YAY!!Lets Kill Animals!!YAY

[azemkamikaze03]

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

[misery]

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]

freak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

[misery]

freak!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

plz elaborate?

[twilightcrimson7]

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.

[azemkamikaze03]

Uhh yeah but u see the vid thats preety sik

[azemkamikaze03]

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.

[VinnyTheory]

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

[ImTheOneThatFalls]

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

[azemkamikaze03]

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.

[Minzara]

I dont really care..... but then again i dont really care about much... i lost my passion long ago...

[azemkamikaze03]

lol nice to here man Lmfao

[LPGotLinkinPark]

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

[misery]

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]

I dont care, I just dont like the sluaghter of animals.

[Mikes_Shadow]

no way in hell... its just wrong

[SNiPeRViRuS]

I could care less as long as they dont intentionally take life away.

[LPGotLinkinPark]

ps. i like ur new sig its awesome

Thanx man!!

 

SV-Not the kitties!!!

[SNiPeRViRuS]

Oh yea. Protect the kittes. lol I love kitties. *warm thoughts*

[Clogz]

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.

[weeztones]

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.

[woodyloveslinkin]

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

[weeztones]

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?

[stupidsoul1]

it depends what they are testing it on.....

but im kind of in the middle..

[woodyloveslinkin]

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