[mrdeadman]

http://www.mengele.dk/new_page_2.htm
http://www.mengele.dk/

here's a pretty good link: http://www.shoah.dk/doctors/index.htm
their research is probably outdated but that is still some sick stuff.
i agree that humans are more important than nonhumans, well some of them, however, should we really subject animals to the torment that the angels of death subjected their human patients to? i hate peta but there is some pretty screwed up stuff in the world.

[syko sykes]

Sorry for the confusion, i needed to do a little research on Auschwitz before posting. Anyway, i have to agree with mrdeadman in that doing testing on animals doesn't make it any better or more "ethically correct".

Also, the testing done at Auschwitz was done by the Nazis whom believed themselves to be a superior race. Therefore, they most likely believed that the people they were doing testing on were sub-human; not unlike how we think of animals today or how Americans thought of blacks/slaves prior to the civil war. How can you justify testing on animals and look down upon Auschwitz when the Angels of Death were essentially doing testing on animals?

[Will]

Also, the testing done at Auschwitz was done by the Nazis whom believed themselves to be a superior race. Therefore, they most likely believed that the people they were doing testing on were sub-human; not unlike how we think of animals today or how Americans thought of blacks/slaves prior to the civil war.

  I am pretty sure that Mengele guy knew pretty well that he was 'testing' on humans. The Nazi belief of the Aryan race being superior was an extreme fantasy- there was no brain-washing involved and Mengele, reading up about his background, doesn't seem like the sort of person who would beleive that Nazi crap.

How can you justify testing on animals and look down upon Auschwitz when the Angels of Death were essentially doing testing on animals?

Quite easily (assuming you're talking about animal testing for medical purposes), why? (What the angel of death did was revolting- please read it on the websites mrdeadman posted then think about what you said).

[syko sykes]

If Mendele didn't believe in that "Nazi crap" then why did he join the Nazi party in 1937 and later volunteer to go to a Nazi death camp? That comes directly from mrdeadman's websites.

as far as what Auschwitz did being revolting, i agree. What i'm trying to say is that doing testing on animals is just as bad.

[mrdeadman]

Quite easily (assuming you're talking about animal testing for medical purposes), why? (What the angel of death did was revolting- please read it on the websites mrdeadman posted then think about what you said).

i see where you're coming from. it is fairly easy to just let it happen to animals, however the reason i don't think it is all right is i find animals to be superior to many humans. im serious here. i don't think humans deserve to be so (pardon-my-french) f-ed up to the animals. it is like i said before pretty sick sh!t. i don't necessarily think the end result justifies the means all the time. if you look around the internet, particularly at Peta's ( ) website then you'll know the kinds of stuff I'm referring to when i say that it is no better than the Auschwitz scheme. don't misunderstand here, i see the other side as well, the scientific advancement opportunities, but i would just like to see the research enacted in different ways.

[Will]

If Mendele didn't believe in that "Nazi crap" then why did he join the Nazi party in 1937 and later volunteer to go to a Nazi death camp? That comes directly from mrdeadman's websites.

as far as what Auschwitz did being revolting, i agree. What i'm trying to say is that doing testing on animals is just as bad.

I read that, but I don't beleive anyone with a functioning brain can beleive that Jews etc. are sub-human. When scientists test on animals, they don't usually inject stuff into their eyes to change to change their colour, they don't normally operate without some form of anesthetic etc etc.

In light of what mrdeadman just said, many animals may seem superior to some humans, but I still think that we should continue testing on animals rather than gathering up all the people mrdeadman doesn't like and test on them (... human rights stuff etc. ).

When I talk about testing, I mean humane testing done just to test out new drugs etc. This research saves millions of people's lives and improves the quality of millions of others, like mrdeadman said. I haven't been to Peta's website for ages and I don't feel like visiting right now, but I think many of their pictures aren't actually what goes on in most western civilisation labs. I don't agree that any animal should be treated the way humans were treated in Auschwitz, and most people wouldn't have the mental capacity to treat anything (except maybe a wasp/poisonous ant etc.) in the same way the angel of death treated humans.

[mrdeadman]

In light of what mrdeadman just said, many animals may seem superior to some humans, but I still think that we should continue testing on animals rather than gathering up all the people mrdeadman doesn't like and test on them (... human rights stuff etc. ).

you make a compelling argument, i particulary thought that this was amusing^ haha. that sounds like a good plan to me.

[Will]

Funny that as soon as this thread appears, this happens: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4753333.stm. This completely spoils the credibility of animal rights activists (not that they had any IMHO).

The People's Petition gives a voice to the silent majority of people in Britain who want to show their support for medical research using animals in the UK.

It's a campaign for people who believe that this research, carried out under stringent animal welfare standards, is essential to the health and quality of life of humans and animals.

If you agree with this, the link for it is here: http://www.peoplespetition.org.uk/.

[constant thinker]

Auschwitz and the other death camps were all terrible. The testing on animals in this day and age usually involves injecting a drug or in some of the lower species genetic modification. I'm not opposed to injecting the drug in the animals because your not harming a person life intentionally and it's not anything like what Mengele did. Mengele performed some crazy experiments on people. Last I checked all we do is inject mice or other animals with a drug and study how they react then perform an autopsy post mortim. We don't inject their eyes with dye or anything like that.

It's fine by me as long as it's purposeful research and not just killing animals or doing things to animals for entertainment.

P.S. PETA to me means People who Eat Tasty Animals 
Cows = 

[mrdeadman]

Last I checked all we do is inject mice or other animals with a drug and study how they react then perform an autopsy post mortim. We don't inject their eyes with dye or anything like that.

maybe you need to check again. premarin, a drug just so people don't have hot flashes is made from pregnant horse urine enzymes. this is done by continuously getting horses pregnant and keeping them in small stalls, minimal in movement capabilities to collect their urine. http://www.premarin.org/
  there is a really gross picture farther down the page.
yes, i do love a tasty burger.
do you know what they call a quarter-pounder with cheese in France?

[rctrackstar2007]

oh do tell

[constant thinker]

That's not testing on animals though. That's using animals for/in the production of a drug.

[mrdeadman]

That's not testing on animals though. That's using animals for/in the production of a drug.

it is all the same.

[rctrackstar2007]

That's not testing on animals though. That's using animals for/in the production of a drug.

technicallities schmecnicallities lol either way that horse thing was gross

[mrdeadman]

  that's why i posted it. maybe if enough people would know about it, then there can be some sort of change.