buddyjuf

Cure Cancer
Or some kinds of paralisys

would you support it?

After Shock Media

Yes.
Hell I would support it if it was only used to cure the cold.
Of course I am less open to certain animals than others, but I place humans higher.

__________________

kane

There is animal cruelty already used in a lot of products that people use everyday. they just don't know it.

Nicky

Depends on what it could cure. But animal cruelty is already a big part of our society im afraid

__________________

Libertine

It always amazes me how some people have no qualms about killing animals for a tasty meal, but go ballistic when animals are killed in order to possibly save human lives.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

CDSmith

I voted no because although animals can be used for testing in order to further science and cures for diseases etc, there is no need for cruelty. They can be handled and treated humanely and still be used to accomplish those goals.

Why does "cruelty" have to come into the equation? It doesn't.

__________________
Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!

ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!!
Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

After Shock Media

I know it does not need to be typically.

Yet if releaving cold symptoms some requires that some geek in a lab coat has to push golf balls up mice asses, so be it. Given the choice of nasal suffering and a mouse being turned into goat.se, sorry mickey bend over and do your part.

__________________

MSV

Thats true CDSmith... I didn't think about that distinction however - I guess the wording of the question is wrong.

Libertine

In many cases, it's impossible to completely prevent suffering. For example, when studying the course of cancer in rats (say, to see the differences in disease progression with different sorts of medication), it is impossible to keep them entirely sedated and on painkillers all the time - if only because painkillers could have side-effects which potentially affect the spread of the disease.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

sharp

really depends. interesting idea though

reynold

There's no problem if use animals for research projects in aid of medical development. However, it's the term 'cruelty' that really bothers me.

CDSmith

I realize that. My point is that, while in the course of doing the necessary experiments, the animals can still be handled and treated in a humane manner. Cruelty doesn't have to enter into it.

__________________
Promote Wildmatch, ImLive, Sexier.com, and more!!

ALWAYS THE HIGHEST PAYOUTS: Big Bux/ImLive SIGNUP ON NOW!!!
Put some PUSSYCA$H in your pocket. ICQ me at: 31024634

notabook

Not just yes, but jesus-fucking-christ yes. Animals are here for us to do with as we see fit.

__________________

lloyd

and here i thought he was gonna ask if animal cruelty had to be used in order to... make a pretty handbag or some shit

Libertine

I guess it depends on ones definition of cruelty then. Your definition of "cruelty" seems to be deliberate, unnecessary infliction of suffering. For many (e.g. PETA types), though, the term "cruelty" also covers the suffering that is necessary for the experiments.

Your definition is the better one, in my opinion, but unfortunately, cruelty is an extremely loaded and controversial term, and the definition will probably remain disputed in this context as long as there are both people carrying out animal tests as well as people protesting against them.

Also, one has to wonder what the line between humane and cruel treatment is. Speaking purely in terms of cost, it seems possible that for some experiments, spending significantly more on the welfare of the animals involved would greatly increase their well-being. But how far should this be taken? Imagine a linear correlation between "animal well-being budget" and "animal well-being". Should one, then, spend a dollar on a lab-rat, a hundred dollars, a thousand, a million?

Of course, there is no such linearity. Still, it is an interesting question - how much effort and money spent on the well-being of animals constitutes humane treatment?

I guess that at one point, an arbitrary decision has to be made, accepting that there is no objective standard. The downside of this, though, is that protesters will never be convinced that enough is being done for the well-being of the animals involved, and they will continue to threaten researchers and terrorize animal testing labs.

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

JD

if it saves human lives I don't give a fuck about animals

Spunky

If it's rodents..it's no problem

__________________

dig420

Libertine, you surfer moron.. why are you in every thread concerning animal cruelty on the pro-cruelty side? What kind of pervert moron sadist are you, you non-webmaster geek? You cum-stain, get the fuck off the board.

The really funny thing is that, like theking, it's easy to tell just from the way you phrase your words that you truly believe you're an intelligent person saying intelligent things. You're not. You're an idiot. I know you don't believe me now, but trust me: The remainder of your life will bear my words out to be true.

dig420

Libertine, you surfer moron.. why are you in every thread concerning animal cruelty on the pro-cruelty side? What kind of pervert moron sadist are you, you non-webmaster geek? You cum-stain, get the fuck off the board.

The really funny thing is that, like theking, it's easy to tell just from the way you phrase your words that you truly believe you're an intelligent person saying intelligent things. You're not. You're an idiot. I know you don't believe me now, but trust me: The remainder of your life will bear my words out to be true.

12clicks

dude, I fucking eat foie gras. Of course I'm for animal cruelty if it makes my life better.

__________________

12clicks

dig, I didn't see your post before I replied. please don't hate me. I don't believe I'm intelligent, I just like veal and force fed geese.

forgive me that and you'll like me, I swear.

__________________

sniperwolf

killing is killing but there is the brutal and the painless way..
so it's just a matter of saying if it's cruely done..

even bacteria and fungi though they are the lowest lifeforms,.. they are used in food and drugs/meds, everything has it's purpose

you'll always think of saving lives especially if it's one of your love ones..
you'll do everything... you can breed cats but you cannot breed people and their own personality

__________________
~Accepting design works~

12clicks

if people tasted as good as foie gras, I'd eat babies.

__________________

Barefootsies

__________________
Should You Email Your Members?

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Enough Said.

"Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"

KRL

There's been so much heat and activist action on research labs, be they commercial or government, that conditions for the lab animals have gotten somewhat better though for some its still pretty much hell on earth until they are eventually euthanized or die from the experiments.

The advancement of computer modeling has also helped to alleviate the need for live animals in many cases.

__________________
If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor
from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION!
*** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

dig420

That's hard to do bro. I think it's a serious personality defect and a very telling indication of what kind of person someone is that they can't forgo simple pleasures to spare another creature agonizing pain.

It's not rare for people to be that way. It's not someting I'd smack someone for. It's just, in my mind, degenerate and not just unevolved and uncaring, it's willfully uncaring. It betrays a small and pinched world view where you're just not capable of empathy.

It means you're the kind of person who won't treat anyone or anything well unless you have no choice. That's not the kind of person I am, it's not the kind of person I want around me.

dig420

most animal research work in this day and age is makework. They have to continue the research to keep getting the grants or if they're in the private sector to keep getting their paycheck. It's redundant work that's been done hundreds of times before, for the most part. Not ALL of it, just most of it.

Babagirls

fuck no! although, i would accept human cruetly to heal cat diseases, so you figure that one out.

__________________




Need a Text Writer?
Blogs|Reviews|Descriptions|Paysites|TGP's|Stories
ICQ: 397892500

GrouchyAdmin

I only have one thing to say about animal testing to cure disease:

This color means positive, and black is negative.

__________________

nico-t

i dont call it 'cruelty' when they can cure deseases with animal tests

fr0gman

As Mr Spock would quickly point out; The good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

__________________
"Because the World Wide Web is all about two things: horrifyingly stupid psychodrama, and naked chicks."

Libertine

Whoa there. Did someone piss in your cereal this morning?

Anyway, I am inclined to believe that you are an illiterate moron, since you didn't even understand my rather simple posts in this thread. I am actually not in favour of unnecessary cruelty towards animals in medical testing. I am in favour of sacrificing animal lives if it can help to rescue or significantly improve human lives. And yes, I do believe that that may include suffering on the part of the animals. (although I would support a ban on the killing of intelligent animals, like primates, dolphins and whales)

Now, as for me believing that I am intelligent, well yes, I do believe that. Fortunately, those who matter (my professors) agree with me. That others (idiots like you) don't, is something I care very little about

__________________
/(bb|[^b]{2})/

frank7799

Hmm, I thought of that opinion, but reading GFY I think you are wrong.