Is experimenting on animals bad or good?

I see it as a necessary evil.

That's why we have pigs and monkeys to do that job for us.

There is no necessity to animal experimentation.

How can you even say that when a living being is forced to endure torture for the benefit of another?

Well I want you to do the job. That monkey has more value to me than you do. What now?

Is asking stupid questions and not having a job helping you get a job and be smart?

It is a common sense that human life is worth more than any other life on this planet. 99% of the whole world would agree. Maybe you wouldn't, but trust me a SHIT ton of the majority would.

All the animal testing in the cosmetic industry are unnecessary, but alot of the medical testing is vital.

Plus whatever they do with rats, i dont care

That a human life is worth more than that of a monkey?

If you truly think so you should go kill yourself because just by being alive you're murdering a bunch of shit.

Honestly, for cosmetics? No. For medical research? Yes.

It is a common sense that apes are worth more than any other life on this planet. 99% of the whole world would agree. Maybe you wouldn't, but trust me a SHIT ton of the majority would.

See what I did there?

Also, nice argument ad populum falacy. I can tell you're really bright.

A monkey is a monkey, can a monkey built a complex society, can a monkey develop morals, can a monkey build rocket ships and explore space, no they cant so human life is worth way more than a shit flinging monkey

but why experiment on the poor monkeys when there are pedos in prison ?

Attached: 1543533362445.jpg (482x480, 40K)

>but alot of the medical testing is vital

Like what?

Humans are monkeys... so...

Humans are great apes you fucking retard, so yes to allow of your dumb questions.

Wrong, monkeys are primates but not apes because they have a tail

If you think you have more value to me than that monkey, YOU should kill yourself.

HUMANS HAVE TAILS RETARD

Imagine being this dumb.

What kind of cuck looks at this and says, my life is equal to your life

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 22K)

checked

No we dont, look behind you, is there a tail?

Well yes, I’d prefer that.

I promise if I saw your ugly mug and looks were all we cared about, that monkey would win 100%

google "how did polio get eradicated?"

progress demands blood
becuase our lack of patience is our folley

Attached: 1543598984149.jpg (620x784, 38K)

Trips of truth

So your argument is now polio would never have been irradiated without animal testing?

i dont have an emotional bond with some random animal so cut,inject,kill and experiment with them as you please.

Irradicated**

Attached: 1551551657101m.jpg (1024x630, 42K)

Hiv treatment, polio vaccine, smallpox vaccine, transplants, bypass surgeries, antibiotics,

You can thank animal testing for bringing all this to existence.

You asked, I answered, you came back with nothing. As always with dummies.

Yes, of not for animal testing we would all be dieing of polio

If there's no other way to test it, unfortunately yes.

If it's just done to save money, fuck those fuckers, those fuckers should be used as guinea pigs.

Think human experimentation (with permission) should be a viable option though.

So none of that could have happened without animal testing?

Perfectly fine for medical.

Get this guy a novel prize for discovering that the only was to rid disease is through animal testing.

>This is universally accepted in philosophy.

Philosophy and universally accepted,
don't kill me with laughter.

This statement depicts your laughable lack of knowledge of philosophy,

Are you implying we should have used humans instead? Fuck out of here.

Monkeys' lives are worth less than a homosapien. They can't build buildings, planes, skyscrapers, etc.

Now don't get me wrong, I feel bad for the monkeys, however, it is nessessary for the advancement of the homo sapien species and survival of homo sapiens.

I've seen humans look and do worse,

you are on Yea Forums after all.

So assuming there is no other way to rid disease (lol) and it was through human testing, we could throw out all bodily rights and strap you down and tear you up and justify it with "it's for the greater good!" And you obviously have no say?

Whoah dude mind blown like omg maaaannnn that's deep bro like holy shit man you're really smart

there are animals specifically taken care of and genetically modified for testing, you can't just take any animal from the wild.

There is a reason why the first batch of test monkeys die, it would almost assure that the humans would

Worse than... eat a banana?

>Are you implying we should have used humans instead?

A human can at the very least consent to it you fucking retard. That's what all of you dipshits ignore, consent.

And "advancement" isn't a justification for torture, ass wipe. I could give a fuck if you see the next morning.

good...but your neighbors cat, well the law looks down on that.

It's great

Attached: tony-the-tiger-2-1_3591236.jpg (1600x900, 82K)

Question was if it was equal to me, it's more equal to me than half the people on Yea Forums. He's just eating a banana, I do that as well. Don't think I'm superior because of it.

>pedos but not rapists
>specific sex offenders but not the most fowl animal on the planet aside from humans
Curious...
>monkey-poster

We get some pretty good movies out of it.

Attached: Plague-dogs.jpg (633x356, 72K)

Oh well that makes it all okay, dumbass.

what if cancer is heredity in white mice?

Many many many mice are given life with the sole purpose of being experimented on, i.e. knockout mice. Nothing wrong with it

necessary evil

Some rapists are victims of lying bitch women but the pedos fucking did it

Attached: giphy (1).gif (500x281, 669K)

Nope. No necessity, pure evil.

It is. Look for Oncomice.

Not answers to the question. That was a question that I asked.

The answer is yes

its bullshit bad now. there are enuff scumbags in existince that will gladly take the 20 bucks and take the pain.

I love how none of you assholes have the capacity to be honest. This is why you don't deserve to be engaged on any topic that requires critical thinking skills.

>good?
good and necessary

You asked I answered, it's that easy

Is it ok to experiment on flies and worms? These are the most commonly experimented on animals.

How about mice? They are the most commonly experimented on mammals. Over 100 million mice are experimented on per year in the US alone, many created specifically lacking certain genes to see what would happen and to develop treatments.
It isnt a question of right or wrong or good or bad.

this is a what if question. it isn't realistic.

What are you talking about? What about experiments where genes are deleted in mice (a majority of experiments)? How do you propose to do this with humans?

good.

You say yes becaue you know your safe from ever being forced to do that and also because you can't be honest.

The reality is that animal testing isn't the only way to rid disease, and only dummies that struggled in highschool believe that it is, so a sensario like that is even more absurd.

Even if it was the only way, better that the human race dies off than forces torture on others.

Answered dishonestly. Important distinction.

...

Neither is saying animal testing is the only way to rid disease, dumbass.

Hey hippie,
You're on Yea Forums.
Expect some psychopaths here.
It's quite possible he'll get an erection from experimenting on animals.
Don't project your internal reasoning of why you think people would think it's ok on others.
Especially not on Yea Forums.

Utilitarian principle says otherwise.

You don't even know what YOU'RE taking about.

I agree, don't have any problems with it. German doctors in WWII might of done some things people don't like, but it did further medical science. Advancements can sometimes be unsavory but needed for the greater good.

use the black ones?

And why should I care about that?

If you think that humans should be used instead of monkeys in testing then start with yourself, otherwise shut the fuck up

yes

Attached: this.png (1345x459, 50K)

You are actually scum.

Experiment on monkeys or deal with polio.. sorry monkeys!

i don't care

If you think other living beings should be used in testing then start with yourself, otherwise shut the fuck up.

This implies that the only way to progress is though torture and none of you dumbasses have shown that to be true.

Do you not see the point, I don't want humans dieing in the place of monkeys

Chill out dude fine farm equipment sometimes needs an unconventional experimental approach

Attached: mengele11.jpg (400x300, 22K)

Try me

well think about it, people do animal testing for the health of humans. in a way it is moral. but it comes at a cost.

You are the one missing the point. Humans can consent.

Do you not understand that experiments with monkeys are a tiny fraction of all animal experimentations?

i know what you mean but can animals consent.no. pick one something that lives up to 100 years if lucky. or something that only lives for 1 to 3 years.

You just asked a random person on Yea Forums to propose something that only a scientist has the capacity to even speak on.

You've made it clear that your IQ is in the double digits.

Tried.

and im talking about rats

This is basically a shitty clickbait thread.
Monkeys make up 0.001% of animal experimentations when compared with mice.
Its okay for mice, but not okay for monkeys?
Why? Because they look more like us?
They both have the capacity to feel pain. If you feel bad for the tens of thousands of monkeys, you have the same ethical and moral duty to feel bad for the 100 million mice in laboratory experiments, otherwise you are a hypocrite.

I dont know if it is good or bad, but it is a hell of alot of fun. I think the best one i did was smearing rats with concentrated cigarette extract (mostly tar) and seeing what happens. You can litterally see the cancers grow all over the little rat. They were grotesque wobbling monster after a few days. I was suprised how long they lived.

>You don't even know what YOU'RE talking about
>that only a scientist has the capacity to even speak on.
I do know what I'm talking about, because I am a scientist you stupid fuck. Nobody in this thread has any capacity to talk about animal experimentation because only a few people actually understand it.

you just insulted him and it doesn't take a scientist to understand that.

Bunch of idiots in this thread proposing to use humans instead of animals, this really just shows that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about and don't understand the first thing about animal experimentation.

No you aren't.

>No you aren't.
Wow, got me, completely refuted

Knowing the details is completely separate from the question of its moral status you drooling retard.

You don't even know this lol

It's evil

No you aren't you stupid fucking faggot. Better?

You missed the point of that post entirely. The take away from the post should have been how do you propose to do the same experiments that are done on mice, to humans. Because you cant. Breed humans with knockout genes, or breed mice with knockout genes and use them for experimentation instead. One of these implies much greater ethical and moral questions, I'll let you figure out which. Again, you don't know what you're talking about. At least the people whose job it is to discuss ethics are at least scientifically literate in the subject.

Good for us bad for them

there are stringent measures in place to minimize animal suffering, especially in the united states. You also cannot have a US medical school without access to an animal care facility and its adherence to regulations must be maintained or risk losing accreditation.

Not mice.

>how do you propose to do the same experiments that are done on mice, to humans

I don't have to fucking propose anything. Forcing another loving being into torturous bodily slavery is wrong and it always will be, no matter what. If humans, with their enormous brains, can't figure out how to survive without torturing and killing, then better the species dies off.

Yet once again, no one in here has even shown that animal testing is the only to progress, and it isn't and never will be. It's fucking absurd.

What tests do you have in mind? What species are you thinking of subjecting?
I can live with experiments being conducted on invasively common animals. There will always be more.

*living being

Makes me think of deer chewing on baby chicks.

Sure humans are terrible, animals aren't automatically better though.

i think expeimenting on the animals is pretty cool

>I don't have to fucking propose anything
>it isn't and never will be.

You apparently know how to do it without animal experimentation but you aren't willing to share it.

Those animal carcasses are on your hands.

if survival is the name of the game, then no. we experiment on them to discover ways to prolong our own lifespan, and/or even theirs. the findings we come up with help us conserve their environment and ours. it is a necessary "evil".

>Makes me think of deer chewing on baby chicks.

I have to assume you're joking because humans throw baby chicks by the bucket full into shredders to make nuggets.

If that is your belief, then you have an ethical and moral duty to convince the majority that your opinion is the correct one. Good luck with that, friend.

Sooo.. Children, the most notorious of liars, couldn't have possibly lied, too? I'm not denying that a very small minority of women lie about a rape, or that a very present majority of the fucking law will lie to women to get them to think they've rounded up their rapist when they're fucking full of shit, but why don't you think this obvious relationship applies to pedos, too?

I don't understand why we should use animals when we have prisons full of paedophiles, murderers and rapists. If we use them we'd make so much more progress than if we kept using monkeys, too. And maybe then people would also be scared to commit crimes.

Attached: Asylum_pepe.png (479x358, 96K)

Nah, I mean that a lot of "peaceful vegetarian" animals supplement their diet (mostly for calcium) by eating small animals, mostly chicks and baby mice. Life is cruel my man, even outside the human decadence.

Survival isn't the "name of the game" for humans. Lmao

Open a book sometime. That goes for 90% of the dummies in this thread.

Not in America though, don't trust you've actually convicted the right people there. More prisoners more money doesn't make for a trustworthy justice system.

>Tail Bone

I think it depends on what we're testing and what animals are used.

>humans throw baby chicks by the bucket full into shredders to make nuggets.

No, we wait until they're fully grown. Throwing them in as chicks is economically inefficient.

Nice word salad.

Your complacency makes you just as guilty as anyone else.

we should be experimenting on degenerates criminals as part of their punishment

Fair point but many are in prison because of the lies of women but sex with the underage is instant guilt so its far easier to prove and doesn't descend into the he said she said lottery

Lmao I don't enable anything within my reasonable ability. Being vegan is great.

Nice try though.

You’re on Yea Forums I doubt it

Attached: 1551380639876.jpg (1064x1051, 624K)

You reap the benefits animal experimenation while at the same time denouncing it and refusing to provide an alternative.

How do you propose altering the genetics of criminals to facilitate experimentation?

Attached: 1543770269728.jpg (621x1000, 367K)

No I don't. I don't buy cosmetics and I've never had poilio. You don't even know what veganism means apparently.

FUCK!!! You Vegans always have to bring up the fact you are Vegan. Starting to become another Godwin's Law.

Attached: 1533811970091.gif (500x193, 499K)

You cant tell me what not to do..
>Youre not my father!!

Have you been vaccinated?

Definitely need three options for this framework.
1. Voluntary
2. Informed
3. Consent

I think there’s enough people to experiment on the lowest in society now but Yea Forums might not last long if they decide to do something.

Attached: F25EB5F3-4D2A-4D31-BB7B-7B410CBF3315.png (300x300, 130K)

Monkeys did do all of that...

Wait.. What? How does a child's potentially coerced testimony mean instant guilt?

>being vegan is great

Good luck with you lack of vitamin b12, anemia, vitamin deficiency in general, and your soy milk you fucking cuck fag

good
change.org/p/reddit-ban-r-greentext

Would that be so bad?

I completely agree that pedos are abusuve scum, but kids are still liars and susceptible to being convinced to lie but the fucking fat faggot pigs

You have never taken a single medication in your entire life? I somehow doubt this.

>top of the food chain for the last millennia
>kek read a fucking book
survival is the name of the game, in nature. that's all animals do on this planet. survive. and find new ways to survive.

they didn't mention survival of the fittest in those books you read? faggot.

That’s not what defines a monkey from an ape. Kek

Animals also thrive, that's where diversity comes from.

Animal experimentation has not a thing to due with veganism.

If the sex is proven (dna etc) then he is guilty because a child cannot give consent to sex, most rapists claim the sex was consensual so the trial just ends up with who you believe

Attached: 1l80.jpg (1351x2000, 371K)

Yes I have. And I also drive a car and anything else that I'm forced to do in order to live as a productive member of society. Can't wait to hear what your point is.

Agreed but the age of consent exists and if sex is proven then he is guilty

I just finished eating a banana too. So? Maybe I'm a highly advanced ape that's learned to type shit on the internet. Oh yeaahh, I actually am.

Objectively, we are not more important. We are all equally insignificant, albeit more complex, and carrying a higher density than some other mammals.

Morals and ethics are mere concepts. The universe doesn't give two shits about man made constructs based on intangible ideas.

who cares, its fun

Are you aware that car companies used animal experimentation for research purposes?

Also: Do I think it's wrong to experiment on monkeys? No. But I do think it really sucks to be a lab monkey.

This is the most retarded logic. We experament on animals so we get it right with humans. If you don't think we should expearment on animals then please be the first in line to sign up.

>You have never taken a single medication in your entire life?

Thats not what I said, and not all medication has come as a result of animal testing, not even close.

The polio vaccine was created by experimenting on monkeys. The fact you aren't getting it is the product of animal experimentation. If you got it it would mean it didn't work.

And nice passive aggressive tone there, that way you'll actually make people experiment on animals, just to spite you.

Yes I am. Did you happen to use your brain to read the entirety of my comment where I said "I don't enable anything within my reasonable ability"?

Again, monkeys comprise less than 0.001% of all animal test subjects, yet the entire thread is filled with monkey posters.
Why is the same compassion not extended towards mice, or flies and worms as well?

Get back to me in 30+ years and we'll see whos taking more pills. The science suggest it will be you.

Supporting car companies goes hand in hand with enabling them

> laughable lack of knowledge of philosophy.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 46K)

>you'll actually make people experiment on animals, just to spite you.

Didn't your mommy teach you that you can't make anyone do anything? Missed that one, huh?

>my reasonable ability
Perfect excuse to always move the goalpost.

Apparently your IQ isn't high enough to process the phrase "reasonable ability."

In any case I'm doing far more than you are and in the end, that eases any shreds of "guilt."

You're just a whiny little faggy wigglet sniffer

By your logic we can do neither animal or human experimentation. Because we can't make anyone do anything.

Here you have solved your own argument, adieu.

The goalpost is on reasonable ability at all times, retard.

Btw, nice co-opting of a phrase that you heard used in a debate by the guy that verbally raped the one you supported.

Is that what you call it when you fuck monkeys?

Complacent.

>Because we can't make anyone do anything.

But humans can consent, for the fiftieth fucking time.

So, with human morals, it's unethical to experiment on animals. You wrote yourself into a corner brainlet

Attached: 700.jpg (200x313, 10K)

Attached: 82346620.jpg (630x432, 67K)

Attached: 82346622.jpg (630x355, 43K)

A remnant from before, when we were simpler beings. You know, evolution and shit.

Yeah human life > all other life. Thats true. Facts dont care about your feelings. Gfy you weak bitch

"doing far more" is the opposite of complacent, which is what you are, actually.

Cute little attempts at gas-lighting. Gives me much amusement.

it depends

torturing animals just to see what happens is not good

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_of_despair

Attached: pubes.jpg (1024x1024, 204K)

Awwww poor baby doesn't know what the word "fact" means.

You've just justified Mengler.

look there dipshit. people with tails

Well, when you fuck a monkey

Why simpler? Think not having a tail makes us exactly the same -1 thing. Would call that simpler.

Facts?

>diversity
They diversify to survive the adaptations of their predators. Can't believe I had to spell that out for you.

I am not complacent, I recognize the necessity of animal experimentation and research.
You are doing nothing besides denouncing the benefits and providing no alternative.

Feel free to explain how.

>I recognize the necessity of animal experimentation and research.

There is no necessity, and your lack of acknowledgment of that fact is the definition of complacency.

Good, bad it's debateable.
What I can tell you for SURE about animal testing, is that It's the Jews.

Research island gigantism you fucktard. Quite often sweet cute vegan animals become the predators because the predator wasn't pressent.

You simplify everything to such a fucking point that there's just this or the other, will make you a nice target of a bar fight someday.

>providing no alternative.

Once again, I don't have to. You retards are ones claiming that it is necessary, thereby taking on the burden of proof, and providing no fucking proof in a 204+ comment thread.

We should experiment on shithumans and when they run out, we can start testing on animals again.

youtube.com/watch?v=FGb0MRfAnh8

But creatures with tales lack other features we have now. We don't need a tail for balance, removing flies or for hanging in trees, due to us solving the issues with hands and our creative brain.

it's necessary. just look at medical studies

>creative brain.

that, according to you, cant figure out how to rid disease without torturing and killing.

Good. Non-human animals have no moral standing, so if experimenting on them is beneficial to people, then doing so is good.

>Didn't your mommy teach you that you can't make anyone do anything? Missed that one, huh?
>But humans can consent, for the fiftieth fucking time.
>You've just justified Mengler.

Since you can't make any human do anything they don't want to do, all of Menglers "patients" were voluntary and gave consent.

Our larger brains are a product of reduce bite force. My point is, you see evolution linearly, it isn't We changed, we didn't become more complex.

You are the definition of a retard.

I'm actually stunned that you could out-stupid everyone in this thread.

Very bad. Fuck science and all of its evil.

>burden of proof
>no fucking proof
Proof of what? The benefits of animal experimentations are well known to most. Vaccines, medicine, surgeries, etc.
Do I have the burden of proof to find an alternative? No, animal experimentation works. You are the one denouncing animal experimentation, it is your burden to provide an alternative.

You're the perfect example of someone who doesn't realises that half of the things that they type (or blurt out of their mouth) contradicts itself.

Define bad or good.

>The benefits of animal experimentations are well known to most. Vaccines, medicine, surgeries, etc.

You said it was necessary. I said prove it.

Prove it.

>he says while using the products of science

The fact that you think i somehow contradicted myself proves that you are a retard.
And now im certain that you are troll, and you don't deserve any further replies.

Prove to me that none of that would have come about without animal torture.

It's not good, but currently needed for medical research. Hopefully stem cell research, cloning and so on will reduce the need for experiments on actual animals, just like lab grown meat can replace regular meat in the future.

We don't have alternatives currently. Ergo, animal experimentation is necessary. Or do you argue vaccines and medications are not necessary and human life should suffer unnecessarily?

That would mean providing an alternative, which nobody in this thread has been able to.

You're on Yea Forums

Everyone is a troll,

especially you.

>We don't have alternatives currently

100% wrong. Consenting humans and embryonic fluid are just two of the alternatives. The others include reducing and eliminating human behaviors that spread diseases.

Learn some critical thinking skill because this is pathetic that you have to be talked to like a child.

>Quite often sweet cute vegan animals become the predators because the predator wasn't pressent.
You mean to tell me....

That the top of the food chain presents itself no matter what environment its in? Get right the fuck out of town idiot.

Vaccines make you retarded and modern medicine is poison. Fuck medical science. This world would be less of a shit hole if humans would stop fucking with nature and let people die.

Im actually one of the very few people here that actually care and just want to hone debate skills. It works, ironically.

Attached: 1551065513936.png (772x446, 360K)

>its cute therefore it cannot survive in the wild
is he really this retarded?

No it doesn't if you think this is a debate you'll be extremely disappointed when your actually in one.

Pro tip: A debate is meant to convince the public, not the other side. Insults don't convince a third party.

well i'd much rather experiment on people (why waste the budget on animal trials) but they always seem to take exception to that.

Youve never heard of stemcell research?

Holy shit.

Animal experimentations with, for example, mice, often include altering genetics in a way to knockout specific genes to study the effects and develop techniques for treatment. Are you suggesting to alter the genes of humans in such a way as to cause sufferring? The moral and ethical problems concerning that are far greater than the ones concerning us currently. Think before you post.

Bad we should experimenting on humans

>if you think this is a debate you'll be extremely disappointed when your actually in one.

I'm not talking about formal debate dumbass.

Annnnnnnd there it is.

Nope why?

The only one advocating suffering here is you.

Nice try, asshole.

Are you going to use stemcells to fully model a complex and working biochemical system?

What?

Denouncing the medical benefits achieved through animal experimentation is akin to condemning billions of humans to unnecessary suffering.

That's not a debate. That's an argument.

Misrepresenting my position to fit your narrative is akin to being a dishonest asswipe.

well better than doing it on humans lol

You don't know what it is because you've no idea what I was referring to other than it being less than formal. Shut the fuck up.

it is good because otherwise we will never have Fluffies in the near future. Ethics only serves a political purpose.

Attached: 52333 - artist_artist-kun foal sadbox.png (800x800, 341K)

Without the medical breakthroughs obtained from animal research, many humans would succumb to diseases that are much less prevalent in today's society. Simply taking your point to the logical conclusion. You would be advocating for more human suffering for less animal sufferring.

Nah, I'm just seeing what you do.

It's funny how we can identify your posts by you ending every single sentence you write with an insult.

Totally doesn't look like an argument to me,

especially not one where you get flustered because you aren't so sure of your footing as you were before.

>It's funny how we can identify your posts by you ending every single sentence you write with an insult.

Yeah because I'm really worried about you figuring out which posts are mine. As if im somehow distancing myself from what ive gone through the immense trouble to say in this awful thread.

lets say the difference btw a monkeys and average humans intelligence is X making it reasonable to experiment on them because they are that much less intelligent than us, so by that measure will it be ethical for another lifeform to experiment on humans if the difference btw our intelligence and theirs is also X

>Without the medical breakthroughs obtained from animal research, many humans would succumb to diseases that are much less prevalent in today's society.

And, once again, you haven't shown that they wouldn't have come about without animal suffereing. Which would make the testing necessary which the premise of the entire thread.

It's like im arguing with literal retards.

Fluffy thread?

Attached: source.gif (900x700, 1.21M)

I am with you as long as you accept that some advanced alien species will see us as primitive life forms and experiment on us using your own argument. In that case you have no defense, and you have to accept it as the right thing.

It just makes you very obvious and quite funny to read.

Especially because you pose that everyone else is the retard.

>Totally doesn't look like an argument to me,

When did i say i was honing my debate skills on Yea Forums for debating on Yea Forums? Do you struggle with reading?

Could you give an option where you can test vaccines without animals

>Im actually one of the very few people here that actually care and just want to hone debate skills. It works, ironically.

hard criminals

>Especially because you pose that everyone else is the retard.

What other conclusion am I to come to when I ask dozens of times for proof that animal testing is necessary and are met with "cuz it make polio go away"?

Animal experimentation works. Provide an alternative to convince us to not do it.

Evil.

If we are using consenting humans for testing then why would I bother trying to come up with some answer that doesn't involve animals?

like ur mom keeps sucking after i cum

>greentext that doesn't answer the question

plenty of rapists, murderers and pedophiles to experiment on VS innocent animals

>Provide an alternative to convince

1. As stated numerous times in this thread, the burden of proof is on you to show why animal testing is necessary
2. I don't give a shit if your dumb ass is ever convinced of anything. You either acknowledge facts and evidence, which points to animal testing being brutal and 100% unnecessary, or you don't.

As if animals dont rape kill and molest

That's what we call, in actual debating, moving the goalpost. You ask for proof, we give proof, then the proof isn't good enough because you don't consider it proof.

Goalpost moved.

be specific. most simians have better running societies than your average black community.

>we give proof

No, you didn't.

Both of you are wrong.

yes please!

Attached: 53141 - tagme.png (1280x800, 373K)

The goalpost is at "necessary" which is a concept you don't seem to understand.

When a male baboon kills the male baboon running a group he will kill all of baby monkeys and rape the girl monkeys so they will have his kids

Define necessary.
I find the development of human cures necessary.
As such you have moved the goalpost to where you want it, not where you ask.

Attached: images.png (275x183, 6K)

Claim: Animal experimentation has led to a reduction in human sufferring due to disease.
Proof: Vaccines and other medications.
As human life is generally considered important to humans, we have an obligation to reduce sufferring and maximize happiness for the most humans possible. Therefore, animal experimentation is a necessity until an alternative can be provided that has the same success.

Here's something for you moralfags, I jack off to shit like this

Attached: tenor.gif (300x200, 148K)

>Claim: Animal experimentation has led to a reduction in human sufferring due to disease.
Proof: Vaccines and other medications.

Not what I have been disputing. You keep ignoring me when "I say prove why it is necessary."

I've seen a number of licensed university animal facilities and know that all research mammals are treated in a humane fashion and aren't subjected to anything especially cruel. I also like the development of lifesaving medical procedures and drugs.

>I find the development of human cures necessary

So do I.

>As such you have moved the goalpost to where you want it, not where you ask.

You don't even know what "goalpost" means in the context of debate, so stop using it.

For animal testing to be "necessary":
1. Human survival would have to be in danger. Which it isn't.
2. It would have to be the ONLY WAY. Which it isn't (stem cell research, human consent)

Define necessary.
>As human life is generally considered important to humans, we have an obligation to reduce sufferring and maximize happiness for the most humans possible. Therefore, animal experimentation is a necessity until an alternative can be provided that has the same success.

I think you think you are never wrong.

I'm glad I'll never meet you.

No it's not. Other animals value their own life more than others the same way we do. They're called carnivores.

In a survival situation, you wouldn't think twice before testing unknown berries or mushrooms on an animal first.
Dogs are an exception though. They're loyal friends

>I'm glad I'll never meet you.

I'm glad you have no rebuttal. Makes my job easier.

For animal testing to be "necessary":
>1. Human survival would have to be in danger. Which it isn't.
Your opinion. My opinion says it is necessary because human sufferring has been reduced as a result.
>2. It would have to be the ONLY WAY. Which it isn't (stem cell research, human consent)
Stem cells are not enough to replicate complete biochemical systems, and human consent does not help for gene knockout.

>Your opinion. My opinion says it is necessary because human sufferring has been reduced as a result.

The vast majority of animal testing is being done for cosmetics. And we now have stem cell research, which we didn't have decades ago when diseases were being destroyed.

>Stem cells are not enough to replicate complete biochemical systems

Explain how this is even relevant.

Sorry, that made me laugh out loud.

Reminds me of my little sister when she was 5.

Gene knockout. Developing therapies for metabolic diseases. You cannot even participate in this because you don't understand what you are talking about.

Funny, the comment I was responding to had the exact same effect on me except brother not sister.

Again, you're not a scientist, stop trying to derail the conversation.

What percentage of people are afflicted with a life-threatening metabolic disease, and how does the research of potential vaccines trump bodily autonomy of living beings?

i used to hate fluffies until i realized it was just my misplaced anger towards scientists for not fully understanding animal sapience in the current year.

Attached: 52778 - abuse amputations artist_carniviousduck begging cloudy_eye cornered nonos pillow_fluff piss (1467x714, 323K)

Would you rather have 10 humans killed testing a drug, or 10 mice killed testing a drug?
Cop out answers like "I'd rather have nothing killed testing a drug" are not allowed, as they are unrealistic.

>Again, you're not a scientist, stop trying to derail the conversation.
I provided something to the conversation with my last post. What does your post contribute?

Attached: 52498 - 31days artist_babbehteef drowning fluffy_pony_drowns questionable seafluff.png (1080x1080, 548K)

oh, 10 humans any day, my friend.

Attached: 52434 - artist_fluffus safe teeth_brushies.jpg (1000x1000, 113K)

Honestly we need to stop being such pussies when it comes to experiments on people. Think of the advances we'd have if we just did that.

I think I know why we hate fluffies so much, they represent everything bad about humanity, their arrogant, they rape, they molest their own foals, they take all kindness and aren't thankful, they represent everything we hate and we get to see what is is coming to them

For curing diseases? It's a necessary evil.

For Kylie Jenners 10th lipstick which needs to be tested? Fuck no. It's mostly thots that are responsible for this cruelty. And that even pisses me off.

Attached: 1549973360134.jpg (605x760, 64K)

Well it's good that animals are suffering but it's bad because it could have been worthless humans instead.

So I'd say it's tolerable but not commendable.