Marty Jay Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Jordan Sprague packed his bags and left, Ha Ha Back to topic, there's a new advert (well it's not new, just the most recent) for RSPCA and sorry to be rude but it was pathetic, just plain pathetic, the advert is a sad attempt to connect with the boring people who watch Big Brother (a reality TV show) by creating an advert that looks just like a voting screen for who you want to win (or lose) Whoever thought this crap idea deserves to have a banana shoved up their ass yeah i seen that one, and it seriously does take the piss. in the uk animal abuse is taken very seriously, in my town a man was sent to prison for 1 year for shooting dead his neighbors cat. i go hunting regularly for wild animals like rabbits, pheasants ect, i dont have a problem with that because me and my family always eat them, so they havent died for nothing. but someone killing a domestic animal, (that someone owns and loves) just for fun, is sick and pointless. if anyone ever shot my cat or dog, i would make the person who done it suffer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gycu Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Big coincidence ... the same thing happened in my country these days ... they showed on the news some abused animals ( especially horses ) ... We don't have an Animal Police but after this we might have ... nah! I doubt it ... Kinda offtopic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry Gorilla Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Here to compare: Normal RSPCA Advert 'Big Brother' RSPCA Advert, I heard Simon Cowell might have been a part of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toaletino Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 WTF were they thinking when they were doing that commercial?! About Spiderman 3 or something?! Yeah, but back to the topic... A few years ago it was in the newspaper, how some guy beat his dog to the death with a shovel. I still remember it. If I´m not wrong the owner said he killed his dog because he was going on his nerves. Barking at night and peeing around the house. The veterinarians who examined the dogs dead body said that the dog has been suffering in agony for around 40 minutes before he died. That´s just terrible. And whats more the guy who did it has only been obligated to pay around 3000kn ($600) as a punishment for killing his dog. I mean, if the dog was getting on his nerves, why didn´t he just put him for adoption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz The Great Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Yeah, but animals aren't in the posistion to do anything like that.Without tests on animals you wouldn't even be able to use your cell phone. A. I've never heard of cell phone technology being tested on animals... So how that's relevant is beyond me. B. Why test on non-consenting animals for technology to be used for HUMANS when we can test it on the HUMANS. Seriously... Testing on animals for use on humans? Doesn't even make sense in theory. That's like giving a dog a treat to see if he likes it so you know what treat to buy your cat. No sense. Beyond that, you can ASK a human if it wants to be tested on because we can communicate with each other, we can't communicate with them. So I assume since animals don't walk around and throw money at people for stupid luxuries they don't need, that means they are lesser creatures than us? Anyone in this mindset needs to piss off. Because you're no longer worthy of that "superior" species you put yourself in so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 A. I've never heard of cell phone technology being tested on animals... So how that's relevant is beyond me. To see if it was save to go into space they had to first send a dog and a chimp. If they hadn't done that they might not have tried going into space themselves. Meaning far less satelites. We test on animals to know if it would be safe for us. Nothing about preferences. I'm not supporting testing on animals for make-up and stuff. But for things like antidotes and medicens. For something actually use-full. I don't see that as 'miss-using' our capabilities. It's using them for the good, to help mankind. At least, that's how I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeL Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) they also test products like shampoo and cleaning stuff on animals eyes so thats why you usually see WARNING dont put in eyes label. And i agree with you spaz just because they cant talk doesnt mean we can just test these thing on them for us. Edited October 4, 2007 by MeL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Rofl. I laughed. That actually is really stupid. Agreed. My point is that it's ok for medicens and stuff, kk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanoutlaw Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Uh, it's oven cleaner. If you're dumb enough to (intentionally) put it in your eyes, you kinda deserve what you get. If they need to test that badly, use unclaimed cadavers. This should be a fair indicator. As for shampoo & such, there's no reason a convicted serial killer on death row can't volunteer (of their own free will) to see what discomfort will come from soap in your eyes. Small price compared to their victims. In my area, there are several labs dedicated to volunteer human testing of pharmaceuticals. The big difference is they have to compensate their volunteers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz The Great Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 A. I've never heard of cell phone technology being tested on animals... So how that's relevant is beyond me. To see if it was save to go into space they had to first send a dog and a chimp. If they hadn't done that they might not have tried going into space themselves. Meaning far less satelites. We test on animals to know if it would be safe for us. Nothing about preferences. I'm not supporting testing on animals for make-up and stuff. But for things like antidotes and medicens. For something actually use-full. I don't see that as 'miss-using' our capabilities. It's using them for the good, to help mankind. At least, that's how I see it. Yeah, we're being pathetic pansy egotist creatures. We use THEM to see if it's safe for US? My point still stands, what is safe for them isn't always safe for us, and what is NOT safe for them isn't always unsafe for us. Why should THEY take a hit for us? What have we ever done for them except destroy their home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeL Posted October 4, 2007 Author Share Posted October 4, 2007 (edited) It just shows how selfish (some) humans are. Wow i never knew there had labs like that for volenteers do you know if they get many? and if not they should really use crimanals because i mean animals never harmed the earth or anyone but crimanals have and they deserve to be tested on. Edited October 4, 2007 by MeL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanoutlaw Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 I remember a story (late '80s or early '90s) about one state in the US having to change the chemicals used for lethal injection. It caused cancer in lab rats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 The reaction of creatures to certain chemicals is mainly the same as the reaction a human would have. We're not all that different from the biologic aspect. You're right about them not deserving it, and if there was another method I'm sure they'd do that. But they'll always prefer testing on animals then on humans. Meh, I'm confusing myself here and don't know what I want now.... :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz The Great Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 There is another method. HUMANS. It's the more LOGICAL method, it's the more HUMANE method, it's win-win all the way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 I don't think many humans would ever vollentere.. People on Death row should be tested on though. They've got no more say on what's going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz The Great Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 A lot of people volunteer for testing. And just because humans are too full of themselves to offer themselves doesn't mean we need to take it upon ourselves to force animals to be tested on. Hey, why not force humans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Because that's against the law.. It can inflict damage to them, and for animals there aren't any real laws.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaz The Great Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Um, it inflicts damage on the animals, too. So you have absolutely no point right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silberio Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 And thats pretty much a discrimination, as they are worth as much as we, as Spaz said before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandora Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 But then there is no law for animals, so they can get tested on. The only option for people making these medicens is testing it in on animals. And about us being worth as much.. I think different and won't change my mind about that. As you probably know I am a Christian and the bible clearly states that we're different. That's just my way of looking at things, not saying I'm right or anything, but I do think we're in a totally different posistion then animals. I'm not saying it's justified. But I'd rather have something tested on an animal then me buying the product and ending up with cancer. Yes, that's selfish. But if you'd have the choice to us a certain chemical that might actually inflict chronic damage to you or have it first tested on an animal and be certain it's not going to give you something awefull like cancer I think you'd rather be sure of the product. At least, most would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silberio Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 (edited) I think we're exactly in the same position as them, we're all animals after all... But yeah, it's a matter of opinion after all ... No offence ... But I hate your opinion And I'd rather get Cancer, than letting some morons test weird thing on animals, because they suffer too ... And sometimes, things dont go well, and an Animal dies ... Edited October 5, 2007 by Kapitan Kreshenkov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanoutlaw Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 I don't think many humans would ever vollentere.. You'd be surprised. One local lab used to run a study that payed $5000 for one day. They were testing drugs & equipment to re-start the human heart. One of my room mates was an alternate on that one. There is a large market for volunteers who make their main income from doing several studies a year. The heart re-start study was concluded years ago, now most of them pay $1800-2400 for 3-6 weeks, most allowing weekend stays & several check-ins for blood draws during the week. They also have done smoking studies here ($500-800 avg.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLlamaLlama Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Jace, let me ask you this. Would any kind of christian allow animals to have crap poked in their eyes, much to their discomfort, sometimes resulting in permanent or lasting damage to the animal's normal survival? Hell, sometimes they even die... or is it all part of god's great plan for his creatures (apart from humans, we are t3h l33t) to suffer such pain? Somehow, i don't think so... However, me being the atheist that I am have no right to judge what you may believe. I second (maybe third) the motion that all people placed on death row (law should be emplaced for anyone who murders, and life sentences given to some cases of manslaughter.) be tested on in such a way. They have failed to prove that they're worth more than the shit off the bottom of my shoe, by ending the life of a fellow human being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbanoutlaw Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Silly LLamaLlamma, Baby raping murderers have rights, to things like pop-tarts & cable TV! What WERE you thinking. Seriously though, I would support a plan to allow death row inmates to earn a life sentence by participating in medical studies. Yes, they would spend the rest of their lives as human lab rats, but they would have a life. Charles Manson could be a useful member of society. You can stop laughing now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silberio Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 In the ancient Rome (I think) they used criminals to study the human Anatomy, as with a dead body, the smell would be .... Ugh, you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now