The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
One thing that really gets up my nose is cruelty to animals. People that are cruel to poor things that can't defend themselves. Seeing programs on telly that show this type of worthless behaviour just makes me want to pick up the remote and turn it off. You here from places that dogs have been left out on the streets and sometimes forgotten about- this is one thing that a lot of people do and i think they shouldn't is to let them roam around. The other day i went for a walk and saw a house rabbit run up a street, i tried to grab it but it was to fast and in the end it went into someone's back garden. straight after that i saw a dog following me with no owner around. I mean they could get run over or could lose its way. Its also people that beat animals that are the greediest, most selfish, arogant ones. People that do this should immediatly put a stop to it and look into the poor animals face and think, is this me doing this.
Page:
TEST ON MEEEEEEE!!!!
http://www.geocities.com/randomscope/dscf0004.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/randomscope/dscf0004.jpg
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Make an army of clones, and test on them!!
Repeat after me: I am NOT the Evil Emperor, I am NOT the Evil Emperor....
> Make an army of clones, and test on them!!
Repeat after me: I am NOT the Evil Emperor, I am NOT the Evil Emperor....
Make an army of clones, and test on them!!
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Ah, animal testing!
>
> I don't have a problem with, for example, doctors using primates for
> medical purposes, provided that the animals do not suffer
> unecessarily. Shampoo testing, however, whereby different lotions
> will be rubbed into the eyes of animals to see if it irritates them
> (duh), I find offensive. Of course it's going to irritate. Shampoo is
> supposed to clean your hair for christ's sake.
Yay! The subject that IB and I consistently agree upon!
I also have a problem with testing even for medical purposes, if for no other reason that it would surely be better to use human tissue to test on (something I believe is possible).
As for the rest of my thoughts on this....(mu ha ha ha haaaa!)
Are there still people out there who genuinely believe that the wanton suffering of animals in the name of beauty is a good thing? I deliberately make the distinction between using animals to test drugs and using them to test cosmetics. The former does have it's defenders, the latter has (I hope) been entirely discredited. Frankly, if we're going to rub shampoo into anyone’s eyes, could we not do it to Jennifer Love Hewitt? I'm personally getting pig sick of the whining little tart simpering "Because I'm worth it" during every bloody advert break. If she's really worth it, test the stuff on her! And if we need to find out whether certain cosmetics cause blistering on sensitive skin then strap down a supermodel and smear her with the stuff. Whilst I fail to see how causing a rats skin to scar and blister can tell us more about how it would affect a human, I'm all for seeing an overpaid clothes hanger really earn their money.
But as for the testing of drugs on animals...well, this is a somewhat more complicated issue, although I'd like to nail my colours to the mast and state that I am firmly against it. If for no other reason than I resent animals taking drugs when they're so damn hard to get hold of where I live. And what are they going to do with them anyway? Do beagles sit in a lab smoking weed, watching the Star Wars films, and talking complete toss all night? Are there really rats that are full of pills and listening to bad electronic noise whilst wittering on about what a banging tune this is? And will scientists force cocaine up an orangutan’s nose and be forced to listen to it talking at about 400 words per minute about what a brilliant primate it is, whilst it sneezes out lumps of blood encrusted sinus?
I suspect not alas. It is more likely that rows of caged beasts live out their short and unhappy lives being poked, prodded, and dosed with god knows what before being dissected and incinerated along with the rest of the rubbish. We're meant to be a civilised society yet we'll happily heap indignity and suffering on animals in the name of progress. Why the hell is this? If there were absolutely no other alternatives then I would reluctantly accept the necessity of testing on animals. But there is no need for it, not really.
Now, I'm not advocated using people instead of animals (although I confess that in my more right wing days I was all in favour of testing on prisoners in return for remission of their sentence. Part of me still thinks that would work...) but I know of certain things that can be done instead. Human tissue can be recreated in the lab, so drugs can be tested on this rather than animals. Computer generated models are now so advanced that pretty much anything can be tested here before moving onto human trials (i.e. stuffing students full of experimental drugs in order to fund their beer binges. Who said students never give anything to society?) I'm tempted to mention the advances in cloning as well but as I know next to nothing about the implications of that I shall steer clear. Even so, there are ample other possibilities before we have to carve up animals to find a cure for cancer.
Why do we not take them? Money. Cash. Expense. Animal testing is the cheapest method of testing drugs and as long as this is the case then vivisection will continue. Though I am loath to admit it, the cause of all of this suffering is raw, naked capitalism.
Of course, I could be entirely wrong about all of the above. The animals (or test subjects to give them their correct name; apparently the testers need to use this sort of doublespeak to assuage their own conscience) may be living in the lap of luxury and be far happier than any of their brethren. It's impossible for us to tell of course because there is such a veil of secrecy surrounding animal testing that no one knows precisely what is going on. With that in mind, it is all too easy to accept the information given by the activists as the absolute truth. There is no transparency and the drugs companies do not feel the need to enlighten us as to what it is they actually do. The sooner they do so, the better. That way it will either cease to be an issue, or we will be so horrified at what they actually do that they may be forced into abandoning animal testing. I live in hope...
> Ah, animal testing!
>
> I don't have a problem with, for example, doctors using primates for
> medical purposes, provided that the animals do not suffer
> unecessarily. Shampoo testing, however, whereby different lotions
> will be rubbed into the eyes of animals to see if it irritates them
> (duh), I find offensive. Of course it's going to irritate. Shampoo is
> supposed to clean your hair for christ's sake.
Yay! The subject that IB and I consistently agree upon!
I also have a problem with testing even for medical purposes, if for no other reason that it would surely be better to use human tissue to test on (something I believe is possible).
As for the rest of my thoughts on this....(mu ha ha ha haaaa!)
Are there still people out there who genuinely believe that the wanton suffering of animals in the name of beauty is a good thing? I deliberately make the distinction between using animals to test drugs and using them to test cosmetics. The former does have it's defenders, the latter has (I hope) been entirely discredited. Frankly, if we're going to rub shampoo into anyone’s eyes, could we not do it to Jennifer Love Hewitt? I'm personally getting pig sick of the whining little tart simpering "Because I'm worth it" during every bloody advert break. If she's really worth it, test the stuff on her! And if we need to find out whether certain cosmetics cause blistering on sensitive skin then strap down a supermodel and smear her with the stuff. Whilst I fail to see how causing a rats skin to scar and blister can tell us more about how it would affect a human, I'm all for seeing an overpaid clothes hanger really earn their money.
But as for the testing of drugs on animals...well, this is a somewhat more complicated issue, although I'd like to nail my colours to the mast and state that I am firmly against it. If for no other reason than I resent animals taking drugs when they're so damn hard to get hold of where I live. And what are they going to do with them anyway? Do beagles sit in a lab smoking weed, watching the Star Wars films, and talking complete toss all night? Are there really rats that are full of pills and listening to bad electronic noise whilst wittering on about what a banging tune this is? And will scientists force cocaine up an orangutan’s nose and be forced to listen to it talking at about 400 words per minute about what a brilliant primate it is, whilst it sneezes out lumps of blood encrusted sinus?
I suspect not alas. It is more likely that rows of caged beasts live out their short and unhappy lives being poked, prodded, and dosed with god knows what before being dissected and incinerated along with the rest of the rubbish. We're meant to be a civilised society yet we'll happily heap indignity and suffering on animals in the name of progress. Why the hell is this? If there were absolutely no other alternatives then I would reluctantly accept the necessity of testing on animals. But there is no need for it, not really.
Now, I'm not advocated using people instead of animals (although I confess that in my more right wing days I was all in favour of testing on prisoners in return for remission of their sentence. Part of me still thinks that would work...) but I know of certain things that can be done instead. Human tissue can be recreated in the lab, so drugs can be tested on this rather than animals. Computer generated models are now so advanced that pretty much anything can be tested here before moving onto human trials (i.e. stuffing students full of experimental drugs in order to fund their beer binges. Who said students never give anything to society?) I'm tempted to mention the advances in cloning as well but as I know next to nothing about the implications of that I shall steer clear. Even so, there are ample other possibilities before we have to carve up animals to find a cure for cancer.
Why do we not take them? Money. Cash. Expense. Animal testing is the cheapest method of testing drugs and as long as this is the case then vivisection will continue. Though I am loath to admit it, the cause of all of this suffering is raw, naked capitalism.
Of course, I could be entirely wrong about all of the above. The animals (or test subjects to give them their correct name; apparently the testers need to use this sort of doublespeak to assuage their own conscience) may be living in the lap of luxury and be far happier than any of their brethren. It's impossible for us to tell of course because there is such a veil of secrecy surrounding animal testing that no one knows precisely what is going on. With that in mind, it is all too easy to accept the information given by the activists as the absolute truth. There is no transparency and the drugs companies do not feel the need to enlighten us as to what it is they actually do. The sooner they do so, the better. That way it will either cease to be an issue, or we will be so horrified at what they actually do that they may be forced into abandoning animal testing. I live in hope...
Ah, animal testing!
I don't have a problem with, for example, doctors using primates for medical purposes, provided that the animals do not suffer unecessarily. Shampoo testing, however, whereby different lotions will be rubbed into the eyes of animals to see if it irritates them (duh), I find offensive. Of course it's going to irritate. Shampoo is supposed to clean your hair for christ's sake.
What angers me most of all are things like the infamous method of acquiring shark fins, for the soup of the same name. Catch shark, haul shark onto boat, cut of shark fins, throw shark back into water, alive.
Now, imagine walking along, and one day a car pulls up next to you, grabs you and drags you inside, where someone with a big knife hacks off your arms and legs before throwing you back out onto the road. Fortunately for humans, you're not going to livefor very long like that.But a shark could easily drift to the ocean floor, where, depending on depth, it will lie and wait to die of asphyxiation, or it will be slowly crushed by the change in pressure.
These people should be flayed (yes, that word again) and thrown into salt water, with someone holding their head above water so they don't drown as someone else covers their entire submerged body with jellyfish.
They should be left like that until they die.
I don't have a problem with, for example, doctors using primates for medical purposes, provided that the animals do not suffer unecessarily. Shampoo testing, however, whereby different lotions will be rubbed into the eyes of animals to see if it irritates them (duh), I find offensive. Of course it's going to irritate. Shampoo is supposed to clean your hair for christ's sake.
What angers me most of all are things like the infamous method of acquiring shark fins, for the soup of the same name. Catch shark, haul shark onto boat, cut of shark fins, throw shark back into water, alive.
Now, imagine walking along, and one day a car pulls up next to you, grabs you and drags you inside, where someone with a big knife hacks off your arms and legs before throwing you back out onto the road. Fortunately for humans, you're not going to livefor very long like that.But a shark could easily drift to the ocean floor, where, depending on depth, it will lie and wait to die of asphyxiation, or it will be slowly crushed by the change in pressure.
These people should be flayed (yes, that word again) and thrown into salt water, with someone holding their head above water so they don't drown as someone else covers their entire submerged body with jellyfish.
They should be left like that until they die.
VenomByte wrote:
> Strangely, I have no problems whatsoever with animals being used for
> testing, but I can't even face killing a spider without feeling
> twinges of guilt.
>
> I think I'm fine with animal cruelty, so long as I'm not the one
> being cruel...
I'm sorry, but that makes you little better than the ones torturing animals.
I understand that some animals are used to find the cure for cancer and all that, and i, reluctantly, accept this.
But when poor animals are used to see how good a hair product is, i feel an urge to hurt those doing it.
I feel animal testing is only ok, when it can save lives in big enough numbers to justify the treatment. Otherwise, i'm all against it.
> Strangely, I have no problems whatsoever with animals being used for
> testing, but I can't even face killing a spider without feeling
> twinges of guilt.
>
> I think I'm fine with animal cruelty, so long as I'm not the one
> being cruel...
I'm sorry, but that makes you little better than the ones torturing animals.
I understand that some animals are used to find the cure for cancer and all that, and i, reluctantly, accept this.
But when poor animals are used to see how good a hair product is, i feel an urge to hurt those doing it.
I feel animal testing is only ok, when it can save lives in big enough numbers to justify the treatment. Otherwise, i'm all against it.
I'm reminded of the time when I saw a near neighbour of mine flinging stones at what I thought was our cat.
Now I'm not a violent man, but a rage descended on me like I've never before experienced.
'How dare he' I growled.
I marched towards him - clenching my fists like a battlemage - ready to tear him limb from limb, until I realized it wasn't my cat he was throwing bricks at, it was just an old ornament.
'Morning' I said, turning on a sixpence and retreating fast.
Short-sightedness can get you into trouble.
Now I'm not a violent man, but a rage descended on me like I've never before experienced.
'How dare he' I growled.
I marched towards him - clenching my fists like a battlemage - ready to tear him limb from limb, until I realized it wasn't my cat he was throwing bricks at, it was just an old ornament.
'Morning' I said, turning on a sixpence and retreating fast.
Short-sightedness can get you into trouble.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> these people should be burnt at the stake.
They should. Anybody who abuses should be burnt at the stake!
> these people should be burnt at the stake.
They should. Anybody who abuses should be burnt at the stake!
Just saying.
Before people leap into blind rages about how drowning budgies is the worsty crime in the world and these people should be burnt at the stake.
Before people leap into blind rages about how drowning budgies is the worsty crime in the world and these people should be burnt at the stake.
That's nice.
As for your "What about people who beat and abandon their children?" question. What about it? That's recognised too.
As for your "What about people who beat and abandon their children?" question. What about it? That's recognised too.
Page: