Animal-rights speaker provokes disbelief
Wow, just when I thought these kooks couldn't get any kookier...
CsG
Wow, just when I thought these kooks couldn't get any kookier...
CsG
Originally posted by: aceofspades230
While letting animals go free so they can all be run over by buses is a bad idea, i don't like the thought of animals being treated inhumanely either.
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: aceofspades230
While letting animals go free so they can all be run over by buses is a bad idea, i don't like the thought of animals being treated inhumanely either.
then throw away your soap and shoes
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: aceofspades230
While letting animals go free so they can all be run over by buses is a bad idea, i don't like the thought of animals being treated inhumanely either.
then throw away your soap and shoes
and dont take modern medicine--all drugs are tested on one form of animal before entering the human population
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: aceofspades230
While letting animals go free so they can all be run over by buses is a bad idea, i don't like the thought of animals being treated inhumanely either.
then throw away your soap and shoes
and dont take modern medicine--all drugs are tested on one form of animal before entering the human population
While I won't disagree with the term "loons" regarding ALF, there are alternatives:
Text
The bigger problem is the rush to get pharmaceuticals on the market.
Human testing, as it is commonly performed today is woefully inadequate.
Generally speaking, after any animal testing, the human testing is to learn:
A. Is it deadly poison?
B. Is it effective?
There is very little, if ANY testing done for long term problems.
In fact, it could be argued that in essence, after the drug is released to the public is when this third test begins
Vioxx, anyone?
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: aceofspades230
While letting animals go free so they can all be run over by buses is a bad idea, i don't like the thought of animals being treated inhumanely either.
then throw away your soap and shoes
and dont take modern medicine--all drugs are tested on one form of animal before entering the human population
While I won't disagree with the term "loons" regarding ALF, there are alternatives:
Text
The bigger problem is the rush to get pharmaceuticals on the market.
Human testing, as it is commonly performed today is woefully inadequate.
Generally speaking, after any animal testing, the human testing is to learn:
A. Is it deadly poison?
B. Is it effective?
There is very little, if ANY testing done for long term problems.
In fact, it could be argued that in essence, after the drug is released to the public is when this third test begins
Vioxx, anyone?
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: aceofspades230
While letting animals go free so they can all be run over by buses is a bad idea, i don't like the thought of animals being treated inhumanely either.
then throw away your soap and shoes
and dont take modern medicine--all drugs are tested on one form of animal before entering the human population
While I won't disagree with the term "loons" regarding ALF, there are alternatives:
Text
The bigger problem is the rush to get pharmaceuticals on the market.
Human testing, as it is commonly performed today is woefully inadequate.
Generally speaking, after any animal testing, the human testing is to learn:
A. Is it deadly poison?
B. Is it effective?
There is very little, if ANY testing done for long term problems.
In fact, it could be argued that in essence, after the drug is released to the public is when this third test begins
Vioxx, anyone?
Here is your only alternative.
1. Take people, let's say terrorists since they havent any legal protection, and test a drug for 50 years on them.
2. Let it onto the market
3. Profit!
Sound better?
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: aceofspades230
While letting animals go free so they can all be run over by buses is a bad idea, i don't like the thought of animals being treated inhumanely either.
then throw away your soap and shoes
and dont take modern medicine--all drugs are tested on one form of animal before entering the human population
While I won't disagree with the term "loons" regarding ALF, there are alternatives:
Text
The bigger problem is the rush to get pharmaceuticals on the market.
Human testing, as it is commonly performed today is woefully inadequate.
Generally speaking, after any animal testing, the human testing is to learn:
A. Is it deadly poison?
B. Is it effective?
There is very little, if ANY testing done for long term problems.
In fact, it could be argued that in essence, after the drug is released to the public is when this third test begins
Vioxx, anyone?
Here is your only alternative.
1. Take people, let's say terrorists since they havent any legal protection, and test a drug for 50 years on them.
2. Let it onto the market
3. Profit!
Sound better?
so when (or if) the nazis conducted the same experiements they conducted on concentration camp victims on communist russian soldiers, you would be okay with that?
When you do that how do you expect anybody to take that training seriously?Originally posted by: AndrewR
When I conduct Antiterrorism/Force Protection training, I always cite PETA/ALF/ELF as examples of domestic terrorists. I haven't had anyone complain yet, but I'm waiting.![]()
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: BigJelly
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: aceofspades230
While letting animals go free so they can all be run over by buses is a bad idea, i don't like the thought of animals being treated inhumanely either.
then throw away your soap and shoes
and dont take modern medicine--all drugs are tested on one form of animal before entering the human population
While I won't disagree with the term "loons" regarding ALF, there are alternatives:
Text
The bigger problem is the rush to get pharmaceuticals on the market.
Human testing, as it is commonly performed today is woefully inadequate.
Generally speaking, after any animal testing, the human testing is to learn:
A. Is it deadly poison?
B. Is it effective?
There is very little, if ANY testing done for long term problems.
In fact, it could be argued that in essence, after the drug is released to the public is when this third test begins
Vioxx, anyone?
Here is your only alternative.
1. Take people, let's say terrorists since they havent any legal protection, and test a drug for 50 years on them.
2. Let it onto the market
3. Profit!
Sound better?
so when (or if) the nazis conducted the same experiements they conducted on concentration camp victims on communist russian soldiers, you would be okay with that?
I said that was your alternative. Have long term tests on captive humans. I figure around this forum many would love to do it to terrorists or at least people accused of terrorism. Doesn't really matter if they are guilty, now does it?
Do I approve? Na, but I was responding with the reason animals are still used. The alternative is to wait decades and test on a captive human population.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
When you do that how do you expect anybody to take that training seriously?Originally posted by: AndrewR
When I conduct Antiterrorism/Force Protection training, I always cite PETA/ALF/ELF as examples of domestic terrorists. I haven't had anyone complain yet, but I'm waiting.![]()
All crimes are serious and what they do should not be condoned but they are not a threat to our security.Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
When you do that how do you expect anybody to take that training seriously?Originally posted by: AndrewR
When I conduct Antiterrorism/Force Protection training, I always cite PETA/ALF/ELF as examples of domestic terrorists. I haven't had anyone complain yet, but I'm waiting.![]()
I think the crimes they commit are pretty serious. Arson, theft, tresspassing, destruction of property...
?
CsG
Originally posted by: sandorski
The 2 are comparable, both being a form of Protest by groups of Idealists. Perhaps freeing animals from Labs will never be accepted in the same way, but a comparison can be made.
Weren't the Loyalists in the Majority back then?Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: sandorski
The 2 are comparable, both being a form of Protest by groups of Idealists. Perhaps freeing animals from Labs will never be accepted in the same way, but a comparison can be made.
Right. And at the time of the Revolution it wasn't clear whether the tea party guys' ideas would be accepted. The right-wing sheeple simply can't understand that this country was founded by protestors and radicals who were not following the rules. Today's sheeple would have been yesterday's loyalists.
you got it backwards, your socio-progressives-eco-nuts are the ones being tossed out, by us "protesters" of common sense.Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: sandorski
The 2 are comparable, both being a form of Protest by groups of Idealists. Perhaps freeing animals from Labs will never be accepted in the same way, but a comparison can be made.
Right. And at the time of the Revolution it wasn't clear whether the tea party guys' ideas would be accepted. The right-wing sheeple simply can't understand that this country was founded by protestors and radicals who were not following the rules. Today's sheeple would have been yesterday's loyalists.
Originally posted by: Train
you got it backwards, your socio-progressives-eco-nuts are the ones being tossed out, by us "protesters" of common sense.Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: sandorski
The 2 are comparable, both being a form of Protest by groups of Idealists. Perhaps freeing animals from Labs will never be accepted in the same way, but a comparison can be made.
Right. And at the time of the Revolution it wasn't clear whether the tea party guys' ideas would be accepted. The right-wing sheeple simply can't understand that this country was founded by protestors and radicals who were not following the rules. Today's sheeple would have been yesterday's loyalists.
your still confused, dont confuse the tea partiers with the the protests from the crown after they no longer had control. I'm equating the latter to todays liberals.Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Train
you got it backwards, your socio-progressives-eco-nuts are the ones being tossed out, by us "protesters" of common sense.Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: sandorski
The 2 are comparable, both being a form of Protest by groups of Idealists. Perhaps freeing animals from Labs will never be accepted in the same way, but a comparison can be made.
Right. And at the time of the Revolution it wasn't clear whether the tea party guys' ideas would be accepted. The right-wing sheeple simply can't understand that this country was founded by protestors and radicals who were not following the rules. Today's sheeple would have been yesterday's loyalists.
Ummm... no. You aren't even protesting. Again, the disobedient acts that run through these two beliefs (whether or not you agree with the more recent one) is what we're talking about. Let me know when you do an act of civil disobedience. I'm thinking you were a type that thought the war protestors should shut up and support the troops (i.e. "stop wasting time with the tea party and accept the crown.")