Absofuckinloutely! I’d be interested in knowing what tests are performed on animals in the endeavor to better the lives of humas, that couldn’t be run better on other humans?
[QUOTE=Inigo Montoya I’d be interested in knowing what tests are performed on animals in the endeavor to better the lives of humas, that couldn’t be run better on other humans?[/QUOTE]
What, exactly, do you mean by “better”?
If you really wanna know, show up at your local pharmaceutical lab with a signed waiver.
:: ahem :: Well. I didn’t mean I wanted tests done on me. I was thinking we could use animal rights terrorists, and foreigners.
I really hope that last comma was either a joke or an accident. 
She sure sounds like a hypocrite in that quote.
But isn’t today’s insulin synthetic? That wouldn’t make her a hypocrite right?
Of course I believe in animal testing to help people but we should be humane.
Well, not to hijack this thread or, worse, run it on a downward spiral right smack into GD, but if we can be humane about testing our various new substances on animals, why not do it humanely on human volunteers? Wanna see how a drug or cosmetic for humans will react on a human? Try it out on, guess what, a human!
Don’t get me wrong, I’d just as likely eat a guinea pig as look at one, but they’re a prey species. Few other creatures in nature pick on the weaker ones to test out new shampoos, drugs and food-substitutes.
And MaryBeth Sweetland is a loon. Any critter-exploiting pharmaceutical company could use the same logic by saying they need to make drugs to keep humans alive so the humans can stop each other from wrecking habitat and murdering & mutilating critters. How about: stop making the drugs or whatever if we gotta use critters in the process, and let nature’s routine culling process take over so we quit weakening our species with say, progeny that can’t manufacture a common metabolic hormone?
She’s a twit. We should use her for, I dunno, testing perfumes for human allergens.
Well, “synthetic” insulin is produced by modified E. coli if I remember my Biology prof’s side tangents correctly.
Won’t someone think of the monerans? 
Because there are different standards for “humane treatment” for humans and animals.
I believe bonobos have been observed testing crude, ash-based mascara on tree rabbits.
Well, her quote was from 1990, and that’s what I was replying to. She said her insulin contains animal products, but she’ll continue to use it, to be able to protect animal rights. :rolleyes:
Really, she can’t have it both ways.
Actually, using her as an example, I think we can reconcile the animal rights people with the rest of society. Here’s what we’ll do: The anti animal rights people will agree to believe in animal rights, under the condition that all of their current uses of animals are necessary for them to continue their fight for animal rights. In return, the animal rights people will get haircuts, not pretend that tofu tastes good, and refuse to address the glaring logical inconsistency in the solution they embrace.
A win-win proposal if I ever heard one.
Wow. Could Pat Robertson start praying for her assassinations? That’s murder I can get behind.
Are they anything like the pro abortion people?
Er… No?
Is there a politically correct term for people who oppose animal rights that I’m not aware of?
ROTFLMFAO ! ! ! ! ! !
and I NEVER speak that way.
The animal wrongs? Band name.
I think the reason these fuckjobs tend to flourish more in the UK is because they’ve pretty much all but abolished a person’s right to self defense. Here, if you throw a brick through someone’s window, you’re likely to end up with someone throwing a bullet through your head.
That’s a really good question, actually. Although, to be even vaguely accurate you’d have to distinguish between the “I feel it’s okay to use animals for food and for testing so long as they are housed comfortably, subjected to a minimum of discomfort, and killed as painlessly as possible” and the “It’s my dog and I’ll kick it if I want to” groups.
I’m a researcher who works with mice and I’m all for legislation that protects animals from careless handling or needless cruelty, both for pets and for research animals - but I do think it’s acceptable to use animals to advance human science. Or eat. What should I be called?
mischievous
Mmmmmmmmm no. But way to try and hijack this into yet another gun debate! I commend you!