe the skin tests could be done on batches of cells, but it's better to test on either the real thing, or something close to it, like a chimp, pig, or bunny.