Welcome to Gaia! ::

why do you think its alright to test cosmetics on animals if you see no point in it?

Also about medical purposes, Doesn't Aspirin(sp?) kill cats and is perfectly fine for us? So its possible and has happened that drugs used on animals and found to work can possibly kill or damage us. Thats why I am probably leaning more against that.

About the psychological experiments... how can it help with a lot of things?

1) Of course it is. Without these tests many people would be suffering worldwide and even dying. It's a shame a few animals die in the process, but their sacrifice is saving millions of lives in the process. Also, your aspiring-cat example is a wretched argument. You don't test on animals that are too dissimilar from humans or else the results don't mean anything, making it a waste of the animal's life, medical resources, time, and money. Also, many animal tests aren't performed when they're NOT alive, like the majority of tests on pigs (These pigs were bought from butchers).

2) Of course. However I take great offense that you imply these tests are simply torture tests done merely out of curiosity. The lobotomy tests aren't done for kicks, they're done to induce a sample state. For example, if someone's wounded in that part of the brain, how do we treat them? To find out, you damage the similar part of the brain in a chimp and the try to treat the chimp. Sleep deprivation tests are done to find out how to help people with a variety of neurological disorders such as narcolepsy, epilepsy, and Alzheimer's to name a few. They are necessary since we know that 4 days without sleep causes temporary psychosis, 1 week = brain damage, and 3 weeks = death in a human being. If a neurological disorder is going to induce sleep damage-like symptoms, we want to know how to combat them.

Not to mention the benefits of helping those with Down's (sp?) syndrome, psychosis, and mental handicaps.

Lastly, your example of observing their social behaviour isn't done in any harmful way. It's conducted by merely watching them as they go about their everyday life, sometimes even in their natural habitat (Jane Goodall). Sometimes the purpose is to compare the animal's behaviour system to our own, sometimes just to learn when the animal's are like.

3) Define cosmetic purposes. If you mean for reconstructive surgery, etc, then personally I say yes, especially since 9/10 times no harm comes to the animal. If you mean studying the effects of lipsticks, etc, I see no purpose in checking to see if lead-based mascaras still kill people. If people are that desperate for innovative rouges and perfumes, something that doesn't help people at all in any way, they can skip straight to the human test subjects.

Again, you're exceptionally overgeneralizing. We don't grab RANDOM animals and then generalize, we use animals that show similarities for the test. As for rats, they often show the same behavioral patterns as humans. Now add the fact that they're in huge supply, so it makes it possible to test a valid sample size.

I still have no idea why you keep refering to cats and dogs... sweatdrop

She lay down on the grass,
Looking up at the sky,
thinking, it’s all she can do.
If she disappeared she would not be missed.
She will be gone just like everyone else.

Getting up from the grass,
she walks on the sand,
looking outward towards the sea.
She walks into the water high up above her knees.

~~~♥~~~♥ Narc Lit ♥~~~♥~~~

I know that there are several tests done on animals such as Pavlov's conditioning, which was cruel [this involved operating on the dog, and dissecting them detaching some things here and there, I don't know the full detail. He did this it to test it's digestive organs and the response to the stimuli]. But one thing you need to realize is that a majority of these psychological tests on animals were done in the past and are now considered unethical. I agree that now, if psychological tests are practiced on animals, they have to be within bounds, and made so that the animal is not harmed or tortured in any way.

As I stated in my earlier post, whether you read it or not, humans are animals too. So are you saying tests should not be done at all? Because we are all living and breathing. Is it more humane to tests on humans than other animals, and vice versa?

Is it right to let people die because tests on living breathing creatures are not allowed? If you're against tests on animals you should be against tests on every breathing living creature, because if you're not then you're just being a hypocrite.

You don't mention anything about the tests they did on humans. Such as the Stanford Prison study [A quick clip about it.], Milgram's Experiment [although in this one humans were not shocked for real, but some people were to believe that they were.], Human Lobotomy. People knew that a human's brain was different, and they did some tests on humans too. Perhaps there were several tests mentioned that didn't involve physically harming humans such as dissecting them, but some did.

In the end, these tests were useful. I think it is cruel to perform these experiments on any animal, whether it be human or other, I believe they have been helpful in the past and am not 100% against them. I am for these tests as long as they are moderated, volunteered for, and ethical [and people should be informed of the experiment either in the beginning or the end].

~~~♥~~~♥ Narc Lit ♥~~~♥~~~

The waves softly hit her legs.
She looks at the sunset and its yellow-red hues
she walks into the sea, farther and farther,
opening her arms towards the wave.
The water is high up to her hips.
The wave comes towards her.
She looks at the wave with her arms stretched out;
the water starts to rage, the wave hits her body hard.
Then the water calms down. The water recedes,
then darkness falls, and all goes dark.
The sun goes down and the day is done.