Dr. Dalek

I'm not sure I get your meaning.

Excuses excuses, if you don't want to do anything about it but complain, thats fine by me. Trust me when I say no one will care.. You could at least try. As of right now all you have done is complain, smear, and demonize. Even protesting is just a way of presuring other people to do something. If your realy so ritious and passionate about saving these animals you would at least try. How old are you? Do you have a college level education? If not you could always get one, scholarships are easy to come by these days, payment plans. I'm in college right now. Its hard work but I'm getting it done. Why can't you try to educate yourself in medical research and do something to help your furry firends? People also got along fine for millenia without, fire, cars, computers, agriculture, and shampoo. However in the context of the modern world cars are necisary to move long distances so people can do their jobs. Computers in the context of modern society are necisary to send information long distances and do many jobs. In a different society things would be just fine without animal testing, but their of billions of chronically sick people out there and hypochondiracts who need medicines of all kinds. They have to be produced as quickly as possible and tested as thoughrougly as possible. I'm sure there are people who can get along fine without animal tested drugs, but there also many people who can get along just fine without any medication for years. I for instance am the only one in my family not on somekind of medicatiopn right now. How much do these groups overlap? Okay lets go over this (wikipedia) 1) Animals can be put in controlled situations for testing. Human lives vary and cannot be subjected to scientific controll in order to acuratly study any detail, or combination thereof. 2)There is no substitute for the living systems necessary to study interaction among cells, tissue, and organs. Animals are good surrogates because of their similarities to humans. 3)It would be unethical to test substances or drugs with potentially adverse side-effects on human beings. 4)There is no substitute for psychiatric studies (e.g., antidepressant clinical trials) that require behavioral data. 5)Animals can be bred especially for animal-testing purposes, meaning they arrive at the laboratory free from disease. 6)Animals receive more sophisticated medical care because of animal tests that have led to advances in veterinary medicine. 7)Humans that use medicine derived from animal research are healthier. 8)Alternatives to certain kinds of animal testing are unknown. Me? Word game? Ypur the one who has been questioning and playing with definitions and leading people in rhetorical circles. Everything is subjective! Even if you try to see things from a Universal perspective, or other perspective in general the perspective you see is corrupted by your own perspective on the other perspective! Humans look out for #1. Animals look out for #1. Plants look out for #1. Untill we have a better system animal testing will continue.

? I didn't ask a question. Let me sumerize my point. . . 1) As of right now there is no reliable way to replace animal testing, all other alternatives leave too much room for risk to human lives 2) It does not matter weather it is moraly right or not to do what is neccisary, necesity, by definition, is neccisary, or if you don't do it things go wrong. 3) The only way to stop animal testing is to make it not neccisary. So what I'm saying is more of a suggestion. Instead of demonizing animal testing you could get an education, and develope a "crutly free" method that could make animal testing obsolete than there would be no more issue. But your attatude seems to indicate that you don't want to do anything about it yourself, you also seem not to be able to support your point properly, your just going around in circles with your argument, seeminly trying to tire you opponants instead of convincing them.

You seem to be intentionaly making this more complicated than it is.

Gun controll did come ito it at one point, read the "Give Me Liberty or Give me Death" speech.

Why does it need to be a non-human intelligence? I bet I could domesticate someone, if you believe Jeff Foxworthy humans are easy to train, especialy men. Yes sister I'll do your laundry. Wait a second. . .. .. . .

Fiberglass Buger

I like that quote,

I once sugested to my old history teacher that the purpose of the "right to bear arms" wasn't neccisarily to defend people from great Britan or to organise Malitas for national defence, but had a third meaning that tends to be ignored. The third purpose for the "right to bear arms" was a result of the forefaters considering the possibility that in the future their government may become corrupt and if it was neccisary the citizens (who have weapons at there disposal) could rebel much the same way as the forfathers rebeled against Britan. My history teacher found this very concept of having toi rebel against the United States Governement ludicris, but it seems obvious to me that it could one day be necisary.

But the human preference for human wellbeing over other life forms serves a logical purpose too. If a bunch of cave men went out and were gathering food they might find a buch of berries. Say that they have not brought any weapons with them, and that they find an animal and it's children eating the berries. Since they have no weapons they can't kill the beasts, at least not easily, but all of a sudden one of the cavemen asks "Ug fug mug do-bug" whcih means "Do we have the greater right to these berries than these animals. Is it moral to cause them to potentialy starve to death than to have us potentialy starve to death?" So they leave the berries to the animals. Now they might find another source of food, or they might not. If they do they will survive. If they don't they starve to death. The human preferance for the survival of other humans is simply a result of evolution, those who care about other animals more than themselves may not survive as easily. Selfishness, dispite it's negative conotation has a logical purpose. And once again you seem to have a preferance for testing humans only with no animals. Here is the predicament whcih you seem to have ignored:

Good point, I felt uncomfortable about my responce any way, I'll change it.

Logical Fallacy

You seem to have some kind of malace against your own species. As one of your species I resent that!

Methods involving computer testing and cultured cells are just as, and quite possibly more imprecise as using animals. The cells can not duplicate the complexixty of a full living system and the computer modles cannot plausably duplicate that either. Also no testing method that involves a living subject, human or other wise, within mecine can is "crulty free" because an untested drug is never free of risk. Your comments on "Red Herrings" are themselves Red Herrings, beause your not realy considering what I have to say seriously your just using it as an excuse to dismiss my opinions. You look at what I say with intention of disprooving it and not considering it.

My avatar represents a race of hyper agressive, alien, mutant, cyborg, supersoldiers bent on EX-TER-MIN-ATE-ING all existing life forms appart from themselves.

But we still need to test it on something . . Humans must be tested eventualy, however have you ever considered what might happen if an untested drug were used on a human without knowing what the potential side effects were? After all animals may not always react exactly the same way as a human would but usualy what kills us will kill them. For example: So do you think we should use only human test subjects? And potentialy kill the humans, in addition you have repeated that the rate at which drugs are pulled from the market is about 92% have you ever considered how many drugs never make it pass the testing phase? In order to find a drug that works properly they need to amke many drugs, and many variations and test them over and over.

Why not they seem to have things figured out, what do wolves do with there day? They wake up, they hunt, they eat, the fight, they play. Unlike humans they don't stand over the deer carcass arguing over trivial moral questions. Besides if animals are so moraly inferior then why shouldn't we do tests on them? They do use human subjects, after the animal testing. I'd like to see some sources on that statistic. When they do reasearch on animals it is not supposed to be the end of the track when they find a side effect in the animals. They do that so they have data to look back at when they use human subjects in later testing. They test a group of humans, they can never get enough volunteers therefore not enough data. If they observe a side effect in humans it is better to go back and see if a similar side effect was observed in animals. Also if there were a great number of animal deaths with a number of subjects then they would quite possibly save lives by taking the drug back to development and possibly save the lives of human test subjects. The results from animals are not supposed to be difinitive or 100% reliable. Maybe a better morphine or asprin would have been developed if they had teasted them on animals and gone back to deveolopment. (I think thats how it works . . I'll look it up just in case.) I wouldn't be surprised if without animal testing there would be far more sueing. How does the fact that humans are not the center of the Universe effect anything? Animals aren't either . . . . Victims of Science would be a good name for a rock group. I agree.

Good, I can watch Duck Dodgers again without shuddering.

Most animals think that, . . . . . Wolves don't think about the wellbeing of the deer, rabbits, squirles, and mice that they eat. Then you doom the industry the reason that the crulty free methods are not used (especialy in medical feild) is because they can not gain the same level of detail or accuracy unless they use real animals. Without proper experimentation they may not have a complete picture of potential detrimental effects or side effects and the companies will get sued, a lot.

That would mean everyone I know who has ever enjoyed watching Loony Tunes is a Furry?

What must be done must be done, if there were any way to do the KFC job with less crulty they would probably do it, but they have to keep a mind for efficency and cost effectiveness.

There are ways to do that that DON"T involve dressing up in goofy plush outfits. I remembered something from AP Biology today. There was an experiment involving animal psychology a few years ago. Birds when born see their mother and are impressed with her image with the rest of their lives. They know that when they reach maturity thay are supposed to mate with other birds of their species, because they look like their mother. Birds that are exposed to humans when first born tried their courting rituals on humans rather than other birds. Bascule pointed out that these Furries grew up during a time when television shows involving anthropomophic animals was common. If humans are impressed the same way birds are than its possible that subconciously a person exposed to those anthropomophic animals cartoons at a young age has multiple impressions of what they think a "Human" looks like. This resulting from the cartoons charactors looking partly like humans and the fact that the charactors act and talk like humans. Then when the kids hit puberty they get turned on by a picture of Lola Bunny from the Loony tunes and they have no idea why.

Arn't there already critters like that on Earth?