1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Animal Rights Protesters!

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by stealther, Aug 15, 2005.

  1. stealther

    stealther
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,058
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Lichfield
    Ratings:
    +93
    I got into a heated debate with a bunch of pansy protesters on Saturday!

    I was trying to get into Tomas Cook to get some holiday brochures and there were a number of protesters barricading the shop asking people to boycott Tomas Cook on the grounds that they are the largest tour operator in Mauritius and presumably send money into Mauritius. Apparently Mauritius is one of the biggest exporters of monkeys for medical research and we need this cruelty stopped.

    Well of course ever up for an argument with tree huggers and such I tried pointing out that millions of people are alive today due the medicines developed by animal testing.
    That people with MS, Cancer and Heart Disease to name but a few were all benefiting from the research. I also tried to point out that less than 1% of animal testing was carried out on non human primates the majority 85% on rodents so why werent they defending them? :rotfl: They got so mad.
    It was really quite amusing and the highlight of my otherwise dull shopping trip :D

    So whats your opinions on animal rights protesters and other such tree huggers?
    I know there are always some valid points on both sides such as using animal testing for cosmetics. But I find it hard to trade 1 human life for any amount of animals and why on earth should we not build a road because theres an owl living in a tree :rotfl: Its funny if my house was in the way of the road I'd soon be moved on wouldnt I?
     
  2. Miyazaki

    Miyazaki
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    Messages:
    14,304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +849
    I am opposed to animal testing for cosmetic reasons, but support it for medical reasons.
    There is a facility in oxford for animal research that has gone unbuilt for ages because the animal rights protestors are threatening everyone involved to such an extent that they refuse to complete the building.

    The extremists that do this sort of thing are in the wrong, but everyone has the right to protest, so I wouldn't begrudge them that.

    Remember when that woman chased after you in plymouth for trying to kick that pigeon? :rotfl:
     
  3. stealther

    stealther
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,058
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Lichfield
    Ratings:
    +93
    Agreed. I know cant believe i missed :D She was psycho! :eek:
     
  4. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    It was proved many years ago that the majority of testing for the very illnesses you named need not be carried out on animals. The primary reason for using them is cheapness. This was why the Oxford lab (which in fact is now nearly finished and due to open soon) was built - despite others sites being offered as an alternative using non animal testing. Sorry, but while I find animal rights protestors a pretty annoying bunch, and can understand why people think that if animals were the only way forward we should use them, I also find that a pretty disgusting reason to keep on subjecting animals to testing.

    As for 'Tree huggers' I find that a little ironic, as that was a phrase invented by our moronic right wing press, and now, it's the Opposition (and right wing press) complaining of 'green belt' disappearing and 'assaults on our green heritage'. Ie agreeing with their former opponents, those campaigning to defend the countryside........... I love ironic U-turns! :D

    Me, I hate the way our street alone has gone from being tree lined to stark and bare as a result of 'gardening programme mania' and council legislation gone mad (no trees are allowed within several feet of property now). 'Tree huggers', wish they'd been here.............. :(
     
  5. Beobloke

    Beobloke
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    1,312
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Out in the Sticks!
    Ratings:
    +65
    I don't agree with animal testing, but i dislike animal rights protesters intensely - just a bunch of unwashed rent-a-nuisances who like causing trouble.

    Personally i'd rather that drugs and cosmetics were tested on paedophiles and rapists.... :D :smashin:
     
  6. Nobber22

    Nobber22
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,977
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Berkshire
    Ratings:
    +109
    Screw the "Mauritian" monkeys!! They are not even indigenious to the island. They are responsible for the death/extinction of many native species of bird that isn't found anywhere else in the world. :mad:

    The monkeys are a serious pest. Much like animal rights protestors actually. :rotfl:
     
  7. stealther

    stealther
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,058
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Lichfield
    Ratings:
    +93
    How then can they test products without using living creatures?

    I am all for it if it can be achieved effectively without animal testing. But my main point I was making is that, Testing though not very nice on the animal is preferable to human trials until the medicine is deemed safe.

    By the way Tree Hugger is my favourite term for protestors don’t take it a away from me I like it. :D

    PS. I have just googled alternative treatments and browsed a couple of websites. I am not convinced about human testing but in-vitro testing sounds more promising.
     
  8. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Are you sure? This seems like a good idea:-
    Only kidding! :D
     
  9. Jenn

    Jenn
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    6,894
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    I don't mind protesters as long as they don't hurt anyone.
    Peaceful protest is ok, what I don't like is when they attack workers, suppliers or customers of a lab. When they damage cars, throw paint or whatever at people, basically when they are violent.

    They're not doing anything for their cause when they do that.

    When it comes to testing on animals itself, I'd rather do without. When you've seen the pictures of these poor things with rods in their brains etc. it really makes you sick.
    But I never had to face a bad illness that could be helped with testing on animals...
     
  10. shahedz

    shahedz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    10,300
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,231
    i am a big animal lover and have a cat and 2 canaries( the canaries are my sisters) but i am all for animal testing for medical research, i agree that it isnt right for testing for cosmetic purposes but for medical research i am all for it. and animal rights activists are one of the biggest terrorists (please note one of the) in the UK they constantly threat researchers and damage property etc,
     
  11. seb

    seb
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    testing for cosmetics is wrong, but testing for medicines is still necessary. There are no computer model programmes or artificial media which can fully replace 'in vivo' testing, ie real-life.
     
  12. Nobber22

    Nobber22
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,977
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Location:
    Berkshire
    Ratings:
    +109
    Mmm, must be wonderful for those birds in that little cage, watched by a cat 24/7?
     
  13. shahedz

    shahedz
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Messages:
    10,300
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +1,231
    theyre kept in another room completely , it is literally like sylvester and tweety! but the cat in no cicrumstances is ever allowed there on its own!!
     
  14. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    There are. At the same time many animal tests have been dismissed (by other researchers) as they cannot reflect how a humans anatomy/cell structure will react in the same situation. However, scientists still use them regardless.

    Ultimately, the only effective way to test is on humans (volunteers) - which is much more widespread than people realise.
     
  15. smelly

    smelly
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Messages:
    1,598
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Bristol
    Ratings:
    +102
    But don't tests on humans start after initial testing on animals? That was the impression I always had :confused:
     
  16. seb

    seb
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    surely you need both ? first animal tests to establish broad safety and efficacy, and then human testing to establish the final product guidelines. I for one would not consider taking a medicine which had never seen the inside of another mammal (ideally several). Would anyone put eye drops into their kids eyes which had only been tested in a petri dish, no way ?!
     
  17. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,150
    I have a brother who's a bit of a magpie.
     
  18. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    In some cases yes. In others no. The things seb mentions are obvious, however, it can, as has been shown by the 'no animals used in testing', be done, and safely.

    We know for example, after several cases of scientists going back over old research to find out where testing of supposed 'cures' went wrong, that the animal testing portion was worthless as it actually proved nothing, and worse, led up a blind alley.

    Like many things, the worry is that scientists have become so engrained with the theory that 'animals must be used first' that what they are doing is actually wasting time, and lives. Both animal and, without being cynical, human.

    As before I'm not advocating abandoning animal testing completly (although when we meet the alien mice race I might suddenly change my mind ;) ), just for using it only where it can actually tell us something.
     
  19. Jenn

    Jenn
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    6,894
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,261
    It's been told before that if Aspirin had been tested on animals first it would never had been given to humans.
     
  20. seb

    seb
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Messages:
    110
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +0
    overkill, I think the 'no testing' products are possible if the ingredients have previously been tested on animal safety tests, there is no reason to retest many known cosmetic ingredients for example - but there is unlikely to be a new medicine which has not had the required animal safety tests.
    If animal tests have not been totally effective in the past then that is also an argument for improving the test procedure - however, there is no complete alternative for in vivo testing.
    Either way I have no problem with Tree Huggers refusing treatment if those drugs have been tested on animals.
     
  21. Ethics Gradient

    Ethics Gradient
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    3,680
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    aka Billy Science - Suni ojna Tas
    Ratings:
    +432
    which specific illness .... he mentioned 3

    .... the important point is "the majority of testing for the very illnesses you named need not be carried out on animals"
    We still have to address the minority - and those illnesses and conditions that can NOT be pushed forward without animal testing.

    I understand your point, but your statement is a little bit too much 'carte blanche'

    I myself am strongly against the testing on animals for spurious reasons - but I have often found gapping holes in the statements made by animal rights protestors when they put up a spokesman on the news.
     
  22. stealther

    stealther
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,058
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Lichfield
    Ratings:
    +93
    So In Short.

    Some agree some disagree, but we all hate protesters either way :D
     
  23. Miyazaki

    Miyazaki
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    Messages:
    14,304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +849
    Especially if they are huntsmen! :thumbsup:
     
  24. overkill

    overkill
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    11,778
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Murkeyside
    Ratings:
    +1,194
    Agreed.

    ..............and that one was even easier! 100% with you guru! :D

    Nope. I was informed (by a biochemist) that you can completely cut (no pun) animals out of the loop. She is not an animal rights campaigner, far from it in fact. In particular after one of her colleagues was attacked by one............ Nasty little git. :mad:

    Poured paint stripper all over the bonnet of his car too.
     
  25. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    18,240
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +5,261
    No its not!! People get ill and die, fact. Plus the world is over populated with people anyway, about time some died.
     
  26. Miyazaki

    Miyazaki
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2003
    Messages:
    14,304
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +849
    You first then mate! :rolleyes:

    Or maybe you'd like to voulenteer some of your loved ones?
     
  27. Squiffy

    Squiffy
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,767
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Ashford, Kent
    Ratings:
    +2,890
    What a brilliant idea. Damage the tourist trade, and then force the people of Mauritius into even more monkey exports to make up for their lost income... :rolleyes:

    As for the protestors against the likes of Huntingdon Life Sciences. What utter morons. If they acheive their aim, what will happen? The requirement to test on animals will remain. All that will happen is that the testing will move to regimes and countries where such protests are easier to stop. Oh, and where incidentally concern for animal welfare will almost certainly be lower too...
     
  28. mjn

    mjn
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2001
    Messages:
    18,240
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    Herts, England
    Ratings:
    +5,261
    Already there mate. I've no grandparents, and i've already got instructions from parents.
     
  29. Astraeus

    Astraeus
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    1,900
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    66
    Location:
    Sheffield
    Ratings:
    +166
    I'm against any human rights protester who isn't able to provide a viable alternative. They seem to be kicking up a fuss for the sake of it, without ever thinking in the long-term. If an animal rights protester wants to be used to further medical science, I'll happily support him but that's not something I see happening in the near future.

    In fact, I might begin to campaign against animals being used in research, and campaign FOR protesters to be used in medical (and cosmetic) research instead. Sorted!
     
  30. Rich-UK

    Rich-UK
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    They should test drugs on animal rights activists :D
     

Share This Page

Loading...