A Controversial Question

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by GhostJoker, Nov 12, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Does scientific research and testing on animals constitute animal cruelty?

    Now, i'm not one to bring up any hot topics. I'm sure some of you have seen me around other topics, enjoying the show as things turn into a shit-storm. However, today, an interesting topic came up in my Criminal Law class which actually split the class in half in terms of thoughts. Some said that it was necessary due to the hazards that experimental products may contain and the effects should be recorded on animals first. Others said that animals don't deserve to be injected or constantly tested in any means when it comes to products.

    What are your thoughts?

    Also, if things get out of hand, close it. I'll be enjoying the show as usual.

  2. y u do dis to me joker
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Well first off Cruelty is a Subjective word, based on what the individual in question finds to be terrible treatment towards an individual.

    So I would honestly have to say it's a case-by-case basis.

    First on what are the specifics of the Animal Testing in question?
    Like are you just testing how well Dog's react to a new chew toy? Or are you killing them with make-up products?

    Then secondly does the individual witnessing this testing then see this case of it as being Cruel to inflict or not?
    This can be true at times, but it's also irrelevant to the question at hand.

    The question is simply asking if it's Cruel or not, not if the Cruelty is justified.
  4. I think if you're using chemicals to test on animals, that is cruel. Even if it's for testing cures o diseases.

    Difference between humans and animals is most of us have the ability to make a choice. Animals are just taken without consent.

    Unfortunately, a lot of people feel animals have no emotions. I've had one guy in my class say a dog has no soul and that makes a dog inferior and worthless. Boy did I get pissed at that.

    Animals have more than the eat, shit, sleep ability. They can bond and there have been those where under the right circumstances, have made friends or relationships with other animals so...I do not feel animals should be tested on. I do feel it is...wrong.

  5. Considering some experiments involve painful, terrible deaths? Black and white morality answer is "yes." On the other hand, it's a necessary evil, so that we can advance science and medicine to the point where animal testing or human trials will no longer be necessary. The lives of animals are not equitable to the lives of human beings, so...

    What a dark and macabre topic. I can't wait for someone to hop in here and tell me how cows have souls or squirrels have civilization, or something equally silly.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Love Love x 1
    • Bucket of Rainbows Bucket of Rainbows x 1
  6. Depends. Are we talking mad science here? Becouse my Incan Squirrel Deathsquad didn't come without a few mutilated critters..... 2800 of them to exact.
    • Bucket of Rainbows Bucket of Rainbows x 1
  7. Depends on what exactly is being tested. If we're talking about make-up or other products that are purely cosmetic, then, yes, I'd say it's cruel and unnecessary, and that animals shouldn't be subjected to that.

    But if it's about scientific research, especially the sort of thing that could possibly lead to new breakthroughs in medicine or curing cancer or something, then I'd say it's a necessary evil. Yeah, it's unfortunate, what has to be done to those lab mice and rats, but it's also unfortunate that cancer and AIDS exist. And I don't think that the lives of animals in a lab environment should stand in the way of scientific progress.

    So, the important difference here is that one of these things deals with scientific progress and the potential for bettering the lives of humans, whereas the other is purely a matter of commercial gain and some company being able to sell some new line of hair dye. It should be clear why one of these things is better than the other.
    • Like Like x 3
  8. Brovo, listen to yourself! Gosh don't you see that dogs have feelings and souls and don't deserve to be put in cages and tested on constantly and the fact that squirrels have communities and cities in trees in which the daddy squirrel grabs a suitcase full of nuts before going to work?! And DON'T get me started on your day to day cruelty to ANTS! Like seriously Brovo, stop poisoning them for intruding in your home for last night's Pizza! They are starving little critters that deserve rights too.

    Now that that is out of the way. Time for my serious answers to this thread.

    As others have said, it highly depends on the research and testing done to said animals. Of course there are boundaries that constitute as animal cruelty and most tests are given to animals without any form of consent because animals are incapable of giving such to humans. That said cruelty in itself is not really a subjective term to me since I like to follow literal definitions and meanings of words. Cruelty in this topic is no different than any other form of cruelty, which is basically mental or physical pain dealt to the animals in question.

    If the testing follows under the definition of cruelty to where the animal is terrified of humans or subject to pain than of course the testing is considered under animal cruelty. If not? Then clearly the testing does NOT constitute under animal cruelty.

    Both are good points though I am inclined to agree with Brovo on this part of the question. There are many factors at play and we must also consider the fact that, while animals are cure, lovable creatures for the most part that we tend to WANT to take good care of, they will never be considered equal to human beings and thus we would rather test on unwilling animals than humans, cruel as it may be or not. So long as it furthers in the scientific development it is allowed to continue in my book because in the end, a few martyrs of animals will help in the future by saving human lives in the future and will one day make it to where human nor animal testing would be needed to determine whether whatever is being tested is effective in doing what it is created for or not, especially with how technology is growing.

    That said, tests that were designed for pure cruelty with effects that are already well known by fucking common sense is something we do not need to do live animal testing on in my opinion since these forms of tests are designed to be cruel and are not needed in today's society. Something like testing a gun on animals is a completely different thing in comparison to testing a cure to a disease that may save millions of lives on them, and both are nothing like testing how much cats like the new bag of meowmix.

    Going to be a bit off-topic here for a second but....

    It is completely relevant to the thread and can be compared to asking a second question that fits under the theme of the thread. Not to mention that I'm 99% sure that the creator of the thread's statements and questions are completely relevant to the thread at hand that they made, no matter what the thread is. If he wants to ask if "is dogs driving train testing effective and cool?" in the thread I'm more than sure that it is relevant since it IS his thread.

    From what I can tell, the thread's theme is "Animals Testing and Cruelty" in general. So, I'm sure as time passes it'll grow with more questions being asked about the subject that isn't under "if it's cruel or not."
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Jokes on you, Brovo is to poor to afford pizza.
    • Love Love x 1
    • Nice execution! Nice execution! x 1
  10. I feel really really really bad about animal testing. But in order to get working medications you HAVE to eventually have live test subjects. It SUCKS, but that is reality.

    To make up for it, my brother volunteers as a live test subject whenever they have a study or need to test experimental medications! 8D
  11. Well of course he does. As a owl, its not really volunteering though now is it?
  12. *Re-reads the question*

    I think there's been some confusion.
    I've read it as "Does scientific research and testing count as Animal Cruelty?"
    While other's seem to have read it as "Does scientific research justify Animal Cruelty?"
  13. You're right on the question, but wrong on saying that the other has no relativity to the thread and is off topic. I was pointing out that it was in fact, very relevant due to the theme that the thread is about.

    That said, lets go back to the theme of the thread before we go too far off topic.
    #13 Drakel, Nov 12, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Like Brovo said, it's a necessary evil. Do I feel for the animals? Absolutely; it breaks my heart, but despite my deep love of animals, the life of a rat is not comparable to the life of a person. I mean, part of me thinks 'do the tests on child abusers' but that's primal and also another topic for another day.

    Cosmetics, on the other hand, I find unnecessary. There is no need for cosmetics. Cosmetics are not going to save lives. Test that shit on people.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Love Love x 1
  15. Metal as fuck.
  16. I believe that depending on the situation it can be a necessary evil.
  17. Oh look, another echo chamber for me to shout into.

    Yep, could easily be classified as cruelty, but the gains outweigh the negatives by a lot so it's fine. Human rights > animal rights, testing needs to be done for the advancement of medicine and such, so on with the animal cruelty.
  18. [​IMG]

    Does this look cruel to you?
  19. Looks fucking delicious, more like.
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Claiming that something is "animal cruelty" generally means that you're saying it's something that shouldn't be done, because it's cruel. That's how I read it, anyway.

    I mean... it's kind of hard to say that testing on animals isn't animal cruelty, technically speaking, given the definition of "animal" and "cruelty" (unless you're going to argue that inducing tumors in lab rats doesn't count as cruel).

    Also, when Ghostjoker said that their class was split on it, they said that some people "thought it was necessary" and that others said that "animals didn't deserve that", so, I don't think anyone was trying to claim that it isn't, technically, cruel -- just whether or not it's justified.

    I mean, there's a reason why testing on lab animals usually doesn't break any animal cruelty/abuse laws -- because those sorts of things generally refer to kicking puppies or owning far more pets than you can afford to feed -- which we call "animal cruelty" because that's all it is: cruelty towards animals with no other real goal or benefit to justify it.

    So, the way I see it, asking if something "counts as animal cruelty" is also sort of asking if it justifies it. No one's trying to claim that lab animals aren't actually being harmed by what they go through. That could be kind of hard to argue, I think. Even if you claim that they don't feel pain, there's still the matter of killing them, which... yeah. Hard to argue that, objectively, killing something isn't "cruel" (unless it's a mercy killing, which I'd say these generally aren't).

    And if you say "well it isn't cruel if you're doing it for a reason other than simply being malicious", then that turns this into a question of whether or not the reason for hurting/killing an animal makes it alright to do so: in other words, asking whether or not it's justified.

    Edit: I should acknowledge the fact that people have brought up scenarios in which animal testing wouldn't be harmful to the animal in question, like testing which brand of cat food a bunch of felines prefer. I suppose this would in fact be an instance of animal testing "not counting" as animal cruelty, even if you interpret "cruelty" as nothing more than hurting/killing a creature regardless of the reasoning for it, but uh... I don't think that that's the type of animal testing that the OP was talking about, anyway. XD
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.