davidylan:

Yawn. When people get exposed for knowing so little they start foaming in the mouth.

1. I asked you very clearly if "scientific experiments" were bad and you agreed that they were as long as they had no benefit for humans. There was no delineation of whether this applied to medicine or cosmetics (a very poor analogy since animals are used for testing in a wide variety of applications including pesticides/herbicides).

2. To say animals should not be used for testing of cosmetics is comical in and of itself... it is an angle that the EU has pursued without much success. Even the EU ban expressly states that there are no non-animal alternatives to reproductive, repeat-dose and carcinogenicity testing.

3. What do you mean by "provided they are used sparsely"? The average 2-yr carcinogenicity testing for drugs requires at least 250 rats and 250 mice. 2-3 gen repro studies require far more. Both studies are REQUIRED for NDAs. What do you suggest we do? Recruit humans for these studies instead or not perform them at all?

4. To say that "the most commonly used way of lab testing is for cosmetics" is comical at best and a glaring evidence of your own ignorance at worst. The biggest users of animal testing are pharmaceutical companies for drug testing followed by agro-industries. Cosmetic industries are some of the smallest users since a lot of their acute studies are now done in vitro.

5. If you dont know something ask, if you are too proud to ask then keep quiet.

wow you have this serious superiority complex. Please get rid of it. I told you to stop being so full of yourself. I never even talked about something to be "exposed" . As Op asked, I was jus giving my own moral outlook.

1) I never said just any benifit. STOP EATING UP WORDS ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN PREFERANCE. I clearly mentioned SURVIVAL BENIFITS . I did not say they were not used for cosmetics. I gave my opinion saying that it is wrong to use them for cosmetic testing. MY OPINION, you get it, you NOOB.

2) whats comical about saying animals shouldnt be used for chemical testing. It is a serious issue of animal rights. I dont see what you find funny here? There is nothing funny. you have a very dumb sense of humour. Im not interested in what the EU or China or any damn Nation says. Please stick to the point of this thread. The OP asked for our personal opinions. Not to play follow-follow of what other people say or what established procedures dictate.

3) By sparsely , I meant that they are not misused. For E.g., many companies have the habit of using animals for testing, even after the product has already been proved safe, and prior to the production of every single batch of the same product. I suggest its alright to use animals for now , as long as its for human/animal survival benefits. OR they could use prisioners on death row, or as punishment for serious crimes. This again is my opinion so dont get so excited. Im doing what OP asked and this is how I think.

4) Show me the statistics before making such invalidated claims. Either ways, the use of animal testing is not good and is cruel. Also according to todays standard procedures, most animals are euthanised after tests, which is wrong. Also Im against the use of endangered species for animal testing.

And Im against cruel tests like the Draise test, for example. THey can use alternatives, however they still continue it.

5)I know enough. I dont need to ask you. This topic hardly interests me. If you want, then tell me or else dont. stop acting so arrogant.

Again, when you get exposed for being largely ignorant you resort to ad hominems. Not a surprise.

PAGAN 9JA:

wow you have this serious superiority complex. Please get rid of it. I told you to stop being so full of yourself. I never even talked about something to be "exposed" . As Op asked, I was jus giving my own moral outlook.

typical nigerian attitude. It is not "superiority complex" to actually know what it is you are talking about. Clearly you dont which is what irks me a great deal about the "no animal experimentation" lobby. They wax lyrical about how we should keep animals off scientific use but then do not come up with viable alternatives to the testing they demand.

It is ok to give a "moral" outlook, but it has to be anchored to reality. It is ok to be morally against pain to animals... but sorry, unless you can provide me an alternative means to fulfill all the regulatory requirements before i can place my products on the market you really dont have a point.

PAGAN 9JA:

1) I never said just any benifit. STOP EATING UP WORDS ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN PREFERANCE. I clearly mentioned SURVIVAL BENIFITS . I did not say they were not used for cosmetics. I gave my opinion saying that it is wrong to use them for cosmetic testing. MY OPINION, you get it, you NOOB.

You keep shifting the goal posts as soon as you get caught with your hands in the cookie jar. What do you mean by "survival benefits"? Most of the harmful effects of pesticides were discovered first in animals. Would you rather we went the thalidomide route instead?

PAGAN 9JA:

2) whats comical about saying animals shouldnt be used for chemical testing. It is a serious issue of animal rights. I dont see what you find funny here? There is nothing funny. you have a very dumb sense of humour. Im not interested in what the EU or China or any damn Nation says. Please stick to the point of this thread. The OP asked for our personal opinions. Not to play follow-follow of what other people say or what established procedures dictate.

It is not a serious issue at all. Animal rights campaigners are complete jokes. They want harmless drugs then perhaps they should suggest how we test the toxicity of the drugs they want. Maybe they want to donate their kids in place of the rat.

Secondly... it is downright silly to suggest yourself as someone passionate about animal rights when you dont even know the basics with regard to animal rights issues in the world today.

PAGAN 9JA:

3) By sparsely , I meant that they are not misused. For E.g., many companies have the habit of using animals for testing, even after the product has already been proved safe, and prior to the production of every single batch of the same product. I suggest its alright to use animals for now , as long as its for human/animal survival benefits. OR they could use prisioners on death row, or as punishment for serious crimes. This again is my opinion so dont get so excited. Im doing what OP asked and this is how I think.

I dont know where you get your info from or whether you are just making things up as you go along. I dont know any company that is willing to conduct animal testing for fun. It costs A LOT and takes a tremendous amount of time. In an era where companies are banding together to share data so they avoid carrying out tests... it is a joke to claim that some do it even after the product has been deemed safe. Why duplicate data you already have?

Use prisoners on death row instead of a mouse? Yeah so much for "morality".

PAGAN 9JA:

4) Show me the statistics before making such invalidated claims. Either ways, the use of animal testing is not good and is cruel. Also according to todays standard procedures, most animals are euthanised after tests, which is wrong. Also Im against the use of endangered species for animal testing.

Idiocy at its best. I dont have to show you "statistics". As for calling it an "invalidated claim", i can only chuckle. Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about.

Well of course you have to euthanize your animals, how else do you harvest their organs for testing?

Third, no one uses endangered species for animal testing. Last i checked, rats, mice (both of which account for more than 60% of animals used for testing), dogs, fish, hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits are not endangered.

PAGAN 9JA:

And Im against cruel tests like the Draise test, for example. THey can use alternatives, however they still continue it.

There are good alternatives to the Draize test now. Fewer and fewer companies are resorting to this.

PAGAN 9JA:

5)I know enough. I dont need to ask you. This topic hardly interests me. If you want, then tell me or else dont. stop acting so arrogant.

You really dont... if the topic is of no interest to you then desist from pushing discredited PETA claims.

By "acting arrogant" you mean actually discussing the issue with facts? Kinda reminds me of black kids who refuse to do well in school because they dont want to be accused of "acting white". Grow up... if you dont know the subject then find another thread.

- - - > Using animals for scientific experiments is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals - No. Animal experiments are why we know so much today with regard to biomedicine.

- - - > Killing animals for sport (hunting, fishing) is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals - No.Is eating meat wrong now? Should we stop drinking milk or eating eggs?

- - - > Killing animals for aesthetic purposes such as decorations, ivory, fur coats, furniture and the like, is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals - It should be regulated to prevent over-harvesting.

- - - > Genetically adjusting animals to meet our needs is wrong or amounts to cruelty to animals - No. It has made a tremendous impact on what we know about how certain genes work. For example, all we know about cancer genes, aging and the effects of caloric restriction, epigenetics etc came from animal studies.

- - - > Using animals for our sports such as Bull Fighting, Cock-Fighting, Dog Fighting, is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals. - Wrong. Just plain wrong.

- - - > Taking animals into our wars - beasts such as horses, elephants, camels and other such creatures, and having them gored to death and maimed in our battles is wrong, or amounts to cruelty against animals. - No.

- - - > Hacking my dog to death and eating him for lunch is wrong, and amounts to cruelty against animals. - Not wrong.

- - - > Torturing animals is wrong, or amounts to cruelty against animals. - Wrong.

- - - > Eating animals alive (such as the Japanese do with some types of fish) is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals. - Not wrong. there is no difference between eating a live fish and killing your turkey first before eating it. they both still end up dead.

- - - > Killing animals for ritualistic purposes is wrong, or amounts to cruelty to animals. - Not wrong.

All wrong good ser, strictly speaking by my moral standards. But my standards may be impractical.

I will gladly indulge or support some of these so long as they were done as humanely as we could manage (eg drug testing). I will gladly eat meat too (hypocritical), etc.

And also other factors may be involved on a case to case basis, like I personally usually give priority to sentient life, then life with nervous systems, etc. And I may also consider completely unavoidable, necessary evils, or nature just doing what nature does. Ultimately, determinism.

Focused enough? Can't see where this is heading.

Some interesting answers here. Like killing animals for aesthetics is wrong. Or using animals for war is wrong.