Animal rights nutters

#1
Anybody else think these muppets are getting out of hand?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4753333.stm

I now live just down the road from a church where sick freaks dug up and stole the body of a grandmother related to a family who bred guinea pigs for animal research. Many of these groups practice low level terrorism inside the UK and against UK nationals, so what to do?
 
#3
There are ways to protest but these overstep the mark.

It's terrorism and should be treated as such.
 
#4
If you are pro animal testing, you could join this lot:

Pro-Test

Their aim:

"We are a UK based group with the aim of promoting and supporting scientific research and debate including animal based research."
 
#5
visitingrock said:
If you are pro animal testing, you could join this lot:

Pro-Test

Their aim:

"We are a UK based group with the aim of promoting and supporting scientific research and debate including animal based research."
Ah but by joining them we just become another nutter just wearing a differnt badge.
Me im all for animal rights, the rights to be eaten, tested on used to make clothes. it all about natrual selection and at the moment we are top of the pile, but for how long is the question ,so we just need to make the most of it. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
 
#6
I have much sympathy for the animal rights activists and even more for the animals. Their treatment is horrific and barbaric and should be opposed by all means.

I decided that actions speak louder than words so I took my fight to a local research laboratory and as a protest, set fire to our family dog, Goldie. My children were distraught but I explained to them, whilst throwing their Gerbils through the lab windows, that animal cruelty comes before their selfish pandering for a pet.

The situation later resolved itself when I demonstrated that boiling tropical fish in bleach can be fun.
 
#7
I don't like tests on animals either but on the evidence that I've seen and heard there does not seem to be any alternatives.

Even the experts can't agree and we saw what happened with the human tests in the UK and paying peanuts to some poor sod in India isn't the answer either. These animal rights activists are acting outside the law and while they think they have some sort of moral highground, they are still akin to terrorists.
 
#8
mistersoft said:
These animal rights activists are acting outside the law and while they think they have some sort of moral highground, they are still akin to terrorists.
That sums it up perfectly, I think. Of course, I'm a fan of God's creatures (with the exception of screaming human sprogs in restaurants, airplanes and wedding ceremonies) but this is not a sane or safe way to get your point across.
 
#9
I have an idea that would remove the need for tests on animals.... use prisoners especially murderers... you take a life you can repay your debt to society by helping to save a life. Simple, cheap and efficient....

I would also refuse to give animal rights people any medical treatment or drugs that have been tested on animals. Wouldn't want to compromise their beliefs now would we?
 
#10
Try this thenAnimal testing

The one, the only, Macc Lads. When my brother in law worked for The Body Shop, I attempted to get him to play this over the factory tannoy system. He agreed in principle (when rather drunk) but never carried it through.
 
#11
These cnuts grip my shat! Ok squirting tescos own brand baby oil into a bunnies eyes isn't good, But I bet the mastic that holds their windows in has been rubbed on a rats bolloxs to see if it causes cancer.
 
#12
I was ashamed of my university's respnse to the animal welfare nuts, they decide the cost of protecting the new lab from them was too much and crumbled without an ounce of spine or moral courage.

If people of this point of view want to protest peacefully, within the law, fine, not a problem. But infliciting terror and violence on civillians because you judge your precious principles and beliefs to be more precious than their lives and safety is terrorism, pure and simple.
 
#13
Tests for animals seems unfair to me, my dog is two years old and cannot read. In human years he would be 14 and presumably giovernment offcials will be visiting to insist he commences GCSE education shortly. Well We need to stamp this nionsense out. It isn't even in the animal's interests. My dog does not want to go to University and has been offered an apprenticeship when he turns 16 anyway. It makes my blood boil, it's just New Labour looking for an easy-to-achieve target again...

What's that? Oh, those kind of tests! Crack on that's what I say, sod the little bunnies and gerbils - if they want to wear make-up it's their business...
 
#14
Peaceful protest to put your point across? Fine, crack on. I could just about live with mild disruption of work with piquet lines, etc. Until respectfully asked by the bobbies to move along.

Digging up a loved Grandmother or threatening people to prove your point? No. They are using terror and as such should be sought out and destroyed.

I would love to meet some tawt admitting to the atrocity of digging up the Gran. I would happily do time, whilst remembering their squeels of anguish... as they tested some petrol or shampoo or something in their eyes themselves. Or maybe I might just bury them alive.

Scum.
 
#15
The aformentioned scum that dug up Gladys have been convicted and await sentencing, still managed to get the farm closed down though. They gave up the location of the body in an attempt to get lighter sentences. Somehow I don't think even this joke of a government can afford them to get too light a sentence in order to avoid setting up Granny stealing as an easy way to get what you want, so hopefully they will soon be having a chat in the showers with Big 'arry from D Wing.
 
#16
mistersoft said:
I don't like tests on animals either but on the evidence that I've seen and heard there does not seem to be any alternatives.

Even the experts can't agree and we saw what happened with the human tests in the UK and paying peanuts to some poor sod in India isn't the answer either. These animal rights activists are acting outside the law and while they think they have some sort of moral highground, they are still akin to terrorists.
Agreed on the point that digging up corpses is despicable, but I beg to differ on the point that there's no alternative. You have to remember that this is a billion-quid industry and there's no way the boyyos want to be out of pocket.
The fact of the matter is that testing on animals has absolutely no validity for humans whatsoever. Lf that was the case, then there'd be no need to test drugs on humans after the animal tests. Thalidomide (Contargan) was tested on animals too, and look at the results of that! Penicillin couldn't have been tested on dogs either, because it kills them!
There are alternatives, but they don't bring in the big bucks!

MsG

Edited for mong spelling (again).
 
#17
I am neither for or against really. But what those people did is disgusting and as has been mentioned they are acting like terrorists and should be treated as such. But even though some drugs may not show all of the symptoms that occur in humans some do. It all about how they interact and animal testing can identify drugs which are very useful and can identify the side effects of these drugs as certain animals used are very chose to humans in their make up. At the end of the day if you needed a drug and your life or the life of love one depended on it would you really care what it had been tested on and how many of these animal rights people would.

By the Thalidomide was a problem but also it has been proved to be good drug in other areas such as treating leprosy.
 
#18
I am neither for or against really. But what those people did is disgusting and as has been mentioned they are acting like terrorists and should be treated as such. But even though some drugs may not show all of the symptoms that occur in humans some do. It all about how they interact and animal testing can identify drugs which are very useful and can identify the side effects of these drugs as certain animals used are very chose to humans in their make up. At the end of the day if you needed a drug and your life or the life of love one depended on it would you really care what it had been tested on and how many of these animal rights people would.

By the Thalidomide was a problem but also it has been proved to be good drug in other areas such as treating leprosy.
 
#19
Strait_Jacket said:
Anybody else think these muppets are getting out of hand?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4753333.stm

I now live just down the road from a church where sick freaks dug up and stole the body of a grandmother related to a family who bred guinea pigs for animal research. Many of these groups practice low level terrorism inside the UK and against UK nationals, so what to do?
Why not simply draw up a voluntary register of people who do not believe in animal-testing. Then the people on the regiser can be denied access to the NHS, after all where do they think the drugs and treatments were tested?

Those who dont sign the register but are later found to be animal rights nutters can then be locked up under the anti-reich, umm, I mean anti-terror laws.
 
#20
Bugsy7 said:
mistersoft said:
I don't like tests on animals either but on the evidence that I've seen and heard there does not seem to be any alternatives.

Even the experts can't agree and we saw what happened with the human tests in the UK and paying peanuts to some poor sod in India isn't the answer either. These animal rights activists are acting outside the law and while they think they have some sort of moral highground, they are still akin to terrorists.
Agreed on the point that digging up corpses is despicable, but I beg to differ on the point that there's no alternative. You have to remember that this is a billion-quid industry and there's no way the boyyos want to be out of pocket.
The fact of the matter is that testing on animals has absolutely no validity for humans whatsoever. Lf that was the case, then there'd be no need to test drugs on humans after the animal tests. Thalidomide (Contargan) was tested on animals too, and look at the results of that! Penicillin couldn't have been tested on dogs either, because it kills them!
There are alternatives, but they don't bring in the big bucks!

MsG

Edited for mong spelling (again).
Sorry, but that is a very simplistic argument.

The drugs are (these days) tested in computer simulations,
then tested in vitro
then tested in vivo on animals
then tested in vivo on humans on a tiny level, scaling up over future tests.

Each one of these levels is to identify faults or potential problems, remove one level such as testing on animals and you increase the risk during the human trials, after all animals are closer to humans than microscope slides.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top