Talk:Animal testing

	This Science related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Topics

While I'm not strictly pro PETA or anything like that, I think that this page should be a little less biased, it reads as if someone has written it as if they are trying to humiliate animal rights groups and their opinions, and I think that the page should mention the alternatives to animal testing and the split opinion about vivisection between doctors throughout the western world. There are sources listed on the pages for both of these articles: http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_6_NON-ANIMAL-TECHNOLOGY-the-future-is-amazing-and-animal-free http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/index.php?p=1_8_All-you-need-to-know-in-33-facts 86.31.86.40 (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sounds to me like you are a PETA person. --Naca (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

This page is incredibly biased, so much to the point I'm surprised nobody has actually done anything about it. I tried to edit this page to make it less so, and my change was revoked. Isn't this site supposed to be "rational"? Thus, presenting only the more conservative side of the issue seems counter-productive. ^{— Unsigned, by: RockyRob97 / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.

You mean, your blanking of sourced scientific claims and insertion of a bunch of animal liberation woo? Also, "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, the blanking was not justified. But dismissing everything else I added as "a bunch of animal liberation woo", once again presents a much biased analysis of the issue. The points I made were to show why activists have strong opposition against the practice. Again presenting the conservative side of the issue only seems counter-productive to the purpose of this site. RockyRob97 (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"Conservative side"? Also, I can agree that the animal rights activist talking points warrant inclusion and analysis in the article, no doubt. Highly missional people and viewpoints. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The conservatives call us SJWs, the liberals call us conservatives, we can't win. Commie Lib (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Serious Question

Can somebody tell me why the Nazi experiments on the Jews were wrong? Were they wrong (A) because the Jews were harmed, (B) because they were human or (C) because the research proved no "significant medical benefits"?

I need to know this because this site (and pretty much every group out there defending vivisection) seems to overemphasise that the suffering inflicted on research animals is totally justifiable because of the "significant medical breakthroughs" it has resulted in. A kind of "The ends justify the means". After all, the animals should be grateful, "it even helps them by advancing veterinary science!"

So, if the Nazi experiments on Jews had resulted in cures for countless diseases and significantly increased medical knowledge for all humans, including Jews, would they have been ethically justified?

If not, can someone explain to me why it is OK to harm animals for the greater good, but not humans? Peter Singer posed this question in his book "Animal Liberation" in 1975. In the last 42 years, a convincing answer hasn't come. Do RWians finally have the answer? RockyRob97 (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The experiments were involuntary and most often resulted in death. The experiments had a lot of people killed with no real and overall benefit.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 21:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Animal experiments are involuntary and most often result in death. So I assume that the only difference is that "The Jews were human tho!". This doesn't address the why sacrificing humans is wrong but not nonhuman animals. Also, this doesn't answer the question of if there was "real and overall benefits" from experiments on Jews - would it have been justified? RockyRob97 (talk) 12:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

You might just as well ask "Why do we eat other animals but not humans?" The simple truth is that we treat humans as a special moral class. You can argue this is wrong - but it's how society works.--Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 17:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I like how RockyRob97 only responded to one of the two points I made.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 18:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that "we treat humans as a special moral class", I was asking for the logical reasoning behind this speciesism. A defensible rationale has yet to come, and I doubt that it ever will.

As far as I could tell, the two points you made were (1) "The experiments were involuntary and most often resulted in death" and (2) "The experiments had a lot of people killed with no real and overall benefit". I responded to (1) when I said "Animal experiments are involuntary and most often result in death" in which I was making the point that the exact same is true for animal testing. I responded to (2) when I asked "if there was "real and overall benefits" from experiments on Jews - would it have been justified?".

If your response to my response to (2) is "Yes" then we are fine (yay for consistency!), if your response to my response to (2) is "No" (and I assume it will be) then the other point I brought up in my response is relevant where I said "This doesn't address the why sacrificing humans is wrong but not nonhuman animals".

Sorry, I can't see the point I didn't address? RockyRob97 (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Well the answer for (2) would be yes. If nazis discovered medical breakthroughs for each experiment to help humanity for years to come, that would be fantastic. But clearly, this is not the case.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 19:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's be hypothetical, what if Nazi experiments DID contribute to medical breakthroughs? What then? Also, I don't see a good defensible rationale for OR against animal testing, that's my opinion. I'll just have to accept that some species we should treat better than others and our own diet favors us killing other animals. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

A Detailed Devil's Advocate

I've written an extensive essay about opposition to animal testing here, if anyone is interested in a wildly different perspective than what this article gives. I would try to incorporate some of this into the article, but no doubt it would be blanked because this site is a joke. I feel safer doing it in essay form. RockyRob97 (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone really surprised?

"That being said however, the standing regulations intended to legally ensure the well-being of test animals may come across as surprisingly condensed." Is anyone really surprised an industry built on abusing and killing animals doesn't protect them? RockyRob97 (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)