Animal rights activists who were protesting against animal testing at Oxford University were met by twice their numbers of people, protesting against them and their tactics of intimidation.... after all these extremists go to some lengths to get their own way.... intimidation, destruction of property, threats of death and violence to name a few..... bit like terrorism in its extremist form.

I happen to agree with animal testing.... so many people would not be around today without it.... it is not meant to be cruel or a sport.... it is valid research.... and many of the people on campus were afraid these extremists would target them going about their daily lives.... good on em I say.... stand up to these idiots.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5648328,00.html

before you go banging on about how wonderful animal testing is have you seen what these sick individuals get up to in the name of science

<innapropriate links removed>

Animal rights activists who were protesting against animal testing at Oxford University were met by twice their numbers of people, protesting against them and their tactics of intimidation.... after all these extremists go to some lengths to get their own way.... intimidation, destruction of property, threats of death and violence to name a few..... bit like terrorism in its extremist form.

I happen to agree with animal testing.... so many people would not be around today without it.... it is not meant to be cruel or a sport.... it is valid research.... and many of the people on campus were afraid these extremists would target them going about their daily lives.... good on em I say.... stand up to these idiots.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5648328,00.html
Spot on Jake! I was thinking about posting on this sybject myself...I completely agree with you. Craigmason, I find it sad but not surprising that a racist describes some of our finest Doctors and scientists as "sick individuals" for their work which aims to improve ALL our lives.
I'm all for being kind to animals, but there are some procedures and tests that need to be done for the benefit of humankind, and if animals are used, so be it.
I wouldn't hesitate to support the right of the "antis" to make legitimate, peaceful protest - but some of these people engage in disgraceful tactics that, as Jake points out, verge on terrorism. Exhuming the remains of an elderly lady whose family were involved in animal testing? Firebombing cars? Abuse,intimidation? People who indulge in these activities should feel the full weight of the law.

people engage in disgraceful tactics that, as Jake points out, verge on terrorism. Exhuming the remains of an elderly lady whose family were involved in animal testing? Firebombing cars? Abuse,intimidation? People who indulge in these activities should feel the full weight of the law. -

I to dont agree with the tactics used by the extremists as they do the cause no help at all but there are modern ways of testing WITHOUT using animals

I find the Pro-Test position of being for all animal testing just as extreme and blinkered as the more readily established groups being against all animal testing.

Here's an excerpt from Dr Russell Newcombe: it's humorous in its intent, but his feelings are clear.

Because of professed concern about the possible negative effects of cannabis users, pure THC is often mixed with alcohol and injected in very high doses into lesser creatures - such as rats, dogs and students, who have similar physiological systems to humans (such as pain receptor cells and central nervous systems). These scientific experiments involve careful manipulation and control of such variables as THC dose, electric shock levels, and number of days which pass before the subjects are terminated for analysis by total ******** in white coats who satisfy their sadistic cravings to torture flesh by getting research jobs where they are paid to murder their fellow creatures in the name of the great god Science. These inhuman scumbags are beneath contempt, and history will one day look back and condemn them for the sick psychopaths they are.... although it must be added that the findings generated to date are somewhat conflicting and inconclusive. [emphasis his]

Animal testing is not always required.

Every year in britain alone millions of animals suffer and die in laboratory experiments. They are burnt, scalded, poisoned and starved, given electric shocks and addicted to drugs, they are subjected to near freezing temperatures, reared in total darkness from birth and deliberately inflicted with diseases like arthritis, cancer, diabetes, oral infections, stomach ulcers, syphilis, herpes and aids. Their eyes are surgically removed, their brains damaged and their bones broken.

THE CRUEL DECEPTION, The use of animals in medical research, Dr Robert sharpe.

This book opens up some important issues which ought to be widely disussed if ever we are to clarify our thoughts on this issue.


Worth a read.

Every year in britain alone millions of animals suffer and die in laboratory experiments. They are burnt, scalded, poisoned and starved, given electric shocks and addicted to drugs, they are subjected to near freezing temperatures, reared in total darkness from birth and deliberately inflicted with diseases like arthritis, cancer, diabetes, oral infections, stomach ulcers, syphilis, herpes and aids. Their eyes are surgically removed, their brains damaged and their bones broken.

THE CRUEL DECEPTION, The use of animals in medical research, Dr Robert sharpe.

This book opens up some important issues which ought to be widely disussed if ever we are to clarify our thoughts on this issue.


Worth a read.

:clap: well said

I find it very difficult to get upset by the thought of animal testing, and generally accept that it is worthwhile, but what does anger me is the stupidity of people who get all upset about furry cute creatures being used in the advancement of medicine while they wouldn't think twice about calling for the council vermin control for a rat under the floorboards, while they swat flies and use slug pellets in their gardens.

Up until 6 or 7 years ago I used to regularly visit some of these infamous research companies as I used to maintain data systems on some old analytical equipment. Far from being like a crazy zoo with screaming primates in every room, they are huge sites with hundreds of labs full of ancient equipment and a small number of people with white coats and wearing safety glasses. Setting up experiments on test tubes which are left for hours or even days as a computer automatically measures something at regular intervals as it goes through 100 test tubes in a magazine on a robot arm. I have no idea what percentage of their work includes experimentation of live animals, but from what I have seen it must be something less than 1%, because in 10 years of visiting such places I never saw or heard a single squark or saw a single hair. Although in one of my sites in central london I once saw a disgarded multiple bird cage, which looked like it was from years before.
Most of the experiments going on in the labs I visited were things like checking for drugs in urine samples, testing for chemicals in water, testing paint pigments, chemicals for use in perfumes, experiments on strains of virus. And other things which were far too complicated for them to explain to me. Indeed my eyes used to glaze over sometimes when one of these chemists explained their work to me.

In the instances where it is necessary to carry out tests on a living animal, I feel it is important to test on animals, despite them being fellow creatures, and just because they're not as intelligent as us, doesn't mean they don't have pain receptors, and indeed feelings, I feel that the only way to get around it would be to test on animals, not humans!

However, there are too many things going on disguised as 'scientific research' that are totally unnecessary. The pain some animals go through is ridiculous, unbelievable and cruel. the scientists don't stop at the required tests, they often go far too far, and why, when an animal is being tested for makeup (personally I feel it is wrong) need they be starved??

If you are going to keep an animal for research, at least make it as comfortable as possible in the mean time.

I'm afraid in necessary cases I feel animal testing is necessary, but not good - the lesser of two evil you could say, but in other cases, it is simply cruel and profit making.

Most of the people who think animal testing is ok won't ever go up to stalls like PETA and Viva etc and read leaflets because "it upsets me" or "yeah i know what goes on, I don't need those sick images in my face" The fact that it does repulse you is the important thing! Those repugnant images are there to shock, horrify and make you think twice about what you stick on your face, in your gob or washing machine.

And the fact that manufacturers are not open about what they do so people can make their own mind up.


I would not have my rubella jab (I'm vegetarian) as it contains something to do with rabbits. I also knew I'd had German measles as a child so i knew that there was absolutely no need to have it anyway. When i became a teacher, my doctor checked back through my notes, saw I'd not had it and advised me to have the jab as I'd be around many pregnant women. I told him to test me for immunity instead and he got all shirty about it saying this was more hassle than giving me a jab. When i told him my ethical reasons for not having it, he tried giving me the humanitarian half nelson telling me I'd be putting people/children at risk. Eventually i got my own way, he tested me and i was right! He also hates me asking for tablets that are not in gelatine etc when I do succumb to taking tablets.


I think if people are made more aware of what goes off/what is in products then it is up to you to make your moral decision about what you believe in but the ostrich approach is not a choice in my eyes.

Most of the people who think animal testing is ok won't ever go up to stalls like PETA and Viva etc and read leaflets because "it upsets me" or "yeah i know what goes on, I don't need those sick images in my face" The fact that it does repulse you is the important thing! Those repugnant images are there to shock, horrify and make you think twice about what you stick on your face, in your gob or washing machine..

The reason I don't go to these stalls is because I am not bothered. The images don't repusle, shock or horrify me. I have things that do concern me and which I would rather do with my time. I am sure that some of these pictures are staged, or not relevent to accepted practice in the last 20 years. I find people who are overemotional about subjects like this tedius, and often quite biased in their views, having taken in information, without question, from outspoken propoganda no matter how outrageous it appears to be.

I am not a vegitarian, but I often eat vegitarian food because it can be tastier and often cheaper than food with meat. I feel that the human body is designed to be omnivorous, and thus I eat a varied diet to keep healthy. I don't however eat all that much meat compared to some people. I find the smell of fried bacon nausiating.

My goodness, I can understand people who choose not to eat veal or foie gras, but not taking tablets because of gelatin? No wonder your GP was frustrated, I’m surprised he didn’t throw you out of the surgery.
I love my pets. I’ve had many cats and dogs over the years, a few ferrets, and even a guinea pig a long time ago. I love my dogs to bits and they’re very well cared for on a healthy diet with loads of exercise, but I have to be realistic. Rabbits are quite cute but they do taste good, and the wild ones on my golf course taste far better than supermarket stuff, especially if they’re skinned and straight into the pot before they cool down – the dogs agree I think, and help me flush them out. The same goes for deer, and a variety of animals I’ve shot in North America and Africa.

Why do I say this? Because there’s a natural order, we’ve been top of the food chain for many thousands of years and we survive through exploitation of other species. I’m happy to exploit cows because I think their buttocks taste good. Are lions bad for eating gazelles?

Our survival and development is dependant on developing medicines and treatments as well as finding food, and we’re lucky to have a few species to hand that come in useful.

This quote is lunacy:
“total ******** in white coats who satisfy their sadistic cravings to torture flesh by getting research jobs where they are paid to murder their fellow creatures in the name of the great god Science. These inhuman scumbags are beneath contempt, and history will one day look back and condemn them for the sick psychopaths they are....”

An old friend of mine used to be involved with pharmaceutical research. He’d probably admit to becoming hardened to the use of the animals and not really noticing that they were there at all, but taking the jobs on for sadistic reason? Did he spend 4 years on a degree just so that he could drop things into rabbits’ eyes? It would have been a lot easier to nip to the local pet shop and buy a sack of puppies. He, and other researchers, are driven by the need to advance medicine.

Would the bleeding heart types deny their own children life saving medicine if it had been developed with the help of a few rabbits, or even the odd monkey?

Would the bleeding heart types deny their own children life saving medicine if it had been developed with the help of a few rabbits, or even the odd monkey?

Or even a trip to the vets for your dog or cat's booster jabs, which themselves are the product of many years of research on animals, to help your pets to live a long and healthy life.

Animal Testing is unnecessary! For instance, what good is a GCSE in Maths to a Gerbil?

The reason I don't go to these stalls is because I am not bothered. The images don't repusle, shock or horrify me. I have things that do concern me and which I would rather do with my time. I am sure that some of these pictures are staged, or not relevent to accepted practice in the last 20 years. I find people who are overemotional about subjects like this tedius, and often quite biased in their views, having taken in information, without question, from outspoken propoganda no matter how outrageous it appears to be.

Muddy coffee we obviously have very different views on this matter and I'm not going to be drawn into an argument and I'm glad you too, have principles and passions that you feel compelled to fight for whatever they might be.

However how can you say "you are sure" if you don't look? I don't take in information without question. It took me a year of hard research when i was a child, abeit now 22 years ago, to decide to become a vegetarian and decide what my principles on the matter would be. Through the work that i did after school, I kept up to date with modern research into animal testing and yes I've marched and campaigned for my beliefs (peacefully I must add - I don't agree with anyone getting hurt) I'm not the perfect vegetarian, as i said before I take tablets like anyone else, but i always try to make the right and INFORMED choices.
And to Bartfarst, there are lots of tablets that don't have gelatine coatings which are preferable to a vegetarian. I don't eat gelatinous foods so why would i take tablets with this as a coating? I'm either a vegetarian or i'm not.
Otherwise what's the point in me saying i am? If there was something you were allergic to, I'm sure you'd ask your doctor if it contained this ingredient.
And whilst allergies are different, I don't want to eat dead animals bones thanks.

I listened to a rather frightening interview on the radio yesterday. The young lady being interviewed was a 16 year old animal rights activist. She said that if she had to go into a burning building, and choose whether to save an animal or human, it would always be the animal. It would appear that our overly liberal attitudes these days are a fertile breeding ground for extremists of the worst kind.

That's exactly the attitude they seem to have... based on pure thoughtless sentimentality for fluffy beasties, portraying scientists as satanic entities lusting after the blood of poor little bunny rabbits and not only that but carrying out some truly evil acts while claiming some sort of ethical higher ground...

The truth is, there is no replacement for animal studies - a lot of attempts have gone into developing them, but there isn't anything to do the same job. It's more expensive to maintain cages full of bunny rabbits than to have synthetic skin samples or whatever, if there was an alternative it'd be used.

The truth is, there is no replacement for animal studies -

I disagree. Why don't all the animal rights activists put themselves forward to be experimented upon? Oh, sorry, that would still be animal studies.................

I completely disagree with animal testing of cosmetics and other 'luxury' products, but see biomedical studies as essential. Yes, where there is an alternative model to an animal it should be used, but sometimes there isn't.

Those 'stalls' contain nothing more than propaganda. The pictures are the worst they could possibly find, many of which were actually taken decades ago, in an attempt to pull people's heartstrings. Realistically, without any animal testing, a good number of us here on the forum would not be alive today.

I listened to a rather frightening interview on the radio yesterday. The young lady being interviewed was a 16 year old animal rights activist. She said that if she had to go into a burning building, and choose whether to save an animal or human, it would always be the animal. It would appear that our overly liberal attitudes these days are a fertile breeding ground for extremists of the worst kind.

I don't see why that's such an unacceptable view. Honestly. All 16 year olds are like that. Why does that make her an extremist of the worst kind? Surely the worst kind is that kind that commits mass genocide?

Edit: I'm not against testing on animals for medicines. Cosmetics, yes.

I happen to agree with animal testing.... so many people would not be around today without it.... it is not meant to be cruel or a sport.... it is valid research....

All animal testing is valid?

Or just some?

If it is some - then surely animals are needlessly suffering?

I completely disagree with animal testing of cosmetics and other 'luxury' products

This is certainly one area of testing that could be done on human guinea pigs providing they don't go running to their lawyers because they have developed a nasty rash. A few years ago, I had a lengthy discussion, very cordial, I hasten to add, with an animal rights activist. He was pushing the same old, same old, only buy products not tested on animals. When I questioned him further, he had to admit that although the individual products carrying this claim, IE combination of ingredients, hadn't been tested on animals, all the individual ingredients contained within that product had been as decreed by law. Rather disingenuous of him, and others who bang the same drum. I'm not sure if the law is the same today though.

I don't see why that's such an unacceptable view. Honestly. All 16 year olds are like that. Why does that make her an extremist of the worst kind? Surely the worst kind is that kind that commits mass genocide?

Edit: I'm not against testing on animals for medicines. Cosmetics, yes.

I didn't say it made HER an extremist of the worst kind. As you rightly say, there are far worse. I agree that a lot of 16 year olds are like overly idealistic though.

i believe theres better ways to test drugs and cosmetics these days tbh
but its like everything these days.........stick to what your used to, keep the costs down,use the traditional methods.
theres plenty of ways to test things synthetically and using computers these days........more than say 10 years ago.

dont forget annimals are are actually physically and metabollically different to humans.
they only do a certain test on a certain annimal because of a single trait.......ie rats cant throw up, rabbits cant blink (i think ive got that right, been a long time since i last studied animal rights in some sort of depth)

Most animal rights activists are aware that testing of the basic ingredients used in cosmetics has been done on animals. However, what they are campaigning for is that no further testing of products which contain ingredients ALREADY tested should be undertaken. If that could be stopped it would prevent the needless suffering of hundreds of thousands of animals world-wide.

Oh I see.

I think people are a bit misguided if they think animal testing is the worst thing that happens to animals in this country. Surely the meat production industry is worse.

They want to go and protest in China...oh wait, no, they don't...

Oh I see.

I think people are a bit misguided if they think animal testing is the worst thing that happens to animals in this country. Surely the meat production industry is worse.

They want to go and protest in China...oh wait, no, they don't...

normally they protest against the meat industry aswell, also fox hunting (well only slightly now), other blood sports

normally they protest against the meat industry aswell, also fox hunting (well only slightly now), other blood sports

Oh right. Guess it's just not as high-profile as the anti-fur and anti-testing campaigns.

when i used to do a bit of demoing back in the late 80s/early 90s

youd be outside boots on a saturday or on one of those stalls
on the sunday you'd prolly be off hunt sabbing or on an anti fishing protest

Miniminch, thanks for bringing us all back down to Earth with that reality check!

I'm reminded of the scene in one of the Wallace and Gromit films where Gromit was sat on the sofa reading "Electronics for Dogs". Sheer comic brilliance.

Now, where's that veal cutlet . . .

Why don't all the animal rights activists put themselves forward to be experimented upon? Oh, sorry, that would still be animal studies.................

Or, why don't all pro-vivisectionists put their pets up for animal testing?

Or, why don't all pro-vivisectionists put their pets up for animal testing?

You are more than welcome to try with my dog, but I wouldn't rate your chances...........:D

Or, why don't all pro-vivisectionists put their pets up for animal testing?

Actually I don't have any pets because I consider it cruel and selfish to leave them at home all day alone while I go to work, college and rehersals.

It makes me very angry when people who have dogs don't take them for enough excercise every day.

So, do all these animal activists:

a) eat no meat and wear no animal product
b) use no cosmetic or hygeine product that contains any ingredients that have ever been tested on animals
c) refuse all medical treatment for all illnesses and never take any form of over the counter medication?

Their efforts would be much better concentrated on seeking out and reporting people who cruelly keep their pets, indulge in illegal betting on animal fights etc. than on these experiments which are all subject to an ethical vetting procedure before they can even start.

So, do all these animal activists:

a) eat no meat and wear no animal product
b) use no cosmetic or hygiene product that contains any ingredients that have ever been tested on animals
c) refuse all medical treatment for all illnesses and never take any form of over the counter medication?

Their efforts would be much better concentrated on seeking out and reporting people who cruelly keep their pets, indulge in illegal betting on animal fights etc. than on these experiments which are all subject to an ethical vetting procedure before they can even start.

They are 50% dedicated to their cause. Same as vegetarians really. They only wear leather shoes if synthetic ones don't agree with them and take drugs tested on animals if it means the difference between life and death. I would call that hypocrisy, but they always have an explanation as to otherwise................

They are 50% dedicated to their cause. Same as vegetarians really. They only wear leather shoes if synthetic ones don't agree with them and take drugs tested on animals if it means the difference between life and death. I would call that hypocrisy, but they always have an explanation as to otherwise................

So you know alot of these people do you?

To be honest, some of these extremists just seem to be troublemakers / born protesters rather than highly ethical, reasoning and compassionate souls - some people are prepared to protest about just about anything! I go to marches / demos when it's something I really care about but I know people who will literally go to one every week - always struck me as turning it into a bit of a social event... but maybe they just truly care about a lot of things. There is a lot wrong with the world after all.

With regard to the ingredient testing, yes, everything is still tested on animals very stringently. But if it wasn't it would result in the death and suffering of an incredibly greater amount of individual animals and ecosystems as well as humans - a lot of the legislation requiring animal testing is put there for the purpose of protecting the environment (particularly regarding substances such as pesticides etc. - but any new chemical substance with a significant scale of production / application is subject to extensive testing). All the detail on the standard studies is in some fairly horrific gargantuan European consleg documents somewhere.

All animal testing is valid?

Or just some?

If it is some - then surely animals are needlessly suffering?

Phan.... Oxford is a biomedical research facility, they are not interested in cosmetics and the likes.... penicillin was invented there with the aid of animal experimentation.... they work on cures and treatments like AIDS.... now I wouldn't mind sacrificing a few bunnies or monkeys to stop the millions dying in Africa or Russia each year.

It is fine for these activists to march against such a cause when at least they can smugly go back to their nice warm homes and their healthy children, safe in the knowledge that they have done something to help animal kind albeit at the expense of mankind.... I think the response seen yesterday to them has sent a clear message.... their efforts would be far better spent (as was mentioned before) on seeking out genuinely mistreated animals in society.

As for testing of cosmetics well I think you will find they have independent research facilities and only a few Universities aid in this subject but its not something I particularly agree with especially to promote vanity..... however I do promote human life.

Something else occured to me this evening while I was out.
All the multinational tobacco companies have tested the effects of nicotine etc. on animals over many decades.

So if you ever see any of these animal rights protesters smoking, then their views are not worth a light, and you cannot take them seriously at all because they are using products which have been developed using animal testing.

In reply to cloudybay & muddycoffe:

To say that the views of people who are less than 100% pure in their beliefs are meaningless and to criticise vegetarians because some wear leather shoes is risible coming from those who don’t take any such action at all. It’s not about winning Blue Peter badges, it’s about doing what you can manage to do in this society to minimise cruelty and suffering.

Personally I’d like to see vivisection end because I think it diminishes the human race morally - the strong taking advantage of the weak. But it’s just an opinion and I don’t go around shouting about it.

I am not sure where this information fits:
But there must be some place, they don`t need to experiment on animals they can manipulate us all with biofeed back devices.. Right down to the molecular level... The police have been gagged force to work with microwave
radio... Much of what we know is "new technology" was band in the 1920/30/50`s by the FDA food and drug admin in the USA.
The Royal Society along with the Princes Trust have reported on Nano-science and technology... Their repots have been filed by the governement.
Non-lethal weapons are the basis of new technology.
The greens have been tricked in thinking wind energy is safe, the basis of
wind power does not comply to EU Reglations..

Along with mobile phone transmitters....
So if someone got a suggestion what to do let me know?

Phan.... Oxford is a biomedical research facility,

The pressure group pro-test, are not exclusively campaigning to support 'good' animal testing at the Oxford facility.

They are a group that "promot[es] and support[s] scientific research and debate including animal based research"

Given that their name is "Pro - test", It's not difficult to work out what their message is.

As I said before in this very thread:
I find the Pro-Test position of being for all animal testing just as extreme and blinkered as the more readily established groups being against all animal testing.

Now, are there animals needlessly suffering as a result of animal testing or not?

In reply to cloudybay & muddycoffe:

To say that the views of people who are less than 100% pure in their beliefs are meaningless and to criticise vegetarians because some wear leather shoes is risible coming from those who don’t take any such action at all. It’s not about winning Blue Peter badges, it’s about doing what you can manage to do in this society to minimise cruelty and suffering.

Personally I’d like to see vivisection end because I think it diminishes the human race morally - the strong taking advantage of the weak. But it’s just an opinion and I don’t go around shouting about it.

I think people who make half hearted gestures are not of the true faith and I don't think anyone in their right minds want to see animal testing.... but this is the reality.

Phan.... Its exactly why a pro lobby came into existence to rattle the anti who are quite simply using terror tacticts to get their way.... why dont they lobby parliament like every other do gooder cause and get their way like every one else.

Best quote to sum this up, was from a guy who clubbed seal cubs in the arctic. He said..

" if they looked like spiders, no one would care "

Darn right i think.

How many of these animal rights protesters, have trod on a spider, or sprayed a fly with flyspray?

Seams they only like to safe fluffy animals.

Oasismark,
yes that was a point I was trying to make earlier. There is too much double standards and anthropomorphing of cute fluffy animals into little humans. Meanwhile it is essential that we control the amount of certain animals and creatures so they don't cause harm to the environment, damage gardens or spread deseases.

Best quote to sum this up, was from a guy who clubbed seal cubs in the arctic. He said..

" if they looked like spiders, no one would care "

Darn right i think.

No one would care?

I'd like to see them try. Clubbing a 15kg spider would be a challenge in itself, dealing with the mother would be another thing entirely.

It is a sound argument though. Like my friend Ratko Mladic - who ordered the deaths at Srebrinica -
"If they looked like cockroaches, no one would care".

More seriously, there is an empathy index or score. The higher an animal scores the more empathy it gets.

Plus points for having bilateral symmetry, forward facing eyes, warm blood, a backbone, fur or feathers, four limbs, opposable thumbs, and an email address.

Minus points for having too many legs, eyes, a shell, mandibles, a web, being squishy, scaly or see though, pupating, etc.

No one would care?

I'd like to see them try. Clubbing a 15kg spider would be a challenge in itself, dealing with the mother would be another thing entirely.


Jack Black did it in King Kong. lol


I do think its a fair point though.

An animal is an animal, weather it's fluffy and purrs or weather it's got poisonus fangs and sharp claws.

Do they protest when a fisherman skewers a maggot on his fishing hook or when their own grandma sprays her garden roses to kill greenfly?

I'd like to see them try. Clubbing a 15kg spider would be a challenge in itself, dealing with the mother would be another thing entirely.


Would you try clubbing this spider's Mum?...:hihi:


Spider Mum (http://www.iondesign.net/clients/webnoodle/pics/spidergran.gif)

Jack Black did it in King Kong. lol


I do think its a fair point though.

An animal is an animal, weather it's fluffy and purrs or weather it's got poisonus fangs and sharp claws.

Do they protest when a fisherman skewers a maggot on his fishing hook or when their own grandma sprays her garden roses to kill greenfly?

Plenty of environmentalists are just as fanatical about brackish-water invertebrates as others are about sharks, spiders and even jellyfish.

The reason that orang-utans are treated differently to, say, nasal bacteria, is although both are animals, the orang much more closely corresponds with our own selves. We can recognise common features and experiences with them. Watch almost any mammal yawn, it reinforces empathy, as you know exactly how that animal feels, i.e. Just like you do when you yawn.

Very generally speaking the more like a human an animal is, the more squeamish we are about dispatching it. I think the reverse corollary also holds.

Animal Testing is unnecessary! For instance, what good is a GCSE in Maths to a Gerbil?:clap: :clap: An absolute gem that one Mini PMSL :thumbsup:

The Animal Rights mob simply have lost touch with their hunting instincts. In the majority of the indigenous British march the mighty ghosts of the Pleistocene- the hunter gatherers of the Paleolithic Age. Can they not hear the ancient hunting horns? Hark, and one may hear them. Do these posturing, anthropomorphic ninnies not feel a rush of pure joy at the sight of a baited bear, a hunted and cornered stag or the sight of hounds in pursuit of Reynard? What lily-livered milksops they truly are. Animals are for hunting, wearing, eating and for entertainment. Regarding the latter, the Spanish 'Blood Festivals' provide both pleasure and instruction, as do the splendid Faeroe Island Pilot Whale cullings. I'll get my coat.

As someone who works for a pharamceutical company (on the IT side) we have had several lectures on animal testing as it is obviously of concern to a lot of people. Can I just say that without it no new medicines would come to market, pharamceutical companies test on animals to prove to regulators that their drugs are safe. The company that I work for tests on animals but having said that they do far more ttesting of their drugs on people.

As a parent I would sacrifice any number of animals to ensure the health of my children.

The Animal Rights mob simply have lost touch with their hunting instincts. In the majority of the indigenous British march the mighty ghosts of the Pleistocene- the hunter gatherers of the Paleolithic Age. Can they not hear the ancient hunting horns? Hark, and one may hear them. Do these posturing, anthropomorphic ninnies not feel a rush of pure joy at the sight of a baited bear, a hunted and cornered stag or the sight of hounds in pursuit of Reynard? What lily-livered milksops they truly are. Animals are for hunting, wearing, eating and for entertainment. Regarding the latter, the Spanish 'Blood Festivals' provide both pleasure and instruction, as do the splendid Faeroe Island Pilot Whale cullings. I'll get my coat.

Had you partaken of a couple of shandies when you wrote this??