Animal testing.....

I think our current laws are sufficient, no more no less.

The decision to provide ethics approval works like a weight scale, pros and cons.

Some pros include the scientific merit of the research. Namely, will the research benefit the species it is being tested on? Other species (like human beings)?

Some cons are namely, what sort of harm is anticipated for the test subject?


So cosmetic testing, which can actually be quite painful to animals (particularly in the early stages) and has very little scientific merit, is generally frowned upon.

Cancer treatment in rats however, which is fatal for most rats, has a lot of scientific merit...so it is allowable. (It still depends on the exact nature of the treatment).

 

I only agree for this when we are doing medical research That's all i'm posting here.

 

hmm I like how you think. the evil can be put to the test.

 

Godd I hate evil people we need Charles Manso on the testing. Manson was a REAL KILLER though, bye.

 

My opinion is this:

You can do animal tests, if the result could save hundreds of people. BUT, if you're doing it for make-up, that's definitively wrong!
It could be the same way for the bad criminals.

 

Do you know why most cranes are almost dead? Its because people whanted the feathers for fashion. Beavers were in trouble cause people whanted perfume out of em.
Amazing the dumb stuff we do for fashion.
However, i can merit that research using animals is not really all that bad in many cases. Testing medicines on them for instance. So long as the animal is being fed and taken care of, its not gonna argue with its lot. Now testing Diseases on em, now thats a problem. But if you are almost sure you can get the medication right, make some of the animals sick and treat them. Don't do it to a lot. If the species as a whole survives then there is no problem.
And if you check the capital punishment debate you will see im strongly against the death penalty unless your 100% certain.

 

Just to throw in a bit of a snark response...this is actually a paraphrase of my response in a debate regarding ethical treatment of endangered species. I had the unruly position of saying we should let them die. So I said something like this, and actually got an honourable mention simply for this argument:


Do you know why almost all of the Pandas are dead? Because they are essentially, 'evolution's failures.' They die at the drop of a hat...they only like to feed on bamboo which has little to no nutritional value to them. They can't fatten up enough to hibernate and often times the cold winter climate kills off thousands of them at a time. They've virtually no defense mechanism...heck, a butterfly could probably fly past one and kill it. To refer to the Simpson's infinite wisdom:

"The scream-a-pillar is ... and sexually attracted to fire."
"Are you sure God doesn't want it to die?"

Now that that's out of the way, I put to you; Why is it a human's job to ensure the Panda can survive, despite being so flawed it can't survive on its own? (I mean from a purely scientific standpoint, does it make sense?) There are reasons to do so, such as them being cute, etc...but scientifically? They're nature's failures, we shouldn't be bothered with them.

But then...where do we draw this line? If we can invent guns and hunt gorillas (haha), doesn't that make gorillas inferior also? Why shall we be forced to care for them either?


----------

Not that I believe we should kill all of the animals or anything like that...infact, I believe we should protect Panda's for other reasons. I just thought it was an interesting argument, which Zerieth's post reminded me of. Slightly off topic, but only a stone's throw. ( ;

 

EDIT: Sorry, this posted twice somehow. Can a mod fix this?

 

i'm agree

 

Im sure they eat more than bamboo. If you wanna prove this you should post us some links from 3 trusted sources. Any less than this it won't count.

 

Since I got my information from a documentary (which is a trusted, yet unpostable source) then I'm afraid you've got to do the research if you actually care. Your proposed rules (3 sources, no less) are rather arbitrary. Why is 3 the magic number? 1 should be sufficient...otherwise it's like saying to a scientist 'No no, your study's not good enough...I need 2 others to do the same research.'

So here's 1:

Source: Giant Panda Facts - National Zoo| FONZ

Being a zoo's website, I'm pretty sure the details are correct.

 

3 is the magic number because not every source is correct. If it was 1 i could just go to a web site and say "LOOK! LOOK HERE! HERE IS MY SOURCE! YAY!" And then find out that its a totally wrong source. 2 you may get unlucky but 3 it's kinda hard to get it wrong. I see 1, just post a bit of the other thing if you haven't then right down the name of the document, the author and the date published. Ty.

 

Your logic escapes me. A 'trusted source' is by definition, a trusted source! It's a source whose input is reasonable, and expected to be legitimate. You have to crosscheck 'untrusted' sources like wikipedia, whose information may be biased or incorrect. A zoo's website is perfectly legitimate for this discussion...if you're honestly going to issue a challenge to the site I posted, feel free, send them an email and tell them you don't believe them...but you're going to look foolish.

So in other words, you're telling me I'm supposed to do your research for you. (If you are unconvinced of this fact, you can go to google, type in panda bamboo and see how many sources there are claiming this is true.)

I'll indulge you...but that doesn't mean your logic is right. One trusted site is sufficient, by definition of what 'trusted' means. I explained this in my last post, perhaps one more example.

The Olympic Games were on last month. Every day or so (or whenever I felt like it) I would pop open Beijing's official website for the games and check the Medal Count Standings. Did I feel my name to cross-reference the medal count? No...because this site is a trusted site.


Be sure to look at Source 7. It even explains WHY Pandas don't hibernate...I mean you know, if you won't take my word for it.

Source 2 - A book: "Bears: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan" by Christopher Servheen et al. (Here's the link to google books: Bears: Status Survey and ... - Google Book Search)

Source 3 - Endangered Wildlife: Panda

Source 4 - Animal Info - Giant Panda

Source 5 - threats to giant pandas

Source 6 - Panda Facts

Source 7** - HowStuffWorks "The Bamboo Root of the Problem: Giant Panda Eating Patterns"

EDIT: Actually, do indeed look at source 7. It has a short video clip from the exact documentary I was saying I got my info from at the bottom.

 

Just what i have been taught to do. Check, then double check, then check it again. 1, 2 ,3 . If its not at least 3 sources i got a failing grade. Any ways you draw up an interesting point. But if i was to argue this religiously god told us to be the care takers of the animals. In other words, were like zoo keepers of the world. Big responsibility.

 

You would have been taught this methodology in an english or other literature/social science type course, where opinions and biases are at the heart of the matter. Taking from a large pool of sources reduces this error.

In science however, even one scientific article is as close to a 'proof' as is possible, and thus is all that's required...this is because in science, things are (more often than not) black and white, compared to things like interpreting Shakespeare. The notion naturally extends to 'one credible source' since the argument I presented was scientific/factual in nature (and not opinion-based).

Proceeding 'up the ladder' in a sense, Math is at the top...where having zero sources (and sound reasoning) is all that's required.

My point was only dealing with science (and not things like ethics or religion):

In terms of personal beliefs, I too feel it's important to ensure the safety/health of what we've been given.