NationStates Jolt Archive

I have to give a speech on Monday on why "Animal experimentation cannot be justified". Unfortunately I don't agree with this position so I'd appreciate any help. I have three minutes to talk, after this time I will have to answer questions from the opposition and from the floor, I will also have the opportunity to pose questions to the opposition.

So far I've got three main points:

-Laudable aims do not justify vile means.
-An experiment can either be useful or morally acceptable, not both (if an animal is similar enough to a human to be used for experimentation then it's similar enough to a human for it to be wrong to experiment on it).
-Darwinian evolution tells us that humans are not qualitatively superior to animals so it is foolish to treat them as such.

I'm planning to concentrate on ethical arguments against animal testing rather that the practical aspects. Any ideas of lines of argument or questions that could be posed to the opposition would be greatly appreciated.

as a jole you could say that lipstick doesnt look good on rabbits

as a jole you could say that lipstick doesnt look good on rabbits

I could, but I think testing cosmetics on animals is already illegal in the UK and I don't want to leave any potential mistakes like that for the opposition to pick at.

Sorry, but without animal experiments I wouldn't be alive today.

I don't agree with any cosmetic experiments.

as a joke you could say that lipstick doesnt look good on rabbits

Not unless you like that sort of thing.

. . .

You know, dressing them up and making them perform plays and bunny ballroom dancing.

I could give you a lengthy metaphysical quasi-buddhist sort of reason for not doing it, if you like. it doesn't lend itself easily to debate, though.

Trilby63;11904472']Not unless you like that sort of thing.

. . .

You know, dressing them up and making them perform plays and bunny ballroom dancing.

Wow, a whole four posts before somebody made a veiled reference to bestiality; that must be a record for NS. :D

as a jole you could say that lipstick doesnt look good on rabbits

except teh playboy bunny-girls!!!:)
oh and Jessica Rabbit!:p :D

I have to give a speech on Monday on why "Animal experimentation cannot be justified". Unfortunately I don't agree with this position so I'd appreciate any help. I have three minutes to talk, after this time I will have to answer questions from the opposition and from the floor, I will also have the opportunity to pose questions to the opposition.

As certain mods like to say, this is NSG not do my homework...

Wow, a whole four posts before somebody made a veiled reference to bestiality; that must be a record for NS. :D

I think you'll find that you are just reading what you want to read, hmm?

Maybe you could focus on the cruelty side of things like vivisection?

I could give you a lengthy metaphysical quasi-buddhist sort of reason for not doing it, if you like. it doesn't lend itself easily to debate, though.

It sounds a bit too complex, but thanks for the offer. :)

I could, but I think testing cosmetics on animals is already illegal in the UK and I don't want to leave any potential mistakes like that for the opposition to pick at.

No, cosmetics testing is still legal in the UK, its just so unpopular as to make it illegal, which is why companies like the body shop proliferate

If you want an argument you could say that testing products and medicines that are intended for humans on animals is a throwback to Galen, the Roman physician who based his woefully inaccurate human phyisiology texts on animal anatomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen

As certain mods like to say, this is NSG not do my homework...

That was in response to a wave of threads on "how do I integrate X^5/7??". NS is a discussion forum and this thread is open for discussion, in fact I'd welcome discussion as it'd give me some idea of which arguments I'll be up against; maths isn't open to discussion which is why it wasn't appropriate for the forum. Think of it as a standard debate thread but with someone taking notes.

Got to go for lunch now. Thanks everyone, I'll be back later.

That was in response to a wave of threads on "how do I integrate X^5/7??". NS is a discussion forum and this thread is open for discussion, in fact I'd welcome discussion as it'd give me some idea of which arguments I'll be up against; maths isn't open to discussion which is why it wasn't appropriate for the forum. Think of it as a standard debate thread but with someone taking notes.

Still homework, Bub. You have to find your own arguments. Simply regurgitating the arguments of others without understanding them isn't the assignment, is it?

That was in response to a wave of threads on "how do I integrate X^5/7??". NS is a discussion forum and this thread is open for discussion, in fact I'd welcome discussion as it'd give me some idea of which arguments I'll be up against; maths isn't open to discussion which is why it wasn't appropriate for the forum. Think of it as a standard debate thread but with someone taking notes.


Not quite. The ruling was in response to several requests, some exactly like yours, that the forumites here, in essense, do someones homework for them. What you've asked for is for us to do your homework for you by coming up with the arguments you are too lazy to think of for yourself.

BTW, the exact ruling is:
Homework: Requests for assistance with homework in any forum, are forbidden.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023

Note the conspicuous absence of qualifiers such as "math homework".

I have to give a speech on Monday on why "Animal experimentation cannot be justified". Unfortunately I don't agree with this position so I'd appreciate any help. I have three minutes to talk, after this time I will have to answer questions from the opposition and from the floor, I will also have the opportunity to pose questions to the opposition.

So far I've got three main points:

-Laudable aims do not justify vile means.
-An experiment can either be useful or morally acceptable, not both (if an animal is similar enough to a human to be used for experimentation then it's similar enough to a human for it to be wrong to experiment on it).
-Darwinian evolution tells us that humans are not qualitatively superior to animals so it is foolish to treat them as such.

I'm planning to concentrate on ethical arguments against animal testing rather that the practical aspects. Any ideas of lines of argument or questions that could be posed to the opposition would be greatly appreciated.

As to point two- the problem is that animals are not that close to humans. Computer simulations are much more accurate, and penicilin kills labratory animals. Also some things poisonous to humans are not poisonous to the animals they use them on.

Look up RD-50 testing on the web- some of the things they use this test for are ridiculous. So are some of the tests they have done (trying to engender psycotic behaviours in baby chimps through abuse was a series of tests someone once actually carried out).

There is a lot more, I would suggest "Animal Liberation" by Peter Singer (your library should have it). He also recently wrote a sort of follow up book, but the name escapes me.
This will get you started.

I could, but I think testing cosmetics on animals is already illegal in the UK and I don't want to leave any potential mistakes like that for the opposition to pick at.

How can they pick at that? It is a useful wedge topic, actually. Find some animal testing that is banned. Then go "Well, if that's not alright, why is xxx alright. It's still painful, so it shouldn't be done. You're just saying the ends justify the means. If we want proper testing, we should use criminals, not animals." Go devil's advocate, and try to get your opponents to argue off topic.

But seriously, I think the way to argue this, is that it really is an argument that the ends justify them means. Everyone knows that torturing animals is wrong, but if we save lives though, it's perfectly O.K. ?What if the research is a dead end, and cure isn't found, so no lives were saved. Is it O.K. then?

I could, but I think testing cosmetics on animals is already illegal in the UK and I don't want to leave any potential mistakes like that for the opposition to pick at.

i would use that. if its illegal ANYWHERE, then there is a reason for it eh? if its immoral to stick a cosmetic into a bunny's eye, how far a reach is it to argue that its equally immoral to poison a bunny or give it some deadly disease?

i dont suppose you want to appeal to emotion but i think the anti-animal testing movement is founded on emotion. is it wrong to empathize with the poor creature who is being tortured for human progress? (my husband hates rabbits because they fight so hard when you handle them in experiments) sure we subscribe to the edict of "humans first" but is it so out of line to think that it can be taken too far? is there NO human issue so minor that its not OK to torture an animal to find the answer? do we not owe it to our animal "brothers" to do whatever it takes to minimize the use of animals in testing? maybe if we tried, we would find that most animal testing could be abandoned.

as a jole you could say that lipstick doesnt look good on rabbits

http://www.robotjohnny.com/archives/images/2005-01/bugs9.jpg

It doesn't?