[userbinator]

No kidding. If it weren't for the animals it'd be us.

It's always ironic to see animal rights advocates' responses when they are asked if they'd rather volunteer to be the research subjects instead. They are surprisingly reluctant...

This tends to make them ponder a bit more:

"If we hadn't experimented on animals, you might not even be alive today."

[XzetaU8]

It was for us as well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...

[eeZah7Ux]

> "If we hadn't experimented on animals, you might not even be alive today."

That might apply to some life-saving drugs.

Cosmetics and weapons are not medicines - far from it.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

If it weren't for some weapons, you might not be alive today either.

[mgkimsal]

If it weren't for some cosmetics, many of us might not be alive today either.

[eeZah7Ux]

Survivor bias? If it weren't for some weapons, a lot of people might be alive today.

Claiming that weapons save more people that they kill is simply illogical.

[HeyLaughingBoy]

Where exactly was that claim made?

[eeZah7Ux]

> If it weren't for some weapons, you might not be alive today either.

...unless you are implying that this is about saving me personally at the expense of other people lives.

[uhtred]

This is speciesism in its purest form. So if we took a Planet of the Apes style plot twist, and apes became the dominant life form on earth, I suppose you'd be OK with them strapping you in to some test where you will probably meet a horrible end, all so they can progress their technology?