Only resource i found on page that actually talk about alternative, work (dr. hadwen trust site dead, vivisectioninformation blog from 2012 and almost all linked site dead), and not video is https://aavs.org/
Alternative such as:
Use part of slaughterhouse animal (shift animal burden onto flesh farm industry) (BCOP, ICE)
Use method that still use animal testing but less (3T3, NHK, UDP, in vitro pyrogenicity)
Use in vitro (lab grown) cell membrane from human cell (Corrositex, EPISKINTM, EpiDermTM) only for skin test
Use different animal (TER, LLNA)
Use bacteria (Ames)
Original text make seem like animal test not necessary, but cited source say nothing of that. Only Ames even vegan (if you not consider bacteria animal too).
If post thing without understand, false information spread way faster because expect poster do due diligence.
There alternatives are still harm reduction, I agree that linkrot is a real issue and that animal testing is rather neglected by most vegans. However the fact that there are alternatives to the way we do animal testing, that quite a few are due to regulatory restrictions and not necessary in the scientific sense is not false information.
I would also like to point out that this expectation of always having a well-studied understanding with sources at the ready seems to not be applied when carnists post stuff like “animal testing is necessary”, “animal ag’s impact on the climate is negligible” etc.
No not false information as fake news. The word i search for was “Faktenverdrehung” in german which is not false information but something like warped information and not know good word in english. So i default to false information.
The second: just because opposition do bad thing not ok for you to do same. Especially if most important point to science, still able to get good result, is misrepresent. Maybe you care more about ethic than science, so might nitpick about thing that i specifially care lot about.
I not care if you understand fully what quote. But that know enough about source to jugde quality of information. And give context for that. For example that this website seem extremely focus on ethic, given only 3 source for science and a lot more for ethic. (And maybe if copy paste use > in front of text to show it quote and not own text, then i would go to website to search not ask you).
Also if care about link rot save important resource in wayback machine.
Such as?
There are resources on that page. That is an area I know nothing about sadly.
Only resource i found on page that actually talk about alternative, work (dr. hadwen trust site dead, vivisectioninformation blog from 2012 and almost all linked site dead), and not video is https://aavs.org/
Alternative such as:
Original text make seem like animal test not necessary, but cited source say nothing of that. Only Ames even vegan (if you not consider bacteria animal too).
If post thing without understand, false information spread way faster because expect poster do due diligence.
There alternatives are still harm reduction, I agree that linkrot is a real issue and that animal testing is rather neglected by most vegans. However the fact that there are alternatives to the way we do animal testing, that quite a few are due to regulatory restrictions and not necessary in the scientific sense is not false information.
I would also like to point out that this expectation of always having a well-studied understanding with sources at the ready seems to not be applied when carnists post stuff like “animal testing is necessary”, “animal ag’s impact on the climate is negligible” etc.
No not false information as fake news. The word i search for was “Faktenverdrehung” in german which is not false information but something like warped information and not know good word in english. So i default to false information.
The second: just because opposition do bad thing not ok for you to do same. Especially if most important point to science, still able to get good result, is misrepresent. Maybe you care more about ethic than science, so might nitpick about thing that i specifially care lot about.
I not care if you understand fully what quote. But that know enough about source to jugde quality of information. And give context for that. For example that this website seem extremely focus on ethic, given only 3 source for science and a lot more for ethic. (And maybe if copy paste use > in front of text to show it quote and not own text, then i would go to website to search not ask you).
Also if care about link rot save important resource in wayback machine.