Animal testing.

[Noir]

I know when i bring up vegan topics there's a discussion to be had, and the inevitable 'mmmm pork chops dripping in fat' posts etc.

But i'd like to think regardless of your views on eating meat, animal testing is seen as cruel and unnecessary by all.

It takes a few minutes to check your regular products to see if they've been animal tested, i'd ask that if/when you do find them, you consider alternatives.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j176/jonathan-mcc/tumblr_lyiz9mE7oa1qhnhs4o1_500.png


Beagles are the most popular breed for lab use because of their friendly, docile, trusting, forgiving, people-pleasing personalities. The research industry says they adapt well to living in a cage, and are inexpensive to feed. Research beagles are usually obtained directly from commercial breeders who specifically breed dogs to sell to scientific institutions.”

[jimnyc]

I totally DESPISE animal testing. I know lots of good comes from it, and the results can save human lives, but I still HATE to EVER see animals used for testing. Believe it or not, I even get pissed when I see them doing anything to lab rats.

[jimnyc]

I've seen lots of offensive things posted on this board over the years, picture wise. I don't know why, probably because I'm an animal lover and have 2 dogs, but that picture is really fucking pissing me off. Not directed at you, Noir! I feel like going out now and adopting a Beagle. :(

[OCA]

I've seen lots of offensive things posted on this board over the years, picture wise. I don't know why, probably because I'm an animal lover and have 2 dogs, but that picture is really fucking pissing me off. Not directed at you, Noir! I feel like going out now and adopting a Beagle. :(

Those dogs don't hold a candle to some of the fatties back in the day!

[jimnyc]

Those dogs don't hold a candle to some of the fatties back in the day!

Fat people disgust me, make my eyes hurt, make me want to punch those behemoths in the mouth.

But any type of "torture" to animals makes me angry, and sad that I can't help them.

I'd rather they perform the testing on the fat ladies. I could look past that! :laugh2:

[shattered]

Why not test products on death row inmates?

[jimnyc]

Why not test products on death row inmates?

I'll second that motion. You'll get no argument from me. Just remember to use alcohol on that needle before you inject them!

[shattered]

I'll second that motion. You'll get no argument from me. Just [b]remember to use alcohol on that needle before you inject them![b]

Why? :)

[revelarts]

Why not test products on death row inmates?


I'll second that motion. You'll get no argument from me. Just remember to use alcohol on that needle before you inject them!

8th amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
If we won't do it to a dog why do it to people, even evil people.

But we did use to test drugs and products on inmates in U.S. prisons, (gov't tested some stuff on the public to btw.) but it's just wrong and it's was stopped, though there are those who want to bring it back.

[jimnyc]

8th amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.



If we won't do it to a dog why do it to people, even evil people.

I don't think it would be cruel or unusual to perform experiments on people who have already been judged and condemned to death. At least they had a choice as to how and why they got where they are, unlike the animals. With that said, we were joking, sort of, as I wasn't seriously advocating doing this to prisoners as much as I wish it stopped with animals.

[pete311]

I don't understand the psyche of the scientists who perform these tests. I just don't get it.

[shattered]

8th amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
If we won't do it to a dog why do it to people, even evil people.

But we did use to test drugs and products on inmates in U.S. prisons, (gov't tested some stuff on the public to btw.) but it's just wrong and it's was stopped, though there are those who want to bring it back.

In order to get dumped on death row, and condemned to die, you had to have done something pretty shitty in the first place, so who gives a rats ass about "cruel and unusual punishment"? Obviously the so-called "victims" didn't give a shit who they hurt.

So, while Jim may have been kidding, I was just barely bordering on kidding, if you twist it just right.

Mostly not, tho.

[revelarts]

In order to get dumped on death row, and condemned to die, you had to have done something pretty shitty in the first place, so who gives a rats ass about "cruel and unusual punishment"? Obviously the so-called "victims" didn't give a shit who they hurt.

So, while Jim may have been kidding, I was just barely bordering on kidding, if you twist it just right.

Mostly not, tho.

Thought the rat's ass was worth caring about...thats the point of the thread right?

and that pesky constitution talking about "human's right" not to be treated badly, even criminal humans, seems pretty reasonable.

[OCA]

8th amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
If we won't do it to a dog why do it to people, even evil people.

But we did use to test drugs and products on inmates in U.S. prisons, (gov't tested some stuff on the public to btw.) but it's just wrong and it's was stopped, though there are those who want to bring it back.

Come on Rev, there are sometimes people in this world who you just shouldn't give a shit about whether they are receiving cruel and unusual punishment................the whole population of California's Pelican Bay State Prison comes instantly to mind.

Sometimes you burn up your right to use the "civil rights and liberties" play card when you commit heinous crimes..................eye for an eye I say.

[ConHog]

Come on Rev, there are sometimes people in this world who you just shouldn't give a shit about whether they are receiving cruel and unusual punishment................the whole population of California's Pelican Bay State Prison comes instantly to mind.

Sometimes you burn up your right to use the "civil rights and liberties" play card when you commit heinous crimes..................eye for an eye I say.

Incorrect of course our Constitution dictates that our justice system is not an eye for an eye.

As for testing on animals. I think it's disgusting and cruel.

[OCA]

Incorrect of course our Constitution dictates that our justice system is not an eye for an eye.

As for testing on animals. I think it's disgusting and cruel.

Just like in Iraq the constitution has been known to be wrong.

[OCA]

I love how people like to hide behind the constitution, on some things it needs updating or to be amended.

[shattered]

Thought the rat's ass was worth caring about...thats the point of the thread right?

and that pesky constitution talking about "human's right" not to be treated badly, even criminal humans, seems pretty reasonable.

Oh.

You're one of those people.

My bad.

(Not really)

[Gunny]

Why not test products on death row inmates?

I knew I liked you for some dumbass reason. :laugh:

[shattered]

I knew I liked you for some dumbass reason. :laugh:

That's only one of many, and you know it.

I'm sweet like that. :laugh:

[revelarts]

In the climate of what people are sent to prison for now and the president putting death warrents on people without trials, And the number of people that have been freed from death row in recent years becuase of DNA evidence I'm not sure I'd want to assume that everyone on death row was "the worse of the worse". IF i wanted to even get close the idea of medical test on human beings.

Just smack of Nazi crap to me.
subhuman scum, Enemies of the state, the infirm, and dregs of society can be used for the good of the rest of us. sounds fine as long as your safely out of the various categories, which might grow or shrink at anytime depending on the public mood or "necessity".






...The late 1940s and 1950s saw huge growth in the U.S. pharmaceutical and health care industries, accompanied by a boom in prisoner experiments funded by both the government and corporations. By the 1960s, at least half the states allowed prisoners to be used as medical guinea pigs....
...
...By the early 1970s, even experiments involving prisoners were considered scandalous. In widely covered congressional hearings in 1973, pharmaceutical industry officials acknowledged they were using prisoners for testing because they were cheaper than chimpanzees....


http://lubbockonline.com/health/2011-02-28/ap-impact-past-medical-testing-humans-revealed#.Ty1bsuAdqmk

Medical testing on mentally ill, prison inmates focus of bioethics commission meeting

Posted: February 28, 2011 - 4:10am



By MIKE STOBBE (http://lubbockonline.com/authors/mike-stobbe) http://analytics.apnewsregistry.com/analytics/v2/image.svc/lubbock/RWS/lubbockonline.com/CAI/38898/MAI/38898/E/prod
ASSOCIATED PRESS
ATLANTA — Shocking as it may seem, U.S. government doctors once thought it was fine to experiment on disabled people and prison inmates. Such experiments included giving hepatitis to mental patients in Connecticut, squirting a pandemic flu virus up the noses of prisoners in Maryland, and injecting cancer cells into chronically ill people at a New York hospital.
Much of this horrific history is 40 to 80 years old, but it is the backdrop for a meeting in Washington this week by a presidential bioethics commission. The meeting was triggered by the government's apology last fall for federal doctors infecting prisoners and mental patients in Guatemala with syphilis 65 years ago.
U.S. officials also acknowledged there had been dozens of similar experiments in the United States — studies that often involved making healthy people sick.
An exhaustive review by The Associated Press of medical journal reports and decades-old press clippings found more than 40 such studies. At best, these were a search for lifesaving treatments; at worst, some amounted to curiosity-satisfying experiments that hurt people but provided no useful results.

Inevitably, they will be compared to the well-known Tuskegee syphilis study. In that episode, U.S. health officials tracked 600 black men in Alabama who already had syphilis but didn't give them adequate treatment even after penicillin became available.

These studies were worse in at least one respect — they violated the concept of "first do no harm," a fundamental medical principle that stretches back centuries.

"When you give somebody a disease — even by the standards of their time — you really cross the key ethical norm of the profession," said Arthur Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics.

Some of these studies, mostly from the 1940s to the '60s, apparently were never covered by news media. Others were reported at the time, but the focus was on the promise of enduring new cures, while glossing over how test subjects were treated.
Attitudes about medical research were different then. Infectious diseases killed many more people years ago, and doctors worked urgently to invent and test cures. Many prominent researchers felt it was legitimate to experiment on people who did not have full rights in society — people like prisoners, mental patients, poor blacks. It was an attitude in some ways similar to that of Nazi doctors experimenting on Jews.
....

[shattered]

In the climate of what people are sent to prison for now and the president putting death warrents on people without trials, And the number of people that have been freed from death row in recent years becuase of DNA evidence I'm not sure I'd want to assume that everyone on death row was "the worse of the worse". IF i wanted to even get close the idea of medical test on human beings.

Just smack of Nazi crap to me.
subhuman scum, Enemies of the state, the infirm, and dregs of society can be used for the good of the rest of us. sounds fine as long as your safely out of the various categories, which might grow or shrink at anytime depending on the public mood or "necessity".






http://lubbockonline.com/health/2011-02-28/ap-impact-past-medical-testing-humans-revealed#.Ty1bsuAdqmk

Ok, then. Have it your way.

How about we use the dickhead child molester that just moved a block away from me, according to my local police department? He was given only years for a SECOND offense.

Can we use him, instead? Or, is that also cruel an unusual punishment?

[shattered]

(The above should read "5 years for a SECOND offense")

Five.

That's it.

I'd like to do my own testing of "products" on him. :)

[Jess]

(The above should read "5 years for a SECOND offense")

Five.

That's it.

I'd like to do my own testing of "products" on him. :)

My sister worked in a hog confinement while going to school for an ag degree.

You ought to see what she can do with a pair of side-cutters (aka dykes). He wouldn't have the ummmm ... testicular fortitude to do that again. :cool:

[revelarts]

Ok, then. Have it your way.

How about we use the dickhead child molester that just moved a block away from me, according to my local police department? He was given only years for a SECOND offense.

Can we use him, instead? Or, is that also cruel an unusual punishment?

A bullet to the head is all he needs.
no need to become a monster to deal with one.

[shattered]

A bullet to the head is all he needs.
no need to become a monster to deal with one.

Why should he get off so easy?

If he were on death row, I'd agree with the bullet - no sense spending money to keep him alive that could be used for other things...

But, since even after a second conviction he only got 5 years, bullets are too easy, IMO. Why shouldn't he suffer?