"Oh please. A few rodents being used for legitimate medical experimentation in no way justifies attempted bombings of labs(because thankfully most animal rights terrorists are too moronic to actually succeed), attacking scientists, destroying their homes and other property, digging up the corpses of their family and desecrating the remains, releasing dangerous or damaging to the local eco-system animals from testing labs without any fucking thought to the consequences beyond "ermagerds, Mr Fluffy must be fweeeeeeeee!", or any of the other stupid, monstrous shit these idiots get up to."
A few? You clearly don't pay much attention if you think it is just a few. And yes, it is completely justified. We're talking about a practice that can easily be forced on individuals that actually deserve to be tested on. Or at the very least, ones that are more deserving of it. And as usual, you're resorting to straw-manning the activists engaging in these acts by making them out to be naive little children that aren't even aware of what scientific procedure brings us. If you think that the logic goes as far as "Mur.Fluffy must be fweee" then you just further demonstrate you're not in any place to be on this subject. Sometimes anger is completely justified. If you fail to see how after we're talking about an institution which forces these animals to have a life of misery then you just furthermore show the kind of privilege you don't deserve.
'What's truly depressing is that you can stand there and take a bit of dark humour and actually advocate forced invasive medical testing on human beings."
Ahh yes, it's so depressing that someone can actually bother to think further than just 'Testing on humans is wrong because they're humans. and it's wrong.' What's actually depressing is that you see it as a moral wrong to do this to terrible people but as a moral right to do it to creatures far more noble than the people I'm mocking. The line you draw doesn't seem to have any logical basis or merit besides some abstract notion of humanity. This is something that's completely arbitrary and pointless. IF we adapt my joke then there is merit. We do it to obnoxious douchebags. If we adapt my serious thoughts, then we do it to sociopaths who legitimately committed heinous crimes. But I suppose because their a human, it totally makes it wrong. Because they're humans.
"No. Despite how fucking stupid I think they are"
How stupid you think they are is irrelevant when it relies on this kind of naive over-simplification of them as a whole. If we to sit down and argue the groups of people I hate versus militant animal rights activists I think mine has a bit of merit even when they're completely in the wrong simply because they're fighting for a moral right that involves legitimate suffering of another party.
"because I value human life"
And the other perhaps far too little. Your rhetoric comes across as quite hollow when this is put into consideration.
"And even the shittiest criminals have the potential"
And here is where I begin to see the naivete again. Humans deserve a second chance no matter how terrible and horrible they are, even if they're legitimate sociopaths. You show so much compassion, and yet so little based solely on humanity.
"Animal testing should be minimised"
No, it shouldn't even exist. And I'm not really seeing a compelling argument for why testing on terrible human beings is any worse than testing on animals. A sociopath that committed murder has potential? How? Those people are the kind that stay in prison for their entire lives. They drain resources, space, and time and they're nothing but a burden for the whole of society. Which granted animals can be burdensome too, but at least when they they're finished mauling someone it's for their own survival. The idea shouldn't ever be to minimize suffering, it should be to get rid of it. Minimize is only a means of trying to reach that point.
"it should be done as humanely as possible"
When you're one of those "stupid animal rights activists", you'll know that what defines 'humanely as possible' isn't humane enough. Furthermore, not every single animal that dies for animal testing is serving some greater purpose like the cure for cancer. most times it's for meaningless products like pharmaceuticals which may or may not work, cosmetics, and other petty things that don't warrant their suffering and destruction. And when we're trusting the lives of these living beings in the hands of efficient corporations, 'humanely' is a completely unrealistic expectation to have.
"And it should have continual ethical oversight"
Ethical oversight from who, people who are testing on the animals? That's an incredibly one sided ethical stance. Even more so when their idea of "ethical" is not testing on a particular ape because "it's DNA is too close to humans" Which yet again brings us back to the abstract value of 'humanity'.
"But at the end of the day, if a thousand thousand mice or whatever have to die to develop a cure that will save potentially millions of human lives or ease the suffering of sentient human beings"
You emphasize "sentient" as if the animals they test on aren't?
"that's a price worth paying." So the ends justify the means. With 7.7 billion people and sociopaths being locked away in prison, I'm still not seeing why that's suddenly where we draw the line on a price supposedly being too much. It's always some notion inferiority that's the first excuse to justify suffering. And granted I do that too, but at least when I try and undermine the worth of another creature I've got a better argument to go along with it than just some vague notion of 'humanity'.
"Also, I hope you have never once taken even so much as an asprin or visited your local doctor to see to a cough or, congratulations, you're a massive hypocrite because virtually every medical treatment and technique in use today was tested on animals at some point, often in far crueler and less restrictive manner than is practiced today."
If a vegan wears a leather coat, that doesn't necessarily mean that they bought it while they were still a vegan. It wouldn't be hypocritical for them to continue wearing that coat after they became one because they'd still be using that animal after the damage had already been done. It's not really hypocritical to make use of previous suffering. It's a lot like buying a fur coat from the thrift store versus buying a fur coat first hand from a retailer.
