|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 5:10 am
I know all about the prison studies, and about Milgrams study.
In the end, I am against testing animals to study humans, its pointless. Study humans to learn about humans, study animals to learn about animals.
In the end only humans are protected by psychological guidelines not animals. Those studies, including Pavlov's are still replicated today so they aren't classed as that unethical. Animals are known for being harmed and things still today, the dog study I mentioned happened about 5 years ago if I remember rightly, maybe even more recently.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 7:16 am
She lay down on the grass,
Looking up at the sky,
thinking, it’s all she can do.
If she disappeared she would not be missed.
She will be gone just like everyone else.
Getting up from the grass,
she walks on the sand,
looking outward towards the sea.
She walks into the water high up above her knees.
~~~♥~~~♥ Narc Lit ♥~~~♥~~~
Just because they are performed today does not make them ethical. There are many people who do unethical things now-a-days. As for the dog studies done five years ago, please reference it. I have not heard of anything and would like to read about it.
~~~♥~~~♥ Narc Lit ♥~~~♥~~~
The waves softly hit her legs.
She looks at the sunset and its yellow-red hues
she walks into the sea, farther and farther,
opening her arms towards the wave.
The water is high up to her hips.
The wave comes towards her.
She looks at the wave with her arms stretched out;
the water starts to rage, the wave hits her body hard.
Then the water calms down. The water recedes,
then darkness falls, and all goes dark.
The sun goes down and the day is done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2007 11:47 pm
I honestly can't remember what the study is called or who did it and I had to give my text book back yesterday, just look for learned helplessness. Its the main study for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 1:01 am
She lay down on the grass,
Looking up at the sky,
thinking, it’s all she can do.
If she disappeared she would not be missed.
She will be gone just like everyone else.
Getting up from the grass,
she walks on the sand,
looking outward towards the sea.
She walks into the water high up above her knees.
~~~♥~~~♥ Narc Lit ♥~~~♥~~~
I found a study conducted by Martin Seligman but that was in 1967 and 1988 on humans.
I'm not finding any more recent studies, so if you find it please send it to me.
~~~♥~~~♥ Narc Lit ♥~~~♥~~~
The waves softly hit her legs.
She looks at the sunset and its yellow-red hues
she walks into the sea, farther and farther,
opening her arms towards the wave.
The water is high up to her hips.
The wave comes towards her.
She looks at the wave with her arms stretched out;
the water starts to rage, the wave hits her body hard.
Then the water calms down. The water recedes,
then darkness falls, and all goes dark.
The sun goes down and the day is done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 7:28 pm
1) Is it right to test animals for medical purposes? To find new cures/drugs etc.
I believe that it is okay to test on animals for Medical purpouses. It is one of the only ways we'll ever be able to tell if a medicine will work. It's health, people, and I believe that God would want his creations to be healthy. He put animals on this earth to breed and to be food. I also believe He put them here to help with OUR safety.
2) Is it right to use animals for psychological experiments? (Can involve removing parts of the brain to see how something works without it, sleep deprivation/social learning - can be a range of things) I do not think this type of testing is necessary, nor is it right. We don't need to be deprived of our sleep. God wants us to sleep. It is our time to unwind from the day's stresses. However, if the animal is dead, and they could use the dead body for any of these, I see no harm/problem.
3) Is it right to test animals for cosmetics?
For this subject, I am a tad bit on the fence. I don't see why they SHOULD test cosmetics on animals, but I also do not see why they SHOULDN'T. A human isn't going to die if they try a new lipstick. An anilal wouldn't be hurt if a shampoo was used on it's fur. I think that if they test it on an animal, the animal should be dead.
Also, I understand that people sometimes don't wear makeup because "They Fear it has been tested on animals". Well, let me tell you, there are lot's of makeup companies now that do NOT test on animals. For someone who is on a budget, all Bonne Bell products are not animal tested. If you want a really good brand of makeup that maybe costs more, Smashbox is cruelty free. There are many more out there, you just have to look online, do some research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:15 pm
Nobody has an nswer my question yet. >.>
1. God, god, god. Well there is no argueing with you there. Still, why do we deserve to be more safe then them? Even in your religion god supposedly loves all his creations equalily, why do we have such an honored privilege in his eyes? Isn't that a bit cruel? "He put animals on this earth to breed and to be food." So why aren't people cannibul? Why is it such a tragety when and animal attacks a human? Why does that animal have to be put to sleep most of the time, but when humans kill animals just for fun or sport it is alright?
2. Once again, no argueing with you there. We test to see the effect of sleep deprivation to see the effects it has on us mentally. If it can cause nuerological diseases. How do you test a dead body for sleep deprivation? How is seeing a dead brain going to help anything? We already know what it looks like.
3. Why shouldn't we do it? Why should animals suffer because people are ugly? You don't know much about animals at all do you. Putting a non-pet safe shampoo on an animal can cause them to loose all of their hair, which is all part of their natural protection. It can irritate the skin causing them to itch and itch repeatedly, causing open wounds which can get infected and result in death. And testing shampoo on a dead animal will do no good, because you wont be able to see any of these effects. What's the point, if you don't see how it effects them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:05 pm
1) Is it right to test animals for medical purposes? To find new cures/drugs etc.
I don't believe it is...aside from the ethical implications of using animals like that, animal and human physiology (sp?) are vastly different...the tons of drugs that you hear about being recalled on the news, those were all fine on animals; a lot of things hurt animals that don't hurt us and vice versa - you really can't tell the safety of something for humans by testing on animals.
2) Is it right to use animals for psychological experiments? (Can involve removing parts of the brain to see how something works without it, sleep deprivation/social learning - can be a range of things)
Absolutely not. To torture an animal for absolutely nothing other than curiosity? That's horrendous.
3) Is it right to test animals for cosmetics?
Also, absolutely not. Torturing animals for the sake of human vanity is the height of ego and the depth of depravity.
There are non-animal alternatives for all of these tests, there's no need to use animals.
Now, a few notes so everyone is on the same page, because some responses have sounded like we're not:
Cosmetic testing is not the same as giving a cat a bath with your shampoo. The entire point is that these are untested chemicals; they are tested on animals to find out of they burn, irritate, poison, or otherwise harm them (and, by extension, humans). A particularly infamous method of testing is to rub the chemical on the eyes of rabbits to see what happens. As well as enduring the pain of exposure to toxic compounds, test animals are not house pets: they spend their lives in cages with nothing to look forward to but more painful chemicals.
Second, something that should be kept in mind during discussions like this in a place like this is that there are a lot of different countries represented here that have a lot of different animal cruelty standards. For instance, European laws are much stricter than American laws; they are much less cruel to their test animals. So a European may think it's not so bad from what they've heard on their news, but remember it's much worse in the states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:38 pm
Testing on animals is really wrong and I think they shouldn't do it even if some animals live I still dont think they should because it just isn't right to do that stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:09 am
I agree with what Marsh said and to be honest if you believe in God then surely you would believe he created animals... so if you say hurting animals is good for us because we are his creation then surely the opposite can happen to?
Also I agree with Marshjazz's question too.
Also another thing, though personally I don't like make-up, whether its tested on animals or not most foundations will clog up skin pores and make you ugly, so if anyone wears make-up because they are 'ugly' you will without a doubt make yourself look worse wearing make-up all the time and if it can do that to humans after its been tested goodness knows how many times, imagine what can happen to an animal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:44 am
It is wrong to test cosmetics on animalsbecause who is actually going to put them on the animals?
Unless it is a kind of dye specifically for the animals, it should not have to go near an animal.
Also, medicine, if not for an animal, dont use it on them. Like the cat thing. we can stand things that some animals can't. Aspirin and rats is another example.
I have no opinion yet on the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:14 pm
I really do think it's wrong cause animals have rights like the rest of us, they're living creatures just like us. They deserve to live and have a life of there own. But when i look toward the bible, god put animals here to help us, for food clothing and such. So maybe god put them here to help us figure out cures for animals and people. Like sacrificing one to save a billion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:57 pm
*sigh* Why do people keep using the bible / Christianity to back up using animals?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:05 pm
Anata No Koe... We should treat our world with respect. Pesonally, I think that if we teast on animals things that could kill them, I think that is cruel to the extreme. How would YOU feel if someone Just tortured you with chemicals filled with harmful things that can hurt/kill you? I mean, you can tell me that animals have 'no feelings', but theydo have nerves that respond to pain and things. Just like us. So I think it is wrong. But, that's just my opinon. Mushibande yuku kioku no hahen...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:48 pm
i definatley think that testin on animals 4 cosmetics is completly stupid and should be ended IMMEDIATLY. but i do think that testin on animals(anything below the intelligence of a cow or dog) should be allowed for for things that could SERIOUSLY help human kind. i mean SERIOUS though not like a new form of weight loss or a inovative laxitave or any crap like that. what i do mean is like cures for diseases like cancer or malaria. but i also think that animal testin on anything that is will be uses to make the owner money(except 4 cures n such) should also be canceled IMMEDIATLY.
also 4 all of you that say animal testin is cruel and arent vegetarians THEN YOU ARE COMPLETE HIPPOCRIT. you say animal testin is cruel then u go and eat a steak thereby ending a cows life.
4 those of u that say i am a hippocrit I AM a vegetarian and believe me its not that hard 2 do!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:39 am
east_side_gunslinger also 4 all of you that say animal testin is cruel and arent vegetarians THEN YOU ARE COMPLETE HIPPOCRIT. you say animal testin is cruel then u go and eat a steak thereby ending a cows life. Although your probably never going to come back to reply to this or see this, let me correct you. Animals in cages sit there are not loved and chemicals are put on them. Nothing to look foward to. Where as cows are lined up and basically die in their sleep. See the difference? Still don't? Well, testing on the animals involves them having alot of pain for humans and they don't deserve that. And instant death is better than years and years of suffering that only leads to a slow death. I'm not a vegitarian, but I'm completely against all forms of testing on animals. I'm not a hypocrate, because I'm against cruelty to animals, not eating them. Anything below the intelligence of a cow or a dog? Well there are plenty of humans that have less of an intellegence. Lets go ahead and use them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
