Is animal testing justified

[suncowiam]

You might be right. If so, it was my fault. I thought you were saying it was wrong to eat animals. I was saying that it is part of nature and therefore it is okay. I suppose not necessary.....but okay.
I was simply pointing out that vegetarians try to position themselves as 'holier than thou", and that is wrong. The act of eating vegetation also kills animals by destroying millions of acres of habitat.
Although I do eat meat, it is minimal. I actually am borderline vegetarian. I just find the attitudes some people get about the whole question distasteful. I will also say that I do not care for the methods that are often used to kill animals for food these days. That is unnecessary.

I love eating animals. If I had a choice to eat an animal versus eating a plant, it would be animals all day.

These vegetarian have not lived in a third world country like myself and my family. We eat anything that we can get our hands on, down to the organs, blood and bone.

TMI?

 

[Nous]

Full disclosure: I am a PCRM member, vegan and animal rights supporter.
That said, I think the 'pro animal' camp's reliance on the irrelevance of animal test results is overblown. Yes, there are plenty of examples -- like penicillin killing guinea pigs -- but many of these 'poster pig' examplars are the result of poor test design -- or testing just to cash in on federal subsidies.
Personally, I think there is a great deal of correspondence between animal physiology and our own, and well designed testing can yield useful results.

By what method can one determine beforehand whether or not an animal-model experiment will be predictive of effects in humans?

 

[Nous]

These vegetarian have not lived in a third world country like myself and my family.

I lived in Sri Lanka about a year. It only reinforced my conclusion that the better diet is not one entails the suffering and death of other animals like ourselves.

 

[Milton Platt]

I love eating animals. If I had a choice to eat an animal versus eating a plant, it would be animals all day.

These vegetarian have not lived in a third world country like myself and my family. We eat anything that we can get our hands on, down to the organs, blood and bone.

TMI?

You were right, we were having an argument while agreeing........and I do think it was my bad.

 

[Nous]

shall we do the test on your children instead?
(anyone)

I wonder if any of those who are against animal testing will actually address this point.

I'll address it. It's called the fallacy of false dilemma to claim that if we don't torment animals we must torment children.

 

[suncowiam]

I lived in Sri Lanka about a year. It only reinforced my conclusion that the better diet is not one entails the suffering and death of other animals like ourselves.

You're OK killing vegetables because they don't feel? This is morally better?

So let me get this straight... Plants have less rights than animals and humans because they don't have feelings?

 

[Nous]

You're OK killing vegetables because they don't feel? This is morally better?

Yes, it's morally better to not cause a creature to suffer. Always, without exception.

 

[suncowiam]

Yes, it's morally better to not cause a creature to suffer. Always, without exception.

But it's OK to kill it as long as it doesn't suffer?

 

[Nous]

But it's OK to kill it as long as it doesn't suffer?

I didn't say that, did I? I said that it's always morally better to not cause creatures like ourselves to suffer. Don't you agree with the Golden Rule?

 

[suncowiam]

I didn't say that, did I? I said that it's always morally better to not cause creatures like ourselves to suffer. Don't you agree with the Golden Rule?

Yes, I do agree with the golden rule when it comes to humans.

If I went head to head with a very hungry bear, do you think it would eat me without torturing me first?

The golden rule only works with organisms that can rationalize and could reciprocate the same thought.

Do you think there is a way of killing animals that cause no suffering?

 

[McBell]

I'll address it. It's called the fallacy of false dilemma to claim that if we don't torment animals we must torment children.

rotflmao
who said it "had" to be done?
I mean, other than you?

Interesting spin on the question though.

 

[Valjean]

By what method can one determine beforehand whether or not an animal-model experiment will be predictive of effects in humans?

Alas, that's a question better asked of biologists or statisticians, and one, I'm sure, that wouldn't lend itself to a small format like RF.

You're OK killing vegetables because they don't feel? This is morally better?

So let me get this straight... Plants have less rights than animals and humans because they don't have feelings?

Moral consideration's multi-factorial. There's more to consider than just life, per se.

But it's OK to kill it as long as it doesn't suffer?

and there's more than just suffering to consider, as well.

Yes, I do agree with the golden rule when it comes to humans.
The golden rule only works with organisms that can rationalize and could reciprocate the same thought.

But no-one's saying the relationship must be reciprocal. Animals can't be held to moral standards they're incapable of. Between animals and humans moral consideration's pretty much one way.

 

[suncowiam]

Alas, that's a question better asked of biologists or statisticians, and one, I'm sure, that wouldn't lend itself to a small format like RF.
Moral consideration's multi-factorial. There's more to consider than just life, per se.
and there's more than just suffering to consider, as well.
But no-one's saying the relationship must be reciprocal. Animals can't be held to moral standards they're incapable of. Between animals and humans moral consideration's pretty much one way.

Then what are you asserting besides deasserting? We are left with little to no definitions of any morals between animals and humans?

 

[Nous]

rotflmao
who said it "had" to be done?

If you believe I misrepresented the stupid question, then explain why it was asked.

Have you ever known anyone who objected to the senseless torture of animal experimentation and who advocated torturing children?

 

[Nous]

By what method can one determine beforehand whether or not an animal-model experiment will be predictive of effects in humans?

Alas, that's a question better asked of biologists or statisticians, and one, I'm sure, that wouldn't lend itself to a small format like RF.

I already know the answer: there is no method by which to determine beforehand whether an animal-model experiments will be predictive of results in humans, because, as already noted, animal-model experimentation is not predictive of effects in humans.

I find it disturbing that someone who claims to be a member of PCRM and is familiar with the information at the website would suggest that there is something inherently useful about tormenting animals in laboratories.

 

[Nous]

Yes, I do agree with the golden rule when it comes to humans.

Why do you want to exclude consideration of other creatures who suffer just like you?

If I went head to head with a very hungry bear, do you think it would eat me without torturing me first?

You shouldn't pattern your behavior on what a bear might do when your attacking it. You're not a bear.

The golden rule only works with organisms that can rationalize and could reciprocate the same thought.

False!!! The Golden Rule says nothing about excluding any creature who will suffer like you if the same were done to you. The Golden Rule says nothing about excluding infants, even though they can't "rationalize" and will sometime pee in your face .

 

[suncowiam]

Why do you want to exclude consideration of other creatures who suffer just like you?

You shouldn't pattern your behavior on what a bear might do when your attacking it. You're not a bear.

False!!! The Golden Rule says nothing about excluding any creature who will suffer like you if the same were done to you. The Golden Rule says nothing about excluding infants, even though they can't "rationalize" and will sometime pee in your face .

Remember, I said humans. And thanks for the clarification which I will have to correct myself.

[Edited] The correct context with a baby or a disabled person, the first question I would ask is "if I were a baby." We place ourselves in the baby's position.

However, there are limits to the golden rule. What next? I'm going to use the golden rule to understand how to deal with a rock?

Are you asking yourself, what would happen to animals if you occupy a space that it could use for habitation? If you consume the vegetation that it could have consumed? Have you asked any of these questions?

You haven't answered my question. Can we kill an animal without it suffering?

 

[Nous]

Remember, I said humans. And thanks for the clarification which I will have to correct myself.

[Edited] The correct context with a baby or a disabled person, the first question I would ask is "if I were a baby." We place ourselves in the baby's position.

Place yourself in the lab animal's position. They suffer just like children.

You haven't answered my question. Can we kill an animal without it suffering?

Yes, but that isn't what's happening in animal experiments, and it isn't how bacon gets to your mouth.

 

[suncowiam]

Place yourself in the lab animal's position. They suffer just like children.

Yes, but that isn't what's happening in animal experiments, and it isn't how bacon gets to your mouth.

I don't consider animals to be like human babies. That's a subjective assertion. I can never place equivalence to animals as I would to humans.

Suffering is another subjective term. Caged animals and so on, I believe we can come to an agreement. No I wouldn't want animals to suffer, but the process of killing any living organism can be argued to have some suffering involved. Also, there are emerging information and many articles to suggest that plants do suffer or can feel pain.

New research on plant intelligence may forever change how you think about plants

http://gizmodo.com/nice-try-vegans-plants-can-actually-hear-themselves-b-1599749162

Google offers many studies on the subject just by doing a simple search.

Can you refute these articles which suggests formal studies? Are you absolutely sure that plants do not suffer from you eating them?

 

[Nous]

I don't consider animals to be like human babies.

Obviously you have no factual basis by which to conclude that animals suffer any less than human babies. Your assertions are merely an effort to justify gratifying your own desires.

To claim that one agrees with the Golden Rule but tries to justify and is indifferent to the suffering that humans cause to non-human animals is pure hypocrisy, literal hypocrisy.

Also, there are emerging information and many articles to suggest that plants do suffer or can feel pain.

New research on plant intelligence may forever change how you think about plants

http://gizmodo.com/nice-try-vegans-plants-can-actually-hear-themselves-b-1599749162

If you know of any scientific study where the authors concluded from some fact that plants suffer, then cite it. I don't know of any such study, nor any rational reason to conclude that plants suffer. Plants do not have nociception.