Rayman Pirate-Community

< has no problem with the tests that don't really hurt the animals or to the animals who are already used for things like feeder mice but i hate when they treat the animals like inanimate object and have no real use in this world.

< has no problems with testing that hurts animals like mice at all. That's the prize we need to pay to further the knowledge of mankind, if you can call killing a few mice a "prize" at all. Stop projecting humans onto mice ffs!

<Disagrees with this particular point. I believe that we do need to have regard for other species. I believe that there should be enough knowledge about the substance in hand to predict accurately its effects on the animals, and should it affect them in such a way that it will take many adjustments to the substance and will likely harm many animals, more investigations should be carried out before the animal testing. I feel that if scientists were to start testing animals without proper knowledge of the substance, they would be being a little bit reckless (although I believe that if much evidence is unattainable in the investigations prior to the animal tests, the animal tests should NOT be abandoned).

Tobbe wrote:

Quickfist wrote:< thinks things should be tested on condemned criminals or suicidal people or masochists.

Sorry, but that's the most stupid thing < has heard in a long time.

< agrees xD
< wasn't being serious.

< thinks it's fine that things are tested on animals. < actually feels more sorry for pets (like guinea pigs or hamsters) that have to live in a small cage their whole life.

< agrees with Sam, although he probably doesn't realise it. < thinks he has little idea of how science works because the scenarios he describes as undesirable would never have occured in properly conducted scientific research.

<believes that the format of this thread occasionally makes it slightly confusing to understand who's talking about who without referencing names. I also believe that part of my problem may be partly due to the fact that I am not consistent in the person in which I post.

Talk about yourself in 3rd person and substitute '<' for your name.

Frank Zappa wrote:<believes that the format of this thread occasionally makes it slightly confusing to understand who's talking about who without referencing names. I also believe that part of my problem may be partly due to the fact that I am not consistent in the person in which I post.

< says "Hiiii!" *waves*
< wonders if Frank is too old for this game

EDIT:
< didn't suspect Frank was 15 years old. (His posts are way too long for that! )

Are you talking about this?:

MrBadGuy99 wrote:Do you not value a human life more than a mouses?

How is that incorrect?

EDIT: < sees Plum realised that it wasn't and deleted his post.

< very much doubts that taking into consideration that we are about the same age. < thanks Tobbe for the helpful advice, although I shall (or, < shall) find it difficult to restrain from writing in the most widely accepted manner.

< also realises that whilst < was posting this, Tobbe has had time to post.

Christ on a bendy bus, I'll never manage to keep this up. It's inevitable that I'll up reverting to a more conventional way of writing.

Tobbe wrote:Are you talking about this?:

MrBadGuy99 wrote:Do you not value a human life more than a mouses?

How is that incorrect?

EDIT: < sees Plum realised that it wasn't and deleted his post.

< wonders why it took you so long to post that you could not see that < had deleted it.

< thought that we couldn't delete posts that had already been replied-to?

< disapproves of cruel testing being performed on cool/useful animals like dogs and cats, unless they are worthless crossbreeds of course

Um <'s dog is a crossbreed

< disapproves of animal testing and vivisection for shit like cosmetics [eg Max Factor] and other products that can be safe without it.

spiraldoor wrote:< thought that we couldn't delete posts that had already been replied-to?

< deleted the post way before Tobbe replied, as you could have seen if you read my above post.

< holds no personal ill-will towards crossbreeds, of course...

< doesn't approve of cosmetics to begin with

< doesnt mind testing on small animals that would help or cure a disease to humans

< would join a competition is < wasnt so lame with imagination.

< thinks that the discussion/debate here is far too serious for the you game

< reminds ^ of the inconsistency of nature of this thread!
< has nothing against testing animals as long as the testing is justified and carried out humanely (if possible)

< just got back from a four-day trip to Atlanta, Georgia. < has never been to New York or Las Vegas, but if they're any more crowded than Atlanta I'm glad I haven't.

< wonders how you got back