azemkamikaze03 Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 Do you agree with animal expirimentation? Yes or No. Why. Me no...um not much diseases can be cured by it. The animal body system is way diff. from ours.(i mean cows have 4 stomachs and u wanna test them?) there a fine line between animal expiriments and being a vegitarian. I love to eat meat, but animal expirimentation is just cruel. Clothing..is still difrent..yeah they get skinned but they live dont they..in animal expirimentation they end up dying...heres a vid..DONT WATCH IF SQUIMISH Throat ¿whysoserious?
misery Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 yea i dont agree with animal experiments either, at least if its causing the animal harm but if its like experiments for like dog food taste or something i think thats something thats better left for dogs to test.. lol edit: just noticed my sig talks about dog food.. ironic, now i almost feel obsessed with dog food
rayman Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 freak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11 FOAMY THE SQUIRL OWNS YOU ALL Bi sexual and f***** proud
twilightcrimson7 Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 If it's for signifigant medical or scientifical reserach that could affect the quality and safety of our future lives, I say, go for it. But if its for something trivial or stupid, I say leave them alone. http://www.sucksbbs.net/data/MetaMirrorCache/caa111db447cb1d28d713cebad979c8d.png ...:away and onward:...
azemkamikaze03 Posted March 8, 2005 Author Posted March 8, 2005 Uhh yeah but u see the vid thats preety sik ¿whysoserious?
azemkamikaze03 Posted March 8, 2005 Author Posted March 8, 2005 Most people believe that experiments on animals are necessary, but they are not. The medical research establishment, pharmaceutical companies, other industries and a sizeable public relations machine keep this belief alive. Why? Because lab animal study safeguards industry against legal responsibility and is hugely profitable, from a financial point of view only. Animal experimentation continually falls short of providing the rigorous criteria that define real science - accuracy, predictability and applicability. Applying animal data to humans meets none of these requirements consistently. Why submit another species to pseudo-scientific exploration of human disease when human-based methods are available? By contrast, there exist many rewarding human-based methodologies, some time-honored and some new, that provide accurate, usable information about our diseases and their cures. These methodologies do not require the guesswork that accompanies extrapolations from animal-data to humans. They do not "replace" animal experimentation per se. Animal experimentation does not reliably lead to cures for human disease so it needs to be "replaced" with something that does. The methodologies listed below are required to overcome animal experimentation’s enormous inadequacy and dangers. The following truly scientific methods are accurate, predictive and applicable. It is human health that is at risk and human wellness that is our objective. And none of these methods, though human-based, imposes risks on humans. Scientific innovation would get a big boost if animal experimentation ceased. These more rewarding techniques would gather strength under augmented effort and increased funding. It is entirely likely that we would then find cures for today’s most challenging illnesses. It is not precise to call these human-based techniques “alternatives to animal experimentation.” Mistakenly, that term implies that past medical achievements necessarily relied on lab animals. A true reading of medicine’s history reveals our past and present reliance on non-animal methods. ¿whysoserious?
VinnyTheory Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 No, i hate it i wish it would stop..its so cruel to do that to animals..when they havent done sod all to us [broken External Image]:http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v161/MissMondayNight/aaaaaaa7iz.jpg http://www.behindtheropes.cjb.net/
ImTheOneThatFalls Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 i am a peta freak so i dont wear skins or furs and animal expiramentation is bad i also love to eat meat..but just sutff like skins and furs and expiramentation are wrong im also against many companies such as pantene props to peta at times http://www.sucksbbs.net/data/MetaMirrorCache/49c716f74fa996e7008ed59929468159.jpg
azemkamikaze03 Posted March 8, 2005 Author Posted March 8, 2005 Dude it ok cuz theres a fine line between AE and eating...PETA wants u not to eat meat but that a diffrent story EDIT-I dont support PETA though. ¿whysoserious?
Minzara Posted March 8, 2005 Posted March 8, 2005 I dont really care..... but then again i dont really care about much... i lost my passion long ago... Check out my Naruto RPG Here っへ はっでっ Lいfえ げっっ, っへ っまってっ い げっ [broken External Image]:http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/2426/mynewsig5qv.gif [broken External Image]:http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/1432/bestmembertobeanaelite1dg.jpg
azemkamikaze03 Posted March 8, 2005 Author Posted March 8, 2005 lol nice to here man Lmfao ¿whysoserious?
LPGotLinkinPark Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 Animal experimenting is ok to some limits. I don't think they should do anything to harm them, but if it's just little things, then what's the harm. But if they were going to test something lethal, I wouldn't want that. Why do they use animals anyway? Why don't those scientists test it on themselves!!! hahaha rep me!! | xanga | add me on myspace
misery Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 GotLinkinPark?']Animal experimenting is ok to some limits. I don't think they should do anything to harm them' date=' but if it's just little things, then what's the harm. But if they were going to test something lethal, I wouldn't want that. Why do they use animals anyway? Why don't those scientists test it on themselves!!! hahaha[/quote'] lol yea, i agree, if its not harming the animal then theres nothing to worry about, but if it is, then theres a problem ps. i like ur new sig its awesome
ForgottenKid Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 I dont care, I just dont like the sluaghter of animals. Disposable, at risk for every right, there is a wrong Click Here Yo
Mikes_Shadow Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 no way in hell... its just wrong hurr durr [broken External Image]:http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/3860/dffhgfhfghfgfghhg.jpg http://www.last.fm/user/fAgalloch
SNiPeRViRuS Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 I could care less as long as they dont intentionally take life away.
LPGotLinkinPark Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 ps. i like ur new sig its awesome Thanx man!! SV-Not the kitties!!! rep me!! | xanga | add me on myspace
SNiPeRViRuS Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 Oh yea. Protect the kittes. lol I love kitties. *warm thoughts*
Clogz Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 Find someone who will... Let people rub shampoo in thier eyes take doses of cancer so doctors can test cures get infected with AIDS so doctors can try new medication allow themselves to be exposed to radiation Basically, my question is, what the heck do we test this stuff on? Ourselves? Yeah right. In two seconds, human rights activists would be all over it. All over it, just like stem cell research. So they use animals, which is definitly safer from not only a legal perspective but a humane one. Ever heard of Joseph Mengele? That is what happens when they test this stuff out on people man. It is torture, it is inhuman, and most of the time it will probably have very negative results. Animal testing is the lesser of two evils. Sorry, but its true. And then I felt chills in my bones / The breath I saw was not my own I knew my skin that wrapped my frame / Wasn't made to play this game XXI
weeztones Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 Most people believe that experiments on animals are necessary, but they are not. The medical research establishment, pharmaceutical companies, other industries and a sizeable public relations machine keep this belief alive. Why? Because lab animal study safeguards industry against legal responsibility and is hugely profitable, from a financial point of view only. ............ It is not precise to call these human-based techniques “alternatives to animal experimentation.” Mistakenly, that term implies that past medical achievements necessarily relied on lab animals. A true reading of medicine’s history reveals our past and present reliance on non-animal methods. Niiiiiiiiiiiice copy and paste job! There is absolutely NO way you wrote that yourself. A good friend will bail you out of jail, your best friend will be sitting right next to you saying, "Dude, that was awesome!"
woodyloveslinkin Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 If i wasn't hungry, i wouldn't have thrown up in this thread. But seeing i am, im going to throw up on the person above me. BLERGG Mia Elizabeth 18/2/10 Kate Helena 8/7/11 My baby girls <3
weeztones Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 If i wasn't hungry, i wouldn't have thrown up in this thread. But seeing i am, im going to throw up on the person above me. BLERGG Above you? Is somebody teabagging you? A good friend will bail you out of jail, your best friend will be sitting right next to you saying, "Dude, that was awesome!"
stupidsoul1 Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 it depends what they are testing it on..... but im kind of in the middle.. http://www.sucksbbs.net/data/MetaMirrorCache/25cb22d29f0c2f027cf1acc5b7bf6cf4.png http://www.sucksbbs.net/data/MetaMirrorCache/459bb3c6fed65d05781dbdae0319d254.png http://www.sucksbbs.net/data/MetaMirrorCache/0dcf45273040e11bc56a99d4601a58d5.png http://www.sucksbbs.net/data/MetaMirrorCache/bfdf068f8fa963062b979cec565ff7f7.png Fiona is teh Fionizzle... and we all love her ^^
woodyloveslinkin Posted March 9, 2005 Posted March 9, 2005 i wasn't about to throw up on SS1 whom i thought was going to be after me. no, this makes me sick on a empty stomach Mia Elizabeth 18/2/10 Kate Helena 8/7/11 My baby girls <3
Recommended Posts