A few things that'll help you understand my point of view in this matter is understanding myself and I. For one I'm as stereotypically liberal as you can imagine and out of all my friends online and local there is the only one that has dominant conservative beliefs. So by now you probably have a good idea where I stand on this issue and if you guessed I'm against animal testing you're certainly right. At the same time however I didn't start this thread thinking the 'Testing on animals is wrong because it hurts them!' argument would work and I have some points which may even be . . . logical.
And just so you can understand I have just a little bit of credibility I'll go ahead and admit I hate PETA and I'll even throw in this little known fact that I hate monkeys. It's not because cute and fuzzy little animals that I like are harmed that I'm against animal testing, it's because I believe it's generally wrong even if it's towards animals I don't actually care about.
A final statement I'll make before I begin is that I hate statistics. There's a very good reason that the joke '666% of statistics are made up' is used a lot, because a lot of times statistics are false, especially when you consider the two major sources for statistics in this debate. PETA has absolutely no credibility as an 'animal rights' group but more as a cult and the other side is filled with corporations that really only care about efficiency, output and profit that basically latch on to the 'animal testing helps save lives!' so they can continue their ways. I could have piss coming out of my eyes and they still wouldn't care whether or not I'd have this problem fixed or not through animal testing.
One of the very first arguments to defend animal testing is that it helps saves lives and cures diseases. Sure, I'll buy that, but most times it's not out of helping and curing people that we test on animals, it's usually so your shampoo gets rid of that god damned dandruff. The exact same dandruff which shampoos were supposed to get rid of twenty years ago.
But I suppose a few animal casualties in the war against dandruff is fair, right? It won't save lives but it'll make your hair look better, if it works. And so when I imagine the situation it's a lot more amusing because in my head pops up the following:
Those defending it are ranting on how it'll cure cancer,
monkey's are given a makeover,
animal rights groups react hysterically on how the monkey is suffering the horrible fate of having shampoo applied to the scalp,
And in the very end the superficial people who believe an animal should suffer to make them look better are the wisest.
The more I think about this the more it seems to be the reality of the situation. We're arguing that it'll save lives and that animals shouldn't suffer, meanwhile the businesses are happy that cancer exists and the girls and boys who want better hair aren't getting involved with the mess.
Obviously I don't consider it fair to have an animal suffer for a product and the message behind my insanity is that basically, we've been testing products on animals for so long and really, has a lot of progress been made? For years we've been hearing these promises that the products would do certain things and again and again they fail to meet these promises. My sources on how animal testing is used for corporations more then helping people? Try remotely every product that doesn't say 'Doesn't test on animals.'
My second argument is that they're animals, which is basically the exact same argument on why it's all right to test on them, so here it goes. My second argument against testing on animals is that their bodies are different then ours and ultimately, if we put too much faith that our bodies will react the same way to a product as theirs then we'll have that come back to bite us in the ass. My sources? Certain birds can't eat rice, we can. Dogs can't eat chocolate, we can. Humans can smoke weed, and if animals could then it would probably be amusing.
You probably noticed by now that most of my arguments 'sources' are more backed up by our common knowledge as opposed to actual scientific facts. My logic behind this is that generally we all know that dogs can't eat chocolate and Peta nor corporations can bull shit this. Meanwhile scientific facts magically seem to change depending on the source they come from.
Now lets move on to medication. A lot of the time they won't do anything, at times they'll just fuck you up and when they actually do work it just so happens you'll need to take pills to counter the effects of the other pills. This argument can go hand in hand with the second one because I guarantee these were tested on animals and clearly the effects its had on them are fairly different.
Now to get to the point on why this argument even exists. To a certain extent this argument isn't necessarily just about whether testing on animals is wrong or not, it's also about whether it's morally right for a few to suffer for the many. It's very easy to argue something's for the greater good when we trade the joy and lives of a few for the many, and a lot of times we follow this logic. Afterall, if there is a killer on the loose and we kill him, we save the lives of a lot of people as opposed to letting him live where the individual continues killing.
Yeah, I'll buy that. But you know what, I have these two certain thoughts come to my mind that re evaluate whether this ideal is a golden one. It's in our nature to pick the most efficient and cheapest solution to every problem and all the time these cheap and efficient ways don't sustain us in the long run, they collapse just like a crappy chinese toy. All the time it's a lot easier to say few should suffer for the many, but it just so happens we forget that sometimes we make a few suffer not necessarily for the greater good, but just so we can enrich our lives with more luxuries.
All the time we say it's all right for one person to suffer, but we have yet to imagine our selves in that persons shoes, and then does this 'greater good' sound just? Justice is a beautiful lady who wears a blindfold. In one hand she carries a sword and in the other scales. She judges us not at random and she judges us not as the few that should suffer and the rest that shouldn't. She judges us on whether our existance is more of a burden to the rest, and she does this to restore balance. She is harsh, calculating, and absolute. It is not justice to draw out a lottery and pick at random who should and shouldn't suffer be it human or animal. It is justice to weigh all of us on the same scale, and separate those who torment the rest. So is testing on animals justice, can it be justified?
Speaking as an annoying liberal who has a relative fighting cancer I'll say that it's still wrong, even with a fellow family member at risk. Is it because I'm an animal nut? No, it's because I don't want to be a hypocrite who rants on what justice is and cannot follow it him self. We can say it's right for a few animals to suffer for humanity, or we can even say it's fair for a few humans to suffer for humanity, but in the end there are far more animals out there then humans and these animals have brought greater contributions to this world then we ever have. Plants grow, rabbits eat plants to stop them from over growing, Foxes eat rabbits to stop rabbits from over populating, so where do we fit in? We are a burden. Our number one justifications for our actions is always 'they're inferior, they're stupid.' And honestly, I don't like weighing someone's worth through intellect. Doing this is self righteous and concieted. Besides hurting most creatures for our own benefit we have actually not contributed anything to the world. We have tanks, porn, religion, scientists, and funny imaginary ideals, but the truth is, our fantastic discoveries never amounted to anything in the world. It's only amounted to our own benefits. We've out lived our uselessness and now that Led Zeppelin already released their album 'IV' years ago it's time we just went away gracefully.
If we argue that it's justice to test on animals then no, it's not, because justice would be for each and every human on this world to die. Is it preferred? No, it fucking isn't. I would love to play Fallout New Vegas before I die. Because of that I'm afraid I cannot agree that it's justice nor for the greater good.
Is it to save lives that we test on animals? No, it is out of selfishness. We grow attached to those we love and I'm quite sure if it mean't testing on other families instead of animals we'd resort to that as well.
Is it to improve our standards of living? No, it's greed. Corporations would do the same to pesky liberals like my self and pro capitalists would be cheering along side them.
And ultimately my final argument against animal testing is a very simple one.
Because I wouldn't want it to be done to me. And it's because I wouldn't want it to be done to me that I wouldn't wish such a fate on any creature. Well, except for maybe those people that have been dicking around with Duke Nukem for so long.
Jokes aside I want everyone to understand I put serious thought into this and I didn't just slap my self in the face and said 'Oh yeah, lets have all those people with cancer die for a few fuzzy animals!' I seriously have scarred in my mind of all the people that would probably die without any hope if my ideal was implanted. And at the same time I have this feeling deep down in my gut that every little thing I wrote here is going to bite me in the ass and I'll probably end up having testicular cancer.
I'm not kidding. So as opposed to relying so heavily on efficiency we should find new ways in which we can help other people. All the time fascinating discoveries are made and at times it doesn't require anyone to suffer to find them, it just requires imagination, determination, and scientists that are looking forward to actually helping instead of 'being the man that cured cancer!'
P.S - I'm currently downloading a Open Beta for DW Online (It's a guilty pleasure, I swear!) and getting this posted up was a bit of a hassle, I'll start replying to your opinions later once the download is complete.
None.