Parabola

No, because the stuff could have different effects on animals then to us. :wall: Could but generally doesn't. That's why such a staggering number of developments in human medicine have been made through animal testing. Some treatments discovered through animal testing include: Vaccinations for polio, diphtheria, mumps, measles, rubella, hepatitis, anthrax, chicken pox, cholera, flu, rabies, smallpox and tetanus. Insulin for diabetes, hip replacements, organ transplants, chemotherapy, pacemakers, coronary bypass surgery, penicillin, painkillers, anticoagulants, artificial hearts, corneal transplants. This is by no means an exhaustive list. They are just the ones I think you'd have heard of. Between 1992 and 1994 the Research Defence Society published the numbers of patients in the UK benefiting from treatments developed using animal testing: 50,000,000 prescriptions for antibiotics 30,000,000 prescriptions for asthma 3,000,000 operations under local or general anaesthetics 180,000 diabetics kept alive with insulin 90,000 cataract operations 60,000 joint operations 15,000 coronary bypasses 10,000 pacemakers implanted 6,000 heart valve repairs or replacements 4,000 congenital heart defects corrected 2,500 corneal transplants 2,000 kidney transplants 400 heart or heart/lung transplants If you are going to argue that such developments could be made without animal testing - well if they could have, they would have. UK law (Animals (Scientific procedures) Act, 1986) requires that alternatives to animal testing, when they exist, must be used. It defies logic to suggest that companies perform stupidly unnecessary tests on animals - businesses exist to create money, and money would be wasted unless serious research was being conducted. What's more, under the aforementioned act, research licenses are only granted if the potential results are important enough to justify the use of animals and if non-animal methods cannot be used.

Scooter gets me pumped up because I want to go and kill the idiot who says stupid things over the music.

I'm guessing you don't know very much about any of these experiments, because if you had read anything about them you'd know what they were to achieve. Provide me with a link to the papers for that research and I'll read them for you (since you obviously haven't read them) and tell you what it was to achieve. You're just listening to tabloid hype and being too lazy to find out for yourself. Researchers don't get grants to do things for fun. There is always a point to what they are doing.

They didn't do it for fun you know... They didn't just get drunk and think 'hey lets sew an ear to a mouse'. That was done during development of methods to grow flesh on other animals before transplanting it to a person who needs it. For example, you lose your ear in an accident - you can then have a new one grown and grafted on.

Aren't you going to bother to post your opinion? Or are you content to leave this as a spammy topic? Cosmetics - wrong. Medicine - right. If it wasn't for animal testing we wouldn't have at least 80% of the treatments we have today. This was mentioned on an episode of Penn & Teller's Bulls**t, where it was revealed that head members of PETA use treatments that were developed by animal testing - for example, one of them is a diabetic who needs insulin (developed through testing with dogs). If you're against animal testing for medicines, you'd sure as hell better not accept any medical treatments developed through animal testing. That would make you a big old hypocrite. If that means you die, well, that's one less idiot for the world to worry about.

I'm with this guy. What's wrong with OT being used for debates?

If, by that Cumbrian gentleman, you're referring to the old man who lived on a farm and who shot a burglar, he shot him in the back as he was fleeing. Yes, I can. They may be granted more rights than they deserve, but it is ludicrous to say they get more rights than their victims. The media just loves to shout about the injustices that occur and the public then conveniently ignore the thousands of cases in which justice is exacted as everyone expects. I don't profess to know about Scottish law, I hadn't noticed your location.

There is no police leaflet that makes the claims that you have made. There is no police leaflet that claims you are not allowed to use reasonable force in self defence, because that would be contrary to the law. There is no police leaflet that claims attacking a burglar with a golf club is unreasonable force when he is armed with a gun. Stop pretending you know about things. The difference is that I spent 2 years studying English law, and one of the larger areas we covered was self defence. You, on the other hand, are making things up as you go along.

That one from Scarface called Push It To The Limit. It is hilarious.

No. I am English and have studied English law. What you said about hitting him with a golf club if he had a gun is BS. If you happened to legally own a gun and your house was being burgled by someone with a gun, shooting him would fall within the grounds of reasonable force, let alone hitting him with a golf club.

Nothing, if you're obsessed with anything it's unhealthy.

I'd never get one because tattoos on old people look awful. They sag, fade, and look totally out of place. It might look okay for a decade but then after that it would look common, old and stupid.

Maybe it's related, maybe it's not, but I remember literally laughing when I went into a GAME shop and saw NFS: Carbon for ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã40 pre-owned.

30 - 16 Blocks That's the only film I can think of with people holding newspapers up to the window of some public transport vehicle. Doesn't look much like it though, since theirs was a bus.

Criminally speaking, perhaps. But you would have been sued, and they would have won. You cannot sneeze for being sued. That's not true. Common law self defence states that you may make a pre-emptive strike, that you may defend your property and that you can defend yourself if you think an attack is imminent, which, in a burglary situation, is likely.

I used to like bands like RBF and LTJ, but I grew out of them. The only ska I'd say I like now is Capdown and Madness.

...That many people take far too seriously. A hobby which they invest far too much emotion in, and I'd say that about someone who watched soap operas religiously too.

My favourite album is Ghost Reveries, I really like the progression in it. I also like the laid-back nature of Damnation.

I don't mind Queen, but I hate Pink to the depths of my being.

VB is not a good way to learn programming for games, no serious games are written in it. C++, on the other hand, is.

Precisely. I am not a 'gamer', just as others aren't 'tv-watchers'. Calling people 'gamers' only serves to ostracise them - as though playing games is something abnormal. The term 'gamer' should be reserved for those who waste their life on such diversions, similar to those who waste their life being constantly on drugs.

The game, in summary: We put together this focus group, so we know what you teenagers think is cool and what you can relate to.

You know to automatically disregard someone's opinion when they say something 'sucks'.

Most may well have; however I'm demonstrating that it isn't necessary.

That, my friend, is not pointless. Would you rather have your kids rip up real $100 bills!? :shock: There are plenty of reasons for fake money - film and television for example. I remember a lot of prop makers complained when Photoshop CS came out with that anti-currency feature. I think that is fundamentally stupid - ALL it will do is inconvenience legitimate people. I wouldn't put it past real counterfeiters to find their way around it, considering normal users had within days of its release.