Animal Testing
28 November 2003, 02:17 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was reading this about testing on primates brains.
A question to you all, what are your views on animal testing? good? bad? should it be banned? if so why?
Me? Well, I support animal testing for pharmacutical drugs, as I'm pretty sure that some of the drugs I take will have been tested on animals, and without them I doubt I'd be here today.
Scientific research, hmm, trickier, if it's a cure for cancer or AIDS, then I guess it's ok, for other scientific research, not so sure
For cosmectic or moat other reasons, totally against it, don't see why a bunny has to have perfume squirted into it's eyes for testing purposes.
And here's food for thought, instead of using animals for testing, why not just perform human clinical trials on serial killers, rapists, pedophiles? Ok, maybe a bit too drastic, but there are all these people who are on death row, who are going to be killed anyway, so why not make their death count for something, a contribution to society.
*** EDITED TO ADD ***
This is meant to be a serious thread, so no ******* stupid comments from idiots who think it's 'funny' to make jokes about animal cruelty
Mods, feel free to lock or delete this thread if it contravenes the T&C's, I understand NSR is not exactly the place for such topics
[Edited by Markus - 11/28/2003 2:33:08 PM]
A question to you all, what are your views on animal testing? good? bad? should it be banned? if so why?
Me? Well, I support animal testing for pharmacutical drugs, as I'm pretty sure that some of the drugs I take will have been tested on animals, and without them I doubt I'd be here today.
Scientific research, hmm, trickier, if it's a cure for cancer or AIDS, then I guess it's ok, for other scientific research, not so sure
For cosmectic or moat other reasons, totally against it, don't see why a bunny has to have perfume squirted into it's eyes for testing purposes.
And here's food for thought, instead of using animals for testing, why not just perform human clinical trials on serial killers, rapists, pedophiles? Ok, maybe a bit too drastic, but there are all these people who are on death row, who are going to be killed anyway, so why not make their death count for something, a contribution to society.
*** EDITED TO ADD ***
This is meant to be a serious thread, so no ******* stupid comments from idiots who think it's 'funny' to make jokes about animal cruelty
Mods, feel free to lock or delete this thread if it contravenes the T&C's, I understand NSR is not exactly the place for such topics
[Edited by Markus - 11/28/2003 2:33:08 PM]
28 November 2003, 02:19 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 0-60 in half an hour
Posts: 1,756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theres certain companies i avoid. like Shell. I still haven't worked out why they drill circuit boards into kittens skulls. Theres some pretty grim pictures about.
28 November 2003, 02:26 PM
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Markus I'm totally with you on this one and very strongly agree with testing products on humans who have commited the severist of crimes. Unfortunately it will never happen due to human rights organisations/religious beliefs who think criminals have rights [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
28 November 2003, 02:36 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nice idea for the sickos but it wouldn't work for several reasons, the main ones I can think of being that who would be in charge of holding these criminals down to perform tests on them? The security alone would have to be phenomenal in order to guarantee the safety of any science types working in the vicinity? Also there is the whole human rights issue. In my opinion they should bring back the death penalty for sick people like that Huntley bloke, but in reality human rights is a tricky issue. No matter how disgusting these people are, they still have rights as human beings. There's enough debate about the treatment of suspected terrorists held in guantanamo bay for example. We are supposed to be a civilised society and cruel acts of barbarism are supposed to be beneath us, yet we do yearn to give criminals as much pain and anguish as they have caused. So it's a tricky one. I'd like to see justice done, but I wouldn't like to be the one dealing it.
As for the animal testing. Just so long as it's something benificial to our existence, otherwise stick it in your own eyes and see.
As for the animal testing. Just so long as it's something benificial to our existence, otherwise stick it in your own eyes and see.
28 November 2003, 03:00 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Dumbartonshire
Posts: 5,896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We shouldnt do it. If people die then tough, thats life. What gives us the right to mutilate and main other creatures in the name of science, just because we can. Its barbaric.
If a greater power than mankind (aliens or whatever if they existed) decided to experiment on humans because it would save some of their lives would we all just say yeah that sounds OK?
Humans actually disgust me.
If a greater power than mankind (aliens or whatever if they existed) decided to experiment on humans because it would save some of their lives would we all just say yeah that sounds OK?
Humans actually disgust me.
28 November 2003, 03:03 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an animal lover,I cannot help feeling uneasy about vivisection. Even if it can be justified for pharmaceutical drugs used for curing diseases, I would never condone its use for testing of makeup and similar frivolous reasons.
The idea of using humans for all kinds of tests was of course employed by the **** doctors in the concentration camps. If you have ever visited one of these camps such as Dachau or Sachsenhausen and seen the description of the sort of tests that were carried out on people that the ***** considered to be subhuman(ie Jews etc.) then maybe you would think differently Markus. I won't go into descriptions but it is truly awful! If drug tests were done on Death Row prisoners it would only be a small step to far worse things being done to them.
I absolutely abhor such principles, there is no way that such experiments on human beings can be justified in the name of decent behaviour.
Les
The idea of using humans for all kinds of tests was of course employed by the **** doctors in the concentration camps. If you have ever visited one of these camps such as Dachau or Sachsenhausen and seen the description of the sort of tests that were carried out on people that the ***** considered to be subhuman(ie Jews etc.) then maybe you would think differently Markus. I won't go into descriptions but it is truly awful! If drug tests were done on Death Row prisoners it would only be a small step to far worse things being done to them.
I absolutely abhor such principles, there is no way that such experiments on human beings can be justified in the name of decent behaviour.
Les
Trending Topics
28 November 2003, 03:03 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cooo, what a dodgy subject. On one hand I agree with animal testing provided it is NOT FOR COSMETICS. But on the other hand why do animals have to suffer for our advancement.
Also, who is there to say for definate that animals aren't here partly for our use.
PS Didn't know Shell were going in to competition with Sony Aibo
Also, who is there to say for definate that animals aren't here partly for our use.
PS Didn't know Shell were going in to competition with Sony Aibo
28 November 2003, 03:13 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: The Great White North
Posts: 25,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les,
I have read a bit about Josef Mengele, and know that he was not the nicest chap around. Not exactly sure what true scientific value his experiments had, if any, and truth be known, he probably got some perverse pleasure from doing it. Anyway, we're digressing from the real subject here.
I only mentioned the testing on humans as I was on a bit of a rant there, much as I would like to see pedophiles and other such crimials caused as much harm as they have inflicted, they are, after all, still human, and so we have to respect thier rights.
As for the aliens experimenting on us, good point, and if you're an abductee then you'd say that this is already happening.
If we want to get really dodgy then lets also talk about the 'Animal Activists' who free research animals. Anyone seen '28 days later'? my point being that even though the research is not neccessary, you need to be a tad careful when you go and 'free' the poor animals from their unfortunate incarseration, as the film pointed out, who knows what kinds of things they have been infected with, and the big point here is, how these infections will work in a human body, yes we are similar to primates, but, there are still some differences, and so you can't quite predict everything.
I have read a bit about Josef Mengele, and know that he was not the nicest chap around. Not exactly sure what true scientific value his experiments had, if any, and truth be known, he probably got some perverse pleasure from doing it. Anyway, we're digressing from the real subject here.
I only mentioned the testing on humans as I was on a bit of a rant there, much as I would like to see pedophiles and other such crimials caused as much harm as they have inflicted, they are, after all, still human, and so we have to respect thier rights.
As for the aliens experimenting on us, good point, and if you're an abductee then you'd say that this is already happening.
If we want to get really dodgy then lets also talk about the 'Animal Activists' who free research animals. Anyone seen '28 days later'? my point being that even though the research is not neccessary, you need to be a tad careful when you go and 'free' the poor animals from their unfortunate incarseration, as the film pointed out, who knows what kinds of things they have been infected with, and the big point here is, how these infections will work in a human body, yes we are similar to primates, but, there are still some differences, and so you can't quite predict everything.
28 November 2003, 03:24 PM
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Les how can you say the worst types of criminals have rights? Do you seriously believe people such as Mira Hindley for example deserved rights? Or Ian Huntley once he is convicted?
I certainly don't, they lost all their human rights when they committed their horrific crimes. What they suffer after they have done these things really doesn't bother me one little bit, in fact I would even go so far as to say they deserve such cruel punishment as solitary confinement and special treatment is a far too easy life for them. Perhaps if they were put with other prisoners then I wouldn't feel they have such a cushy life in prison.
I certainly don't, they lost all their human rights when they committed their horrific crimes. What they suffer after they have done these things really doesn't bother me one little bit, in fact I would even go so far as to say they deserve such cruel punishment as solitary confinement and special treatment is a far too easy life for them. Perhaps if they were put with other prisoners then I wouldn't feel they have such a cushy life in prison.
28 November 2003, 03:31 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 1998
Posts: 11,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello
An interesting topic. I went out with a girl who worked at a University in California. Her main role was to assess the effect of blindness. One of the ways of doing this was to sew shut the eyelids of cats at various stages of life (born, 1 week, 2 weeks etc..) to see what effect it had.
Delightful.
Steve.
An interesting topic. I went out with a girl who worked at a University in California. Her main role was to assess the effect of blindness. One of the ways of doing this was to sew shut the eyelids of cats at various stages of life (born, 1 week, 2 weeks etc..) to see what effect it had.
Delightful.
Steve.
28 November 2003, 03:35 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Oxfordshire
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intresting...
As all pharmaceuticals will kill at a certain doseage....it makes you wonder how they come to this conclusion....!
As for animal testing, I don't personally believe in not testing on animals but then I don't particularly believe in using drugs (pharmaceuticals) either, as for Cosmetics etc if they have to test on animals why would you want that on your face/absorbed by your body? I personally believe that the cure for cancer arguement is flawed anyhow - I would rather they found out the cause of cancer, rather than bombarding us with more chemicals/drugs which might be a contributing factor anyway!
Not a veggie eating greenie or anything but I just feel there is something wrong in our environment and creating more and more drugs does not help! I think we are fooled by our own arrogance to think that this is the way forward.
As all pharmaceuticals will kill at a certain doseage....it makes you wonder how they come to this conclusion....!
As for animal testing, I don't personally believe in not testing on animals but then I don't particularly believe in using drugs (pharmaceuticals) either, as for Cosmetics etc if they have to test on animals why would you want that on your face/absorbed by your body? I personally believe that the cure for cancer arguement is flawed anyhow - I would rather they found out the cause of cancer, rather than bombarding us with more chemicals/drugs which might be a contributing factor anyway!
Not a veggie eating greenie or anything but I just feel there is something wrong in our environment and creating more and more drugs does not help! I think we are fooled by our own arrogance to think that this is the way forward.
28 November 2003, 03:58 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 9,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
saw an interesting programme a while ago where a bloke was comparing the protection an unborn child had via the law with that offered to a chimp.....the suffering and awareness of its suffering was much higher (and more obviuous) in the chimp than the undeveloped child yet the child got protected.
bloke was a tad left of centre but still interesting.
T
bloke was a tad left of centre but still interesting.
T
28 November 2003, 06:33 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Co Durham
Posts: 1,659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Richard,not funny!
I remember finding out about a dog-breeder who was breeding beagles specifically for the purposes of experimentation by tobacco companies. I was appalled and disgusted to say the least.
To my un-scientific mind, apart from certain primates, say chimps who share 99% of their dna with humans, I cannot see how tests for vaccines for humans etc can truly be of use when surely the test subjects physiology is completely different to that of a humans. As a whole I am an animal lover and the thought of such animals being subjected to truly horrific experimentation is abhorent to me. With regard to chimps and other primates, for what is potentially a close relative of humans, and who have been proven to show self-awareness and intelligence - to treat in this manner is dispicable.
I'm very sorry for all those that have a terminal illness for example, but that does not give us the right to force un-natural suffering on animals in the hope of finding a cure for a particular illness.
Medical science should find some other way and I would much rather human rights were 'violated' with the use of death row prisoners for experimentation than animals. Might even provide a deterrent against crime?
I also cannot see how such a suggestion can be compared to the experiments carried out by the likes of Mengele during WW2.His experiments were carried out on innocent people who ended up in **** death-camps due to their religion, for example. Comparing their rights to those of somebody who has murdered, raped or abused another human doesn't work. You commit a crime like that and you kiss your human rights away as far as I'm concerned. And let's face it, better they provide a use for the human race in the end than probably having contributed nothing to it previusly.
But I'm sure the likes of Amnesty would be up in arms and put a stop to that idea very quickly if it was even mentioned as a serious suggestion.
I remember finding out about a dog-breeder who was breeding beagles specifically for the purposes of experimentation by tobacco companies. I was appalled and disgusted to say the least.
To my un-scientific mind, apart from certain primates, say chimps who share 99% of their dna with humans, I cannot see how tests for vaccines for humans etc can truly be of use when surely the test subjects physiology is completely different to that of a humans. As a whole I am an animal lover and the thought of such animals being subjected to truly horrific experimentation is abhorent to me. With regard to chimps and other primates, for what is potentially a close relative of humans, and who have been proven to show self-awareness and intelligence - to treat in this manner is dispicable.
I'm very sorry for all those that have a terminal illness for example, but that does not give us the right to force un-natural suffering on animals in the hope of finding a cure for a particular illness.
Medical science should find some other way and I would much rather human rights were 'violated' with the use of death row prisoners for experimentation than animals. Might even provide a deterrent against crime?
I also cannot see how such a suggestion can be compared to the experiments carried out by the likes of Mengele during WW2.His experiments were carried out on innocent people who ended up in **** death-camps due to their religion, for example. Comparing their rights to those of somebody who has murdered, raped or abused another human doesn't work. You commit a crime like that and you kiss your human rights away as far as I'm concerned. And let's face it, better they provide a use for the human race in the end than probably having contributed nothing to it previusly.
But I'm sure the likes of Amnesty would be up in arms and put a stop to that idea very quickly if it was even mentioned as a serious suggestion.
28 November 2003, 06:53 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Herts.
Posts: 1,727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It annoys me to see protestors banging on the gates of pharmaceutical companies and terrorising the scientists who work there over animal experiments when infact it is the governments of the world which will not grant licences for new drugs to go into human tests without extensive animal testing first. The pharmaceutical companies are just doing what the regulators force them to do in order to produce a product which improves peoples lives.
Take speed cameras, we don't campaign outside the Gasto factory in Holland and baseball bat the workers on their way home - we blame our government for speed cameras who the fault really lies with.
Take speed cameras, we don't campaign outside the Gasto factory in Holland and baseball bat the workers on their way home - we blame our government for speed cameras who the fault really lies with.
28 November 2003, 07:49 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: The biosphere
Posts: 7,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is always a case of "means justifies the end". The debate centres around where you draw the justified/unjustified line.
Each of us has an inbuilt view of what is acceptable and what is not.
Personally I think testing unecessary items such as cosmetics and certain medications is not acceptable where either:
a) The product they are testing is not essential, or there are alternatives
b) There are alternative methods of testing, albeit possibly with compromise, that should be considered nonetheless
On the other hand I strongly disagree with some of the actions, and am strongly suspicous of some of the motives, of self labelled "animal activists". Actions such as "liberating" mink into the wild where they kill indigenous animals and then end up getting shot/trapped etc.
Each of us has an inbuilt view of what is acceptable and what is not.
Personally I think testing unecessary items such as cosmetics and certain medications is not acceptable where either:
a) The product they are testing is not essential, or there are alternatives
b) There are alternative methods of testing, albeit possibly with compromise, that should be considered nonetheless
On the other hand I strongly disagree with some of the actions, and am strongly suspicous of some of the motives, of self labelled "animal activists". Actions such as "liberating" mink into the wild where they kill indigenous animals and then end up getting shot/trapped etc.
28 November 2003, 08:58 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its all about money - and why should defenceless animals pay - I would have a go at anyone I saw hurting an animal without careing less for my own saftey - thats the way I feel
29 November 2003, 03:19 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out http://www.shac.net/ and join their mailing list.
As they request I sometimes send a polite e-mail to someone that SHAC targets, outlining the point they wish to make. This is generally aimed at service companies that aid and abet VERIFIED sick and unecessary animal torture. We do not need another oven cleaner tested by spraying it in the face of a chimp whilst his head is clamped in a vice - even if it indicates more profits for a multinational and the tester.
The e mail and calls policy is very effective and one Japanese company has just had to seek a high court injunction to try to silence the non violent harrasment (e-mails aren't violent
) of their 'blood stained hands' company.
It's a low hassle positive contribution we can all do.
D
As they request I sometimes send a polite e-mail to someone that SHAC targets, outlining the point they wish to make. This is generally aimed at service companies that aid and abet VERIFIED sick and unecessary animal torture. We do not need another oven cleaner tested by spraying it in the face of a chimp whilst his head is clamped in a vice - even if it indicates more profits for a multinational and the tester.
The e mail and calls policy is very effective and one Japanese company has just had to seek a high court injunction to try to silence the non violent harrasment (e-mails aren't violent
) of their 'blood stained hands' company.It's a low hassle positive contribution we can all do.
D
29 November 2003, 08:58 PM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, very touchy subject!!
Animal testing for Cosmetic purposes are a big no, no!
However, for reasons such as medical research, to a point I belive that this is beneficial to us. The results they get, only help towards the research slightly! Because the animals are so different to us! But, non the less it does help.
<Rant on>
Totally disagree with how some of the animal activists conduct themselves, its a disgarce!
I currently work for a company that supplies Toilet Rolls, Hand Towels and General Cleaning products, (no animal testing, we just supply a certain company, along with the majority of pubs, restaurants, Schools, University's and Police etc)
I have no qualms with the polite letters that we recieve expressing individuals views, because at the end of the day we all have our opions, and yes we should express them!
But, some of the groups have bombared the work places, groups of 8-10 folks causing all sorts of trouble, keep the phone lines jammed for hours by phoning and hanging up! Sticking stupid stickers all over peoples cars! (Right nightmare to get off
) And the list can go on........
Surely, there are more constructive ways of getting points and views across!!
<Rant off>
Sorry, if i've offended anyone...... once again very touchy subject, such as politics and religion!
Ame x
Animal testing for Cosmetic purposes are a big no, no!
However, for reasons such as medical research, to a point I belive that this is beneficial to us. The results they get, only help towards the research slightly! Because the animals are so different to us! But, non the less it does help.
<Rant on>
Totally disagree with how some of the animal activists conduct themselves, its a disgarce!
I currently work for a company that supplies Toilet Rolls, Hand Towels and General Cleaning products, (no animal testing, we just supply a certain company, along with the majority of pubs, restaurants, Schools, University's and Police etc)
I have no qualms with the polite letters that we recieve expressing individuals views, because at the end of the day we all have our opions, and yes we should express them!
But, some of the groups have bombared the work places, groups of 8-10 folks causing all sorts of trouble, keep the phone lines jammed for hours by phoning and hanging up! Sticking stupid stickers all over peoples cars! (Right nightmare to get off
) And the list can go on........Surely, there are more constructive ways of getting points and views across!!
<Rant off>
Sorry, if i've offended anyone...... once again very touchy subject, such as politics and religion!
Ame x
29 November 2003, 09:03 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The animals aren't having oven cleaner spayed in their face to be tested........ 99.999% of any sort of cleaning chemicls are NOT tested on animals! It was abolished years ago!!!
The Shac site, after studying it for some time, and yes very interesting, I belive to a certain degree is just yet another form of Propaganda!!! How True, really are the Facts????!!!!!
The Shac site, after studying it for some time, and yes very interesting, I belive to a certain degree is just yet another form of Propaganda!!! How True, really are the Facts????!!!!!
29 November 2003, 10:48 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dull White BMW
Posts: 5,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under new EU laws, all chemicals must be re-tested to determine their toxicity.
This is going to have two consequences:-
1. Millions of animals will be involved in the tests
2. Thousands of chemical industy jobs will be lost as production will transfer to countries outside the EU
Everyting you all use has been tested on animals.
Steve
This is going to have two consequences:-
1. Millions of animals will be involved in the tests
2. Thousands of chemical industy jobs will be lost as production will transfer to countries outside the EU
Everyting you all use has been tested on animals.
Steve
29 November 2003, 11:01 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the manufacturers that we use quotes on their website
We do not run animal tests in our own labs, nor do we send products out to be tested on our or our customers behalf
We do not have any links commercial or otherwise with companies whom we know to test products on animals.
They also have a huge Environmental policy!
Surely, if the chemicals had been tested on animals they wouldn't be able to quote the above?!
Ame
We do not run animal tests in our own labs, nor do we send products out to be tested on our or our customers behalf
We do not have any links commercial or otherwise with companies whom we know to test products on animals.
They also have a huge Environmental policy!
Surely, if the chemicals had been tested on animals they wouldn't be able to quote the above?!
Ame
30 November 2003, 12:38 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Markus,
I do not go along with the actions of the animal activists.What they are prepared to do is so bad that they cannot even be regarded as misguided, the usual "chi chi" excuse for such goings on.
Bravo2zero,
I can understand your feelings about such evil criminals and agree that they should forfeit their human rights once convicted of such awful behaviour. Either the death penalty or certainly proper hard labour etc in prison.
I cannot reconcile myself however to allowing those sort of experiments being carried out on any human being. I also think it would be the start of an extremely dangerous new set of principles.
Les
I do not go along with the actions of the animal activists.What they are prepared to do is so bad that they cannot even be regarded as misguided, the usual "chi chi" excuse for such goings on.
Bravo2zero,
I can understand your feelings about such evil criminals and agree that they should forfeit their human rights once convicted of such awful behaviour. Either the death penalty or certainly proper hard labour etc in prison.
I cannot reconcile myself however to allowing those sort of experiments being carried out on any human being. I also think it would be the start of an extremely dangerous new set of principles.
Les
30 November 2003, 08:18 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ame, targetting 3d parties is all part of the process of isolating those that create misery, death and pain. Surely any decent company would want to have nothing to do with these people - even if it is a simple supply contract for something?
Stickers are a lot less painfull than being a Beagle puppy that is repeatedly punched by 'scientific staff' for wincing and not 'staying still' under the torture? I think that stream is on the website, so dont moan about some bl00dy stickers to me mate...
Stickers are a lot less painfull than being a Beagle puppy that is repeatedly punched by 'scientific staff' for wincing and not 'staying still' under the torture? I think that stream is on the website, so dont moan about some bl00dy stickers to me mate...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post