BF2S Forums Animal testing

yes for med reasons .

yeah for medical reasons I have no problem with it




they should really think about gathering up the homeless and test it on them ( like in Clancys Rainbow Six )

Only for med reasons, and i kinda agree on somethings should be tested on humans...

avman633 wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

they should really think about gathering up the homeless and test it on them ( like in Clancys Rainbow Six )

That is actually a really good idea. We should pay them some money to be test subjects for these drugs

They already do.

*shrugs* I don't have a problem with them testing animals for cosmetics, as long as the animals used aren't endangered species.

This is almost an imponderable for me. In some cases, like pets and endangered wildlife, I feel like non-human animals can take on a higher moral value than a person. In other cases, I am happy to cut open an animal and drink its blood (figuratively). It's tough for people to take moral gray areas like this. We all want to look around for some type of litmus test that will allow us to stamp an over-simplification like "bad" or "good" on a given topic. Unless you can consult god (keep in mind how humans wrote and rewrote the bible and other religious texts, you really cant look there for the hard and fast answers you crave any more than you can consult a person that you respect). It's just going to come down to whether or not you feel good about it. You can find commonalities in the human emotional response to a given topic, but that doesnt make the dominant belief correct, this would be arbitrarily reductionist.

Remember that we are just animals with our own (pretty incredible) subsistence strategy. Can you question the morality of the snake? Or the wild dog as it eviscerates and scatters the entrails of an animal that is still alive and crying? Can you judge the fisherman as he commits vast acts of genocide against a population of fish, leaving them flapping desperately, drowning en masse on a ship deck? It's entirely possible that even plants have some kind of experience that is savagely deprived as we walk across a field of grass or fell trees for our homes. Was the domestication of wildlife the precursor for eugenics? Are all these things about the natural world okay? Don't ask me. I'm just trying to live my life and be happy with my own decisions. I don't want to impose my feelings on anyone unless I have to just to get by. This is kind of distubing to consider knowing that our state education and mass media have actually taught us most of what we know about 'what we need to get by.'

Animal testing is just another one of the many gray moral issues. In some cases it has to be as legitimate as frying a chicken, in others it's excessive and consumers would most likely prefer to know the implications of doing business and choose to take their money elsewhere. Do businesses owe transparency to the consumers or do they have a right to privacy? Did humans forfeit their personal freedom to choose their impact on the world when they chose to develop urban societies entirely dependent on trade?

Last edited by Marinejuana (2007-12-27 18:14:53)

Well, considering we arent gonna test these things on child molesters, which I would 100% support, animals are the next best thing.

No if you want to test on somthing living use your fucking mother or your children not animals[treehugger/]

Yes and unlike our favourite and stale out of date Marine i will provide a reason.

I can shoot a bullet into their ass if the so complain.

You know marine whenever you been a poorly little boy the medicine prescribed by your physician was highly probably clincally tested on some cute little monkey.

No complaints then right? Or are you bionic.