Overheard secrets
When I was a barman, I stood by polishing a glass as a couple had a hushed argument two feet away about what they were going to do now she was pregnant. The bloke promised to leave his wife, but subsequent hushed arguments revealed that he did not. What have you overheard?
Suggested by Free Pens
( , Thu 25 Aug 2011, 13:36)
When I was a barman, I stood by polishing a glass as a couple had a hushed argument two feet away about what they were going to do now she was pregnant. The bloke promised to leave his wife, but subsequent hushed arguments revealed that he did not. What have you overheard?
Suggested by Free Pens
( , Thu 25 Aug 2011, 13:36)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
yes it is
It's medically necessary. It's legally necessary. It displays an astounding lack of knowledge of the subject to suggest otherwise.
( , Fri 26 Aug 2011, 17:21, 1 reply)
It's medically necessary. It's legally necessary. It displays an astounding lack of knowledge of the subject to suggest otherwise.
( , Fri 26 Aug 2011, 17:21, 1 reply)
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.
( , Sat 27 Aug 2011, 8:22, closed)
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.
( , 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.
( , Sun 28 Aug 2011, 19:50, closed)
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.
( , Sun 28 Aug 2011, 19:50, closed)
So...
not legally Necesary then, just one option that we choose.
( , Mon 29 Aug 2011, 18:31, closed)
not legally Necesary then, just one option that we choose.
( , 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.
( , Tue 30 Aug 2011, 12:03, closed)
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.
( , Tue 30 Aug 2011, 12:03, closed)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread