Cucumber Dildo

[thesummerqueen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stearic_acid

[Skeptic]

My point is that while it may be possible for some people to choose to not use animal products in a modern society such a society wouldn't exist without the initial use of animal products - Your dream of some vegan utopia is entirely contingent upon prior use of animal products.

Well, such a society as we have now wouldn't exist without slavery, that's no reason to continue it.

So you want to reduce suffering? Given that animal testing does in fact achieve this end aren't you being a bit disingenuous here?

Animal testing might reduce some human suffering. Since we've never been in a position where we don't use animal testing we have nothing to compare it against.

Why are you being so defensive?

Are you kidding me?

No, I don't get it.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stearic_acid

I know what it is and I frequently purchase products made with it, from vegetable sources.

[theVOID]

Well, such a society as we have now wouldn't exist without slavery, that's no reason to continue it.

That's plainly untrue, slavery was immorality indulged in by many nations over the history of mankind but it is no way a necessary foundation without which modern society would not exist, unlike the use of animals, it was the use of animal products, especially early agriculture, than was responsible for the survival of our species.

Animal testing might reduce some human suffering. Since we've never been in a position where we don't use animal testing we have nothing to compare it against.

If the number of humans saved from suffering is larger than the number of animals who had to suffer then we can objectively say that the use of animal subjects minimized suffering.

We can also compare the suffering of persons who uses animal tested products to persons who do not, see whom lives a longer and healthier life on average.

[thesummerqueen]

Well, such a society as we have now wouldn't exist without slavery, that's no reason to continue it.

That's plainly untrue, slavery was immorality indulged in by many nations over the history of mankind but it is no way a necessary foundation without which modern society would not exist, unlike the use of animals, it was the use of animal products, especially early agriculture, than was responsible for the survival of our species.

If you want a good example of how animals were necessary for the advancement of society - the difference between old world societies advancing SO far ahead of new world societies is...pack animals.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, coming in a little late here. Summer and her low cut dresses.

For the better part of our existence as a species we did not exploit animals to reduce our own suffering. We could not. Interestingly our first attempt at distancing ourselves from the exploitation of animals was agriculture. Unfortunately for those early pioneers, a diet of grain and vegetables wasn't quite as nutritious as the hunter gatherer diet. Early farmers led shorter lives, suffered diseases specific to them, and just generally screwed themselves up all manner of ways compared to their hunter gatherer counterparts. We did eventually solve this problem....by exploiting animals for labor. We also spent much of our existence NOT using lab animals to test medicine. Need I list the fun things people were dying of? We don't do these things because we are cruel, or capricious, we do these things because they enable our very survival.

Domestication (for whatever purpose) isn't exactly a raw deal for the animal either. We provide them with food, shelter, and protection from predators (other than ourselves, and sometimes, even from ourselves as in the case of pets). There are cattle here, in this country, that lead better lives than many human denizens of third world countries. This is undeniable. If we released them, they would die. If we died, because we forbid ourselves the tools for example, to cure some disease, they would die.

I understand that you don't feel comfortable with this, but you do so from position of a person who very much takes advantage of all of the things that animal testing, and animal byproducts bring to the table. You cannot escape them. They're in the asphalt under your feet and the planes over your head. The machines that process your vegan diet, and grow your vegan crops depend upon them. etc etc etc.

---

It's okay to feel the way that you do. I feel the same way about cats and dogs (unless I was starving). What I object to is painting any of this as abject and purposeless cruelty to be avoided at all costs.

[Autumnlicious]

Preamble -- I am entering this late, but couldn't bear to not respond.

There are alternatives to animal research, human cadavers are very useful I believe as well as computer modelling.

No, there aren't. And speaking out of you ass isn't going to make them anymore more viable.

Human cadavers? Are you misinformed, or just ignorant? How the fuck can a dead mass of tissue be utilized to test drugs and serums that are metabolized in a living system?

And computer modelling? Another fanciful hand waving talking point that neglects, no wait, fails to look at the current body of knowledge about the human system and it's interactions from the molecular scale (proteins and associated objects) to the macroscale distribution and concentrations of hormones and the like.

If we had a coherent and predictive model of the human body, with all the metabolic, epigenetic and genetic pathways and interactions, with factors included for local structural interactions as well as global (on the scale of the body) wide interactions, then it would be a fair argument to make that predicting untested and unknown concoctions in what might be considered a generalized model for humans.

But we don't.

The field of biophysics, for example, is such a field of study that attempts to further map out such. Research at UCLA, for example, includes the destructive protein crystallography project (mapping out complex protein structure to the atom) to work done on understanding the driven-damped construction of the inner ear.

There is work being done to understand further and allow for potential models to be constructed, but to think at this time it is viable to completely ignore an entire branch of testing is plain and utter madness, the type of madness expected from an ideologue.

When in dealing with human lives and the risk of new drugs, it is to be expected that every step would be taken to ensure the drug works before human testing. And yet you advocate moving to incomplete models.

What the fucking hell.

I'd accept your argument if the models were complete or considered mostly complete by the scientific community involved in medical research. I'd accept your argument if I saw paper after paper (peer reviewed) that demonstrated the efficacy of computer modeling in generalized scenarios.

That evidence does not exist.

There's a charity I support called Dr. Hadwen Trust that specialises in non animal research, they have some useful info on their website.

Charities are nice. Research done into accurately modeling human systems is great.

But I need more than some silly charity. I require research, not platitudes.

Of course, animal research isn't going to end instantly so there's plenty of time for transition to non animal based research. To assume that little Timmy's condition can't be solved without animal research or that it even would be solved with animal research is just an assumption.

To assume that current models are even close to being complete isn't just an assumption, it's an asinine one. It is one that fails to understand the benefits that such models, if they were medically viable for human testing, would advance medical research in every field by lightyears.

I am pointing out that the act of constructing such models requires a lot of understanding, a lot of work. Those models are tested and honed in such research.

They will never be ready for human testing until they've been verified through other fields. And I await, eagerly might I add, evidence pertaining to the latter.

Yeah, when I die, why not? As for further research, see above. Just because animal research has been the norm doesn't mean it's the only option.

If you wish to be a test subject, you must be alive and usually be afflicted with whatever disease that requires medical testing.

And it's not the "norm" -- it is a well established area of testing that attempts to cover all the bases in understanding the risk.

You like to understand risk, don't you?

[KichigaiNeko]

Sorry Skeptic... it's commendable to be a pacifist; but the facts remain that the whole PETA/ Vegan agenda is one that is verging on religious classification with all the proselytising done about how much better vegan-ism is and vilifying those whose metabolisms are unable to process vegetable matter for vital nutrients.

You like your path for reasons that suit you, such is your choice and rightly so. As others have said you wouldn't be here if it weren't for the exploitation of animals by the human animal. I guess we could be viewed as lions or wolves and I am to understand PETA aren't about to run in with the emotive "cruelty tag" anytime soon against these creatures. I also note that they don't harrass the Hell's Angels for wearing leather either.

I am really getting pissed off with these "Save the [insert fav. animal here]" and "Ban Animal Cruelty" groups. As if some people have a choice as to what they can and can't do, can and can't eat. You like your vegan diet?? Terrific I am happy for you but I am unable to join you and wonder why you feel so insecure as to need my approval and company?? This is what most religions do..."It must be right because alot of us are doing it" so you HAVE TO too.

[Kayenneh]

All I have to say about animal rights is this: They don't have any bloody rights! In order to have rights, you have to have obligations and responsibilities, and animals haven't got those, now do they? I'm not going to listen to some urban hippie yapping on about animal rights, who even haven't been to a farm and lived in a city for the whole of his/her life. No, on the other hand it's our responsibility as humans to treat domesticated (and wild) animals with care and give them life withouth suffering.

[KichigaiNeko]

....
No, on the other hand it's our responsibility as humans to treat domesticated (and wild) animals with care and give them life withouth suffering.

But that is my point!! Why attack farmers who do care for their livestock. Why attack slaughter houses that slaughter in a humane (aka quick as posible death) fashion?? Why attack the only food source available to a significant number of humans (where crops won't grow...thinking of the Masai here).

If you are going to kill something then kill it quick...don't get all soppy about it and only do half a job leaving it suffering.

[thesummerqueen]

So, coming in a little late here. Summer and her low cut dresses.

Don't blame me for you not being able to remember your password so that you can access the forums on your laptop. Some admin, please give him a new password?