Animation Source Forums

[quote="Fieto]What happens if you do xyz with an animal is still tetsted for more than 100 times!! This is written in all teaching-books. But they do because the students have to see what happens with their own eyes! And this is more than silly! [/quote]

Because it's a better way of teaching do you want us to take out the total involvment a student has, not only for that but the disection of animals and the chemical labs that teach about different chemical reactions?



In no way can I belive that info site your source. And it is true that out of all the animals that we have now they are only 10% of what we did have. So since the world began 90% of animals have died out, but that was due in part with ingnorance of people and the total lack of human acctivity to help protect them.

I think there're more people who ignore it and people who hunt animals than people who try to save species.

It's good that you are swayed by your emotions, it shows you are human and different. Just like the people here think it's wrong to test on animals, why because they have compassion for them.

Compassion sets Humans apart from animals (Among other things)

I didn't write: Think new. I only mean: Think!

And I see you did and this is a first step. Everyone now have to ,,create'' his own opinion. But the wrong thing is egoism and saying: ,,For me it's not imoprtant if other people have an opinion because my one is the right one.''

Fieto

White wolf, Animals have just as much compation as people! Wolves mourn for their dead pack members, elephents love there babies, Apes care for one another. Maby you should learn more about animals before you just go Blabbing stuff thats not true.

And I don't think you are getting it. Desises are bad, yes, but in the long run, they are good. Us humans have overstayed our welcome here on this earth and I say we should be better. and desise is the only way to keep the population down. There is NOTHING you can say about animals labs that is good in the long run. NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tamaskawolf-BP --> Calm your face.



I don't mean to bring up the terrible past, but think about it. People are testing on animals for medicine they THINK MIGHT be able to cure a disease and not all diseases are curable, nor can every curable disease be cured (especially by medicine alone [where in many cases, i have seen people get torn apart by taking medicine which can lead to many bad things, i'll spare the list) Now, since medicine wasn't able to save your family member, wouldn't you think that animal testing did not assist in any way? Animal testing may have been useful "back then" but nowadays, I don't find it very effective. It costs more lives than it saves.

There is alot of good animal labs do! Most people dont want to die at the age of 30!

Look at Africa some of the countries there have a very short life span.
why?
Disease is spread rapidly and they dont have the money to reserch what they need too, and they dont have the money to produce the medicines they need.

Of course it's the fault of not enoguh rats!

Don't sepak about Africa...yes the would need much medicine.
But the first prob is the capitlism and the fact that on the world are to many people.


Oh! But do you think it's an honour for the animals to die for the human?
Or to have five legs and two heads?


I know only one kind of animal testing which is okay: psychological and psychic tests.


Fieto

The animals are not only dieing for Humans but also for other animals the advances will save.



The Foundation for Biomedical Research, an American organization that "promotes public understanding and support for humane and responsible animal research," writes that "animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century — for both human and animal health," and that many major developments that led to Nobel Prizes involved animal research, including the development of penicillin (mice), organ transplant (dogs), and work on poliomyelitis(Polio) that led to a vaccine (mice, monkeys).

One moral basis for a pro-testing position was summarized by a British House of Lords report in 2002: "the whole institution of morality, society and law is founded on the belief that human beings are unique amongst animals. Humans are therefore morally entitled to use animals, whether in the laboratory, the farmyard or the house, for their own purposes."

This belief is "combined with a further belief that there is a moral imperative ... to develop medical and veterinary science for the relief of suffering ..." and "we have a moral duty to avoid or minimise animal suffering wherever possible"

Some people also believe that animals may suffer less during experiments than human beings would, arguing that although all mammals have similar pain receptors and central nervous system pathways and may feel physical pain in the same way, non-human mammals suffer less because they have a reduced capacity to remember and to anticipate pain

Yes! For the dog of Paris Hilton maybe. Because she is rich and pays a lot of money. The people do all for money. If you would say: ,,Here I give you 100.000.000 Dollar for saving the wolves of Alaska'', of course, they would. But not for the lives, only to get your money!

And--> Nobody knows exactly what a creature feels if you do somethig with it. Everybody knows only what he feels for himself.


Fieto

Well is'nt everything in the world for the money?

And yes we can get a general idea of if animals are feeling pain or not.

Isn't this a problem? You say: ,,Yeah you're right'' But it sounds like: ,,But what's the metter?"



Yes, the modern man. I forgot.

EDIT: And if you've so a modern machine which says you the animal feels and this not: Why do you not take machines to test the medicine?


Fieto

That's where beta testing comes into play.


And that was a point I was trying to put across, it seems today everything is only for the money.