[nezzle]

Yes, it's terrible. Make sure none of the following list apply to you or anyone you care for.

>If you’ve ever taken antibiotics, had a vaccine, a blood transfusion, dialysis, an organ transplant, chemotherapy, bypass surgery or joint replacement, you have benefited from animal testing and research. In fact, practically every drug, treatment, medical device, diagnostic tool or cure we have today was developed with the help of lab animals.

>Many diseases that once killed millions of people every year are now either preventable, treatable or have been eradicated altogether. Immunizations against polio, diphtheria, mumps, rubella and hepatitis save countless lives and the survival rates for many major diseases are at an all-time high thanks to the discovery of new drugs and the design of sophisticated medical devices and surgical procedures.

[carussell]

You seem to have responded to the parent comment as if he or she was making an appeal on the grounds of ethics of animal testing. (And for some reason, people have engaged with you on this, as if that's what's going on.)

But the linked video isn't about that at all. It's about the pitfalls of using rodents for testing and trying to extrapolate meaningful conclusions from the results. In other words, an argument that is squarely on topic with regard to the original article. Or in other words further, that using rodents is "a horrible testing method"―to repeat what the original commenter wrote before you derailed the thread.

Your commenting as if this discussion is about the ethics of animal testing and the comments of you and those who've responded (including the one I'm writing now!) have been—and are contributing further—to a massive waste of effort and attention.

[buu700]

I don't buy the argument/implication that it's somehow hypocritical to oppose something while actively benefiting from it, as long as one is upfront about that fact.

For example, say that we have genuinely useful medical information as a result of Unit 731 experiments and similar crimes (which may or may not be the case; I have no idea). There's no contradiction if one person supports using those existing results to save lives while simultaneously opposing further collection of such results.

Another example: I personally eat a lot of meat (keto/LCHF), but even so I might support legislation to ban killing animals for food or sport, because the personal sacrifice would only be worth it to me if it came attached to a systemic change.

[rkangel]

> because the personal sacrifice would only be worth it to me if it came attached to a systemic change

This is the reason why. You may prefer the world to be a certain way, but you aren't willing to make any sacrifice to make it be a particular way, so it appears that you don't actually care about an opinion that you are espousing.

People who don't eat meat have a net effect on a reduced demand for meat, reducing the amount of cattle. Becoming a vegetarian doesn't stop everyone eating meat, but it helps.

[I'm not a vegetarian but I have some respect for people who are willing to stand by their beliefs]

[mattmcknight]

Demand for meat is elastic. If vegetarians don't eat it the price goes down, so people can afford it more often, so the number of cattle doesn't necessarily drop.

[buu700]

It would be hypocritical if I were to hide that I eat meat and admonish others for doing so, but neither of those are the case. I care, but I also care about the substantial harm being done to humans by the past 50 years of low-fat diet craze, so in my mind, as much I respect vegetarians, it'd be harmful to go around blindly pushing everyone to eat less or no meat.

For me, I see the greatest impact I can personally make as continuing to work to become successful and then investing a ton of money into lab-grown meat.

Anyway, it's something I'd like to help do something about, but it's not my life's focus. If I had a magic "make everyone stop eating meat" button, I'd be tempted to press it and figure out a way to personally adapt, but ultimately I think that would cause more harm than good without a market-ready drop-in replacement that fits the same macros. That's not the same as not caring or being unwilling to make a sacrifice; it's just caring about multiple things to varying degrees and being realistic.

[Chris2048]

> but you aren't willing to make any sacrifice to make it be a particular way

Says who? OP is willing to make a sacrifice that results in desired effect - just not "any" sacrifice, which in this case does nothing.

If I think taxes should be lower, should I start paying less tax then I am asked to?

[flarg]

Maybe be the change you want to see in the world?