• Whirlybird@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Those are 2 different animals btw, not one like you’re making out. What is the criteria for “gruesome”? What is the difference between “gruesome” and “horrific”? Is “horrific” allowed?

    Again though - this is testing. This is the entire point of it. Like I said - would you rather they just jumped straight to human trials and this happened to people?

    • kevin@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Those are 2 different animals btw, not one like you’re making out.

      This makes it worse, not better. If it were one, it might be chalked up to a fluke.

      What is the difference between “gruesome” and “horrific”? Is “horrific” allowed?

      No, certainly not.

      Again though - this is testing. This is the entire point of it.

      No. Animal suffering is absolutely not the point. Humane treatment of animals does not mean that they will never suffer - they will. I’m not against using animals in experiments, indeed I’ve done so myself. Humane treatment means that you put in the effort and bear the cost of minimizing suffering to the extent possible.

      Like I said - would you rather they just jumped straight to human trials and this happened to people?

      This is not the trade off. There is a wide spectrum of behavior between “never test on animals” and “treat animals purely as tools.”

    • astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Or they just don’t try this at all. The technology seems beyond far-fetched at this point, like mad scientist far-fetched. The tech is too light on theory to begin practical testing, At this point, it’s just inhumane.