Oh don't get me wrong
I enjoy a steak sandwich as much as the next person

I also SPECTACULARLY benefit from certain drugs which keep me alive.

Howeveve the TOTAL disregard that she was showing for ANY suffering on behalf of the pooch was, shall I say, surprising...
( ogwen69 has returned from Reddit, Fri 26 Aug 2011, 10:52, 3 replies)

If she'd been upset by the animals' suffering,
she'd have probably been in the wrong job.
( monster munch person, man, woman... camera... TV?, Fri 26 Aug 2011, 11:05, closed)

That is the most selfrighteous justification ever
She probably sat next to you for the rest of the journey thinking 'what a twat.' Animal testing is medically necessary, why on earth would you expect her to be in tears over it?
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Fri 26 Aug 2011, 13:47, closed)

It is not medically necessary
It is one way we choose to test these things, and while you could argue a medical necessity, a scientific necessity is a completely different matter

And i'm not picking on HLS, just that's where she worked.

(it was actually quite an interesting conversation to be fair)
( ogwen69 has returned from Reddit, Fri 26 Aug 2011, 14:19, closed)

That opening sentence is utterly incoherent.

( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Fri 26 Aug 2011, 14:21, closed)

if it was up to me (which is should be)
i would give people who think it is unnecessary the choice: it's either you or the dog. see how against animal testing they are then
(Clashrock is being stalked by his brother on, Fri 26 Aug 2011, 14:27, closed)

yes it is
It's medically necessary. It's legally necessary. It displays an astounding lack of knowledge of the subject to suggest otherwise.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Fri 26 Aug 2011, 17:21, closed)

Legally?
Pray explain LEGALLY necessary?

Edit: and if you mean that we have a law that says stuff should be tested on animals first, then that is because that is a choice that we as society have made. Not a neessity in my eyes.
( ogwen69 has returned from Reddit, Sat 27 Aug 2011, 8:22, closed)

Because
if you administer new types of drugs to people without having any idea of their safety, and someone dies, you're guilty of criminal negligence or even manslaughter?

You rely on her disconnectedness from that dog's suffering for your modern medicines. Stop taking medicines that were ever tested on animals, or stfu.
( greedyostrich Cheese is evil! Cheddar is VOODOO!, Sun 28 Aug 2011, 19:50, closed)

So...
not legally Necesary then, just one option that we choose.
( ogwen69 has returned from Reddit, Mon 29 Aug 2011, 18:31, closed)

No
It is a legal requirement to test all drugs for human consumption on animals.

Pregnant animals, in fact, to avoid a repeat of the thalidomide disaster that so many anti-testers try to use as an example of why animal testing isn't needed when in fact it proves quite the opposite. It wasn't the animal testing that failed, it was the fact that the right tests weren't carried out.

edit: And if you are going to use your argument that a legal requirement is a choice we make then I am going to call bullshit on your argument and stop engaging with you because you are clearly a moron.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Tue 30 Aug 2011, 12:03, closed)

Well let's all have a moment's silence for the poor dead dog























*cough*



























*mutter*

*ssshhh*



























that long enough?
( emvee cruor deo cruoris, Fri 26 Aug 2011, 15:19, closed)

Fucking hell,
You coughed. We meed to start again...
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Fri 26 Aug 2011, 15:25, closed)