The human cost of animal testing part 2

The video they didn't want you to see

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Animal
• Experimentation
• Testing
• 123
• cruelty
• abuse
• PETA
• ALF
• SHAC
• rights
• liberation
• front
• Vivisection
• Oxford
• Lab

[batzndiamonds]

one question ive always had is isnt it hypocritical for the people who say "Humans come first and that they want progress" but wouldnt it would be more beneficial to spend the billions of dollars spent on animal testing to instead go to giving third world countries food and clean water?

[lovetoallanimals]

The sad thing is, when we care about animals we become vegan and then hope that we are doing our share. Then we shave, we wash dishes, we use condoms, and all of these products have been tested on animals, held captive and made to suffer when they pour dishwashing soap in their eyes, make them eat shaving cream, put latex under their skin to watch for irritation, and unspeakable other acts of torture, bringing a slow death... We all need to get informed and not support any company doing testing!

[oliviamariesiragusa]

What pisses me off is people keep consuming products that have proven to be harmful and cancer-causing. So when they get lung cancer from smoking, it somehow falls on the animal to find a cure for a human's deliberate self-destruction. Want to stop lung cancer? Stop smokin that shit. Maybe it will stop being carried to offspring who didn't ask to inherit the problem either. There are ways for us to slow it down at least. But as people, we're a lazy race who will always take the easy way out.

[bubbly221]

@lovetoallanimals most vegans are also against animal testing on everyday products..

[ShroedingerWatcher]

@bnprenaissance Yes they do.

[FluffyFeralMarmot]

@ShroedingerWatcher  Tragic.

[ShroedingerWatcher]

@FluffyFeralMarmot "change it"? The way people live has already been changed, so many times, so many ways, but its always based on eating, experimenting, destroying life.

And the world is not "cruel", but humans are, and not by nature, but by your cultures.

[FluffyFeralMarmot]

@ShroedingerWatcher Yep, it's a cruel world. Good luck trying to change it.

[ShroedingerWatcher]

@FluffyFeralMarmot "I have no desire to study the history..." So why defend an old practice that you know nothing about?

"images of death and torture" So you are saying either of these never happens? Silly. But again it is not just a "cruelty" issue, there is the danger to humans.

[ShroedingerWatcher]

@FluffyFeralMarmot "Sic" means you have used a phrase that has been said before.

"vivisectionist" someone that defends vivisection without actually being a vivisector/animal researcher.

But you say in your way you are not yet you also say you are because you "chop off" the heads and study the tissues.

Not everyone falls for the "cruelty to animals" con, vivisection is just a prelude to human testing. And the same mentality of animal vivisection is why there was those Nazi experiments on Jews

[FluffyFeralMarmot]

@ShroedingerWatcher Which part is spelled incorrectly? In any case, that's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. Learn how to use an apostrophe before you start slinging mud.

I wouldn't say I'm a "vivisectionist"; we don't do vivisections at my work. As far as I know we just chop their heads off and do tissue necropsies. I have no desire to study the history of vivisection. People that do it secretly get off on the images of death and torture. But whatever floats your boat...

[ShroedingerWatcher]

@FluffyFeralMarmot

"animal over your own baby" (Sic!) Do you vivisectionists ever come up with anything original? Thats just like "babies or dogs" from the vivisectionists of the 1970s, pointed out by Hans Ruesch's Slaughter of the Innocent.

That line is designed to try to throw me off the history behind vivisection and that both babies and dogs have been used (and that none of it was any use either).

And yes the flaws are obvious (if you get off your arse and compare the history logs)