Scum of the lowest kind

[cheeky]

My opinion, for what it's worth:

 

Breeding animals solely for hunting as a sport is cruel.

Hunting animals for sport is cruel.

Breeding animals is a food source I agree with.

Hunting animals for food I agree with.

If a cull of a certain species is required for environmental reasons etc I would make a decision based on the specifics of that particular case.

Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes I disagree with.

This one is probably the most controversial I imagine, but medicinal testing on animals if it's progressive to finding cures for diseases etc I agree with.

 

And finally....being a vegetarian I cannot comprehend; one word....bacon!

[kevin_struggles]

The word baby can be used as a generic term for young animals of any sort as well as humans.

 

It can also apply to the odd adult, as your posts illustrate perfectly for all to see.

 

It can be used where emotive language is being used to influence people but in scientific terms the words young, immature and juvenile are more widely used when describing young animals. Babies may serve your purpose better but please dont attempt to argue that it is a recognisabley correct term for a fox cub. It isnt.

 

Even the thread title is an insult to anyone who would dare to hold a view different from yours (how typical) "scum of the lowest kind" ? Off course you wont be taken seriously when you resort to these transparent childish tactics.

 

Many people who support hunting support a tradition that many of them grew up with. Your childish attacks will do nothing to change their views it is mroe likely to harden them, plus it makes you look immature and incapable of serious debate. The best bet would be to enageg in debate and educate people in a mature way about the negative aspects of hunting. Eventually the generation who remember the traditional hunt will be no more and the whole hoo haaa will be over and done with.

 

There is nothing to be said for arguing against having the debate and letting it be decided by parliament, after all it was they who banned it in the first place and I have no doubt they will keep the ban in place. There really isnt any need to do the leftie insulting people thing, the holier than thou attitude is very irritating.

[kevin_struggles]

My opinion, for what it's worth:

 

Breeding animals solely for hunting as a sport is cruel.

Hunting animals for sport is cruel.

Breeding animals is a food source I agree with.

Hunting animals for food I agree with.

If a cull of a certain species is required for environmental reasons etc I would make a decision based on the specifics of that particular case.

Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes I disagree with.

This one is probably the most controversial I imagine, but medicinal testing on animals if it's progressive to finding cures for diseases etc I agree with.

 

And finally....being a vegetarian I cannot comprehend; one word....bacon!

 

I agree with all of that

[blinkme]

My opinion, for what it's worth:

 

Breeding animals solely for hunting as a sport is cruel.

Hunting animals for sport is cruel.

Breeding animals is a food source I agree with.

Hunting animals for food I agree with.

If a cull of a certain species is required for environmental reasons etc I would make a decision based on the specifics of that particular case.

Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes I disagree with.

This one is probably the most controversial I imagine, but medicinal testing on animals if it's progressive to finding cures for diseases etc I agree with.

 

And finally....being a vegetarian I cannot comprehend; one word....bacon!

 

that's the big one though isn't it.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

One of the issues around testing on animals is how much effort is put into finding alternative means of testing...should it be our goal to have effective testing that does not involve testing on animals? I say yes and ASAP

 

There is lots of dispute about how effective animal testing is http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/18/animal-lives-wasted-in-drugs-safety-tests

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Even the thread title is an insult to anyone who would dare to hold a view different from yours (how typical) "scum of the lowest kind" ?

 

'til we get onto the even lower scum...Tory voters, UKIP voters, anyone deemed to be devious and so on ;)

[kevin_struggles]

'til we get onto the even lower scum...Tory voters, UKIP voters, anyone deemed to be devious and so on ;)

 

Do you think I will rate above "pathetic attempt" yet?

[kevin_struggles]

One of the issues around testing on animals is how much effort is put into finding alternative means of testing...should it be our goal to have effective testing that does not involve testing on animals? I say yes and ASAP

 

There is lots of dispute about how effective animal testing is http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/apr/18/animal-lives-wasted-in-drugs-safety-tests

 

At least we have moved on from the chain smoking beagles, I mean I'm not one for taking up causes or judging the past but that was just wrong.

[aspins-revenge]

Cheeky and others

 

If I remember rightly, wasn't the production of insulin and consequent treatment of diabetes in humans and in dogs a direct result of animal testing?

 

Something to do with pigs and rabbits. Although I may have dreamt that last bit after falling asleep after a cheese and nicotine patch supper.

[Andyregs]

 

plus it makes you look immature and incapable of serious debate. The best bet would be to enageg in debate and educate people in a mature way about the negative aspects of hunting.

 

Have all your arguments in this thread been 'to educate in a mature way'?

[Andyregs]

Cheeky and others

 

If I remember rightly, wasn't the production of insulin and consequent treatment of diabetes in humans and in dogs a direct result of animal testing?

 

Something to do with pigs and rabbits. Although I may have dreamt that last bit after falling asleep after a cheese and nicotine patch supper.

 

It is a difficult one, but what was discovered in the past using it doesn't necessarily make the current use ethical.

For example, the nazi's did some indescribably sadistic experiments on living people, that killed, mutilated or sent the victims mad. Some of the findings however have been used since. It's also hypothetically obvious that such experiments could result in scientific breakthroughs that would helpless people than it would hurt. It doesn't mean it should be done because morally it would be unthinkable. And that surely plays a part in the debate too?

[Bea Smith]

Cheeky and others

 

If I remember rightly, wasn't the production of insulin and consequent treatment of diabetes in humans and in dogs a direct result of animal testing?

 

Something to do with pigs and rabbits. Although I may have dreamt that last bit after falling asleep after a cheese and nicotine patch supper.

 

This really deserves another thread, as breeding baby foxes for hunting is a bit different to medical experiments.

but...

 

 

It isn't quite as simple as that though, as animal experiments put back the cause of insulin development by decades;-

 

http://www.safermedicines.org/faqs/faq08.shtml

 

Weren't lab animals responsible for the discovery of diabetes and development of insulin?

 

Pro-animal experiment contingencies always cite the development of insulin as support for continued animal testing, asserting that insulin harvested from slaughterhouses saved the lives of many diabetics. This is true. But the use of animals in the search for the cause of diabetes has been overwhelmingly counterproductive.

 

Diabetes affects in excess of 125 million people worldwide and is a leading cause of blindness, amputation, kidney failure and premature death. Physicians in the late 18th century first linked the disease with characteristic changes in the pancreas seen at autopsy. As this was difficult to reproduce in animals, many scientists disputed the pancreas' role in the disease. When they removed the pancreas from dogs, cats, and pigs, the animals became diabetic. But their symptoms led researchers to conjecture that diabetes was a liver disease, throwing diabetes research off track for decades. In 1922, outraged scientists spoke out against the animal experiments that many were claiming had proven the existence of insulin:

 

"The production of insulin originated in a wrongly conceived, wrongly conducted, and wrongly interpreted series of [animal] experiments."[14]

 

They pointed out that human autopsy had in fact shown the pancreas to be the vital organ in diabetes, and that in vitro research had isolated insulin - not animal experiments.

 

Scientists later modified the in vitro process they had used to isolate insulin, successfully mass-producing pig and cattle insulin reaped in slaughterhouses. This animal-derived insulin indeed saved lives, but not without complications. It also created allergic reactions and exposed patients to serious health risks. Had they recognised these dangers, scientists would have hastened to develop human insulin.

 

Insulin is only a treatment for diabetes, not a cure. The exact biochemical process through which insulin regulates blood sugar is yet to be discovered. If the funds devoted to studies had gone to human research, would we still have this plague?

 

 

RESULT:

Lab animal tests threw diabetes research off track for decades.

[Bea Smith]

'til we get onto the even lower scum...Tory voters, UKIP voters, anyone deemed to be devious and so on ;)

 

Again trying to put words into other peoples mouths, no they are not lower scum.

 

Tory voters - either totally selfish and think equality is wrong, or misguided and have the old fashioned idea that Tory means working harder and improving life for all, and rewards and opportunities are equal. Which they are if you went to Eton and have rich banker friends.

 

UKIP voters - A minority of nasty racists, but many who are just disillusioned and want a change. A lot of ex-Labour voters who were let down by Blairite policies and have failed to see that UKIP is a party for city financiers and Tory rebels.

 

Devious people - well, you'd know more about that than me sunshine.

[Bea Smith]

My opinion, for what it's worth:

 

Breeding animals solely for hunting as a sport is cruel.

Hunting animals for sport is cruel.

Breeding animals is a food source I agree with.

Hunting animals for food I agree with.

If a cull of a certain species is required for environmental reasons etc I would make a decision based on the specifics of that particular case.

Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes I disagree with.

This one is probably the most controversial I imagine, but medicinal testing on animals if it's progressive to finding cures for diseases etc I agree with.

 

And finally....being a vegetarian I cannot comprehend; one word....bacon!

 

 

 

Sounds fine to me, but you or anyone else doesn't need my approval for personal choices, except where they are illegal like the breeding of baby foxes for use in unting, which this thread was about.

 

I'm not vegetarian, but wish I had the strength to be so, and stronglky admire those who are. I sometimes think bacon sandwiches have heroin-like addictive properties.

 

The one thing that I'd want debated much more is the animal experiments thing as what I have researched strongly indicates that there is little benefit in killing and hurting millions of animals for human benefit, and knowing what the drug companies are like for profiteering, it really needs careful examination.

 

https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-animal-testing

 

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-bad-science/

 

http://www.animalaid.org.uk/images/pdf/booklets/badscience.pdf

http://www.safermedicines.org/faqs/faq08.shtml

 

http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/resources/volunteering-advice/animals-used-in-research-2/?utm_expid=80992747-1.aLmuvRJ0R4CRfk26kJy_3w.1&gclid=CKyDuKLZmcYCFQnItAod_1kA1Q&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.googleadservices.com%2Fpagead%2Faclk%3Fsa%3DL%26ai%3DCVFePX_aCVeeVLYrTywO41LqwAeXd6Z8G1YfN-voB1eiJHQgAEAIoA2C71q2D0AqgAYOC3c8DyAEBqgQnT9CDwpoNJUWowwVsbMouggIuHbt0_rUFcBqodZP5Y4F0roK38MJriAYBgAfl_aIwkAcDqAemvhvYBwE%26ohost%3Dwww.google.co.uk%26cid%3D5Gg8HfifHZQqOCCd6Vc8dr_21LgNos9gTfhDbO2BbIrH6g%26sig%3DAOD64_1Sl35bdXhUJL_wHC1U-4k4X8HmIA%26clui%3D1%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%26ved%3D0CCMQ0Qw%26adurl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.animalcharityevaluators.org%2Fresources%2Fvolunteering-advice%2Fanimals-used-in-research%2F

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Do you think I will rate above "pathetic attempt" yet?

 

Not even close :)