Greg's time on breakfast

[James R]

As mentioned previously by Aled, the 11th October Surgery will be a debate special:

11th of October it's the next debate, this time one of the topics relates to testing on animals and whether it's needed in this day and age.

[Tom.]

This is a very silly argument. Surely it is better than testing on humans. and in that case it is necessary.

[Jugalug]

If it were that simple, would it still be rumbling on?

[DarkAngelMJH]

It's completely wrong to test on animals, especially for cosmetic stuff. 'Oh we need some more lipstick, I know lets test it on this bunny rabbit first even though we know what products we can use safely.'

Gah! Something I hate.

[Chippy]

It's completely wrong to test on animals, especially for cosmetic stuff. 'Oh we need some more lipstick, I know lets test it on this bunny rabbit first even though we know what products we can use safely.'

Gah! Something I hate.

It is chemical testing, would you rather a rabbit die or a human die?

[Viv]

I didn't know Max Factor tested on animals, Dark Angel.

The title is annoying me: it's way too simple. I'd have called it "Bunny & Runny With Aled"

[Jono]

I used to think it's cool, it's rats and stuff, they're mostly vermin. But then I learnt in psychology about how they use to cut the tops off cats and block part of their brains and see how they reacted. Afterwards they'd just kill them. Suddenly testing on animal you're closed to made it a lot more serious.

I was trying to find this funny image in our psychology textbook of a REALLY fat hamster. They'd done some food disorder tests on him. Funny to look at, but quite sad in reality. Unfortunate googling 'animal testing' in the image search comes up with some depressing searches.

It's fair enough when these people have a reasonably ethical thought out idea behind it. But most of them will just have a crazy idea, find a load of animals, fuck them up, and kill them with little purpose. It's no surprise they don't do it with humans, there's no way anyone could justify that...

I was told in psychology animals don't feel pain though. I don't believe that. You stand on a cat's tail they make a hell of a noise.

[Robbie Keane]

It is chemical testing, would you rather a rabbit die or a human die?

Depending on who the human is, probably the human. There are quite a number of instances where my sympathy is greater for animals (especially animals bred as pets) than humans.

Not all animals, mind; I eat meat like the best of them. But food is an essential part of our lives, as opposed to high-end lipsticks. In my mind, I can't justify that.

[Viv]

I find high-end lipsticks more important. I wonder if the high shine lip gloss I got at ASDA this morning was tested on animals. I do hope not.

[DarkAngelMJH]

It is chemical testing, would you rather a rabbit die or a human die?

Why would it need to be tested when they already know what is okay to be used?

There's no need for an animal to suffer for people to have new make up.

Depending on who the human is, probably the human. There are quite a number of instances where my sympathy is greater for animals (especially animals bred as pets) than humans.

Yeah me too, much more sympathy for the animals.

[Chippy]

Why would it need to be tested when they already know what is okay to be used?

There's no need for an animal to suffer for people to have new make up.

Well the point of the testing is because they don't know what is okay to be used, or they have regulations to keep to or they have to test it to keep people safe and so they don't get sued for people's skin burning up ect...and if you buy these products, these people include you.

[Sam]

[Viv]

Aw bless.... that's made feel so sad. :-(

[DarkAngelMJH]

Well the point of the testing is because they don't know what is okay to be used, or they have regulations to keep to or they have to test it to keep people safe and so they don't get sued for people's skin burning up ect...and if you buy these products, these people include you.

They've made millions of lipsticks, they know what can be used with no further testing.

For a lovely list of nice companies go here Lush are approved too http://www.gocrueltyfree.org/companies.php

[Chippy]

They've made millions of lipsticks, they know what can be used with no further testing.

But there is always more stuff which people (maybe you) will buy, recently my sister showed me some lipstick which changes colour depending on whose lips it was, or the latest shade of eye stuff, these things are always changing, maybe improving and it always takes different chemicals, and different chemicals always takes new testing for reasons I have said.

[DarkAngelMJH]

Still no reason to test.

Wow a lipstick that changes color how have I ever lived without it?!!11111one

[E*F*4L]

everything has to be tested in one way or another & once they have tested on animals, they test it on people, im sure you would rather have it tested to see if it is ok unless you want some people using stuff & they get some reaction from it & die.

[Chippy]

everything has to be tested in one way or another & once they have tested on animals, they test it on people, im sure you would rather have it tested to see if it is ok unless you want some people using stuff & they get some reaction from it & die.

Exactly, and it seems mainly girls who oppose animal testing, but it is them who wear the make-up...most of the time

[DarkAngelMJH]

everything has to be tested in one way or another & once they have tested on animals, they test it on people, im sure you would rather have it tested to see if it is ok unless you want some people using stuff & they get some reaction from it & die.

It depends on the person.

Plus just as an added note I always try to make sure nothing I use is test on animals. Maybe they should use you chippy since you seem to love the idea.

[Jono]

everything has to be tested in one way or another & once they have tested on animals, they test it on people, im sure you would rather have it tested to see if it is ok unless you want some people using stuff & they get some reaction from it & die.

You're looking at just a small section of animal testing. That's just animal testing. Animal testing can include a weird scientist thinking 'I'll look at some animals brains today and shove cigarettes under their nose and mess with their brain because I'm a bit bored'. And then they'll get some monkeys or rats or cats and just destroy their brains and then put them down and often have nothing to prove.

[Tom.]

i can see the problem with lipsticks being tested its unnecessary, but chemicals and medicines must be tested. For example would you rather that millions of people with cancer died because a new drug couldn't be tested, or a rabbit experienced some pain/ died during the testing of the drug.

[Jono]

i can see the problem with lipsticks being tested its unnecessary, but chemicals and medicines must be tested. For example would you rather that millions of people with cancer died because a new drug couldn't be tested, or a rabbit experienced some pain/ died during the testing of the drug.

But people still have to be tested on. Just because it works on a rat doesn't mean it's going to work on a human. We could soon be at a phase where we don't need animals, maybe we could use computers.

[krazy_chloe]

i can see the problem with lipsticks being tested its unnecessary, but chemicals and medicines must be tested. For example would you rather that millions of people with cancer died because a new drug couldn't be tested, or a rabbit experienced some pain/ died during the testing of the drug.

That's what I think. We did vaccines/medicine in biology last year and they put them through stages - first they test it on living tissue, then animals, then healthy humans, then ill humans before widespread use. It's something like that anyway.

[Nik B.]

Sadly, until theres a better, And (I can't believe I'm saying this) cheaper way, It will go on. I'm thouroughly against it, but I can't see that it'll stop.

/defeatist

[Jugalug]

Mmmmm, my problem with the whole 'would you rather a human died' is that at least the human had the choice. But an animal has none.

But still, I'm in favour of animal testing for medicinal purposes as we don't really have any better way.