ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums

ThisisBigBrother.com - UK TV Forums (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Chat (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Are you in favour of torturing monkeys? (https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179980)

karezza 28-07-2011 10:03 AM

Are you in favour of torturing monkeys?
 
10% of experiments involving monkeys carried out in the UK have no benefit of any kind, a panel of leading scientists has concluded.

Should the monkey torture by psychopathic vivisectionists be banned?

arista 28-07-2011 10:12 AM

Yes its to be stopped

Lee. 28-07-2011 10:16 AM

Dunno.. obviously the thought of any creature being tortured is horrific to me, but (now don't shoot me down in flames as I admit I don't know enough about this subject to debate it) isn't some animal experimentation beneficial when it comes to new medicines etc?

Novo 28-07-2011 10:19 AM

10% is pretty low, 90% is somewhat beneficial so no it shouldn't be banned

karezza 28-07-2011 10:19 AM

We would learn more by experimenting on these 3:

Levi Bellfield
Robert Black
Ian Huntley

Lee. 28-07-2011 10:20 AM

Is Ian Huntley not dead?

MeMyselfAndI 28-07-2011 10:36 AM

It should definately be banned

MTVN 28-07-2011 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novo (Post 4418014)
10% is pretty low, 90% is somewhat beneficial so no it shouldn't be banned

This

Quote:

Originally Posted by happyland (Post 4418017)
Is Ian Huntley not dead?

Nah, he had his throat slashed by a fellow inmate but he survived I think

AJ. 28-07-2011 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novo (Post 4418014)
10% is pretty low, 90% is somewhat beneficial so no it shouldn't be banned

Aren't the benefits tiny compared to the confused torture some monkeys go through. They should just as pay humans to test things like alot already do.

Lee. 28-07-2011 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTVN (Post 4418080)
This



Nah, he had his throat slashed by a fellow inmate but he survived I think

Shame.

InOne 28-07-2011 11:33 AM

Yes. They have humans who are monkey like enough to do it

Harry! 28-07-2011 02:12 PM

Test on humans, much better results.

Joelle. 28-07-2011 02:29 PM

Why not test on human scum (rapists, paedos, murderers) instead?

Benjamin 28-07-2011 02:33 PM

If humans want to test new medicines then test on humans that have the free will to choose to be experimented on, not these poor creatures that have no choice in the matter.

Novo 28-07-2011 02:39 PM

it's all well and good saying these are poor creatures that don't have a choice etc.. but these tests could in the future turn out to save peoples life's so it's all worthwhile in the end.. and they do test on humans as well as monkeys don't they?

Joelle. 28-07-2011 02:59 PM

Rose West, Peter Sutcliffe, Steven Wright and Ian Brady are all still alive. Why not use them?

Benjamin 28-07-2011 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novo (Post 4418406)
it's all well and good saying these are poor creatures that don't have a choice etc.. but these tests could in the future turn out to save peoples life's so it's all worthwhile in the end.. and they do test on humans as well as monkeys don't they?

So. If we find a cure for something, mother nature will create a new diesease to cull our population and keep our numbers down. It's the way the world works.

But I don't see why monkey's need to be tested on to save us. Test on humans.

Stu 28-07-2011 03:16 PM

I'm against animal testing save for cases where a clear route to something beneficial to the human species can be trodden. If testing on an animal will make obvious inroads into AIDS research then go for it. My animal welfare views don't extend as far as considering monkeys of greater importance than human beings.

Another extreme case would be where the tests could prove dangerous. Again I value human body and mind more than that of a monkey. I'm not even sure where I stand on testing on the likes of paedophiles.

As for mother nature inventing new diseases to cull our numbers ... that's no reason to not constantly fight them. Besides I'd question to science of that statement. The animal kingdom culls it's numbers and whatnot but I don't think this invisible, generic 'mother nature' actually consciously creates diseases in order to maintain equilibrium.

If she is then she is doing a very bad job of it.

MTVN 28-07-2011 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ukturtle (Post 4418450)
So. If we find a cure for something, mother nature will create a new diesease to cull our population and keep our numbers down. It's the way the world works.

But I don't see why monkey's need to be tested on to save us. Test on humans.

So we should just not bother trying to find a cure for cancer or something like that?

If by experimenting on monkeys we can discover something that can be used to save human life then the benefits outweigh the costs imo, I wouldn't mind humans being tested on if they agreed to it but that's unlikely considering the nature of the experiments so I think doing it on monkeys is the best option tbh, it's the lesser evil.

Stu 28-07-2011 03:21 PM

I'd also hope those totally, evangelically against unnecessary animal testing are vegan. After all your consumption of animal products is just as unnecessary given suitable alternatives exist. 'It's natural' or 'but meat is tasty!' arguments don't quite cut it and in no way subvert the obvious non necessity of eating animal produce.

I declare this can of worms open.

Lee. 28-07-2011 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu (Post 4418473)
I'm against animal testing save for cases where a clear route to something beneficial to the human species can be trodden. If testing on an animal will make obvious inroads into AIDS research then go for it. My animal welfare views don't extend as far as considering monkeys of greater importance than human beings.

Another extreme case would be where the tests could prove dangerous. Again I value human body and mind more than that of a monkey. I'm not even sure where I stand on testing on the likes of paedophiles.

As for mother nature inventing new diseases to cull our numbers ... that's no reason to not constantly fight them. Besides I'd question to science of that statement. The animal kingdom culls it's numbers and whatnot but I don't think this invisible, generic 'mother nature' actually consciously creates diseases in order to maintain equilibrium.

If she is then she is doing a very bad job of it.

yeah this is pretty much how I feel, but just couldn't be arse to type that much. :)

I think cosmetic testing is a different thing though..

Niamh. 28-07-2011 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu (Post 4418478)
I'd also hope those totally, evangelically against unnecessary animal testing are vegan. After all your consumption of animal products is just as unnecessary given suitable alternatives exist. 'It's natural' or 'but meat is tasty!' arguments don't quite cut it and in no way subvert the obvious non necessity of eating animal produce.

I declare this can of worms open.

Monkeys are far cuter than other animals though :idc:

Stu 28-07-2011 03:29 PM

Chickens are far sexier than Monkeys.

Niamh. 28-07-2011 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu (Post 4418492)
Chickens are far sexier than Monkeys.


Lee. 28-07-2011 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu (Post 4418492)
Chickens are far sexier than Monkeys.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...QIYLcO3BUqB70c

Lee. 28-07-2011 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niamh. (Post 4418496)

:laugh: was going to post that

Niamh. 28-07-2011 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by happyland (Post 4418501)
:laugh: was going to post that

great minds.............;)

Shaun 28-07-2011 03:35 PM

can't get enough of it tbh

Livia 28-07-2011 03:36 PM

One of my colleagues researched this subject for an MP last year, after he had received lots of correspondence from people objecting to the work of organisations like Huntingdon Life Sciences and Syne Qua Non. After speaking with scientists both academic and from industry, the consensus of opinion was that the genetic makeup of the monkey wasn't really similar enough to a human for benefits to be beneficial, compared to other modern methods.

I think that in 100 years, people will look back on the vivisection we justify now as beneficial to humans, and think what a bunch of blinkered, egotistical idiots we are.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.