PDA

View Full Version : Animal Rights



Tsuyoiko
08-11-05, 15:40
What are your opinions about what rights animals should have, if any?

I don't think the poll covers everything, but if anyone thinks of any good additions, I'm ask Maciamo to fix it (if you don't mind Maciamo :relief: )

I was brought up in a vegetarian house, and my parents were members of Animal Aid. I was raised to believe that animals have as much right to life as humans. I feel that we are just one animal species among many, and that we don't have the right to use animals like a commodity. Eating meat seems as horrible to me as eating human flesh! But I know that my view is an extreme one, and I have to live in a society where most people (including my husband) eat meat. I am used to it, so it doesn't bother me much any more, but as a teenager the sight of meat would make me cry.

Jack
08-11-05, 15:46
animals have only one right, and thats the right to look cute, :wave:
i may act tough, but im smitten by a little kitten.

Anyway, folk that hurt animals should be shot, shot out of a cannon and into a wall, and then blow up the wall.

We live in this world like its our's, we should remember we're not the only species living here.

Maciamo
08-11-05, 16:32
Eating animals is ok because that's how nature works (some would eat us too if hungry, and have eaten our ancestors). Keeping animals in zoos is more than ok. It's a necessity as many species are now endangered and face extinction in the wild. The conditions are more important than whether they should be kept in zoos or not (same for circuses). As long as they are well treated and fed, no problem (they are like "public pets").

Hitting pets (lightly) like dogs or cats is sometimes necessary, as it is with children, to make them understand that they have done something wrong. In fact, it's difficult to have authority and respect from some dogs without hitting them once or twice and shouting on them to scare them enough so that they understand who commands. My in-laws can't do that and their dog does mischiefs all the time. I tried my methods, and the dog not only behaves in my presence but seem to regard me as the master now (a bit embarassing as it's not my dog).

I am against testing on animals for cosmetic purposes, but probably for testing for medical research, as it can saves uncountable lives in the future.

Mycernius
08-11-05, 17:59
As far as I am concerned eating meat is okay. Humans are omnivores by nature and we need meat to get all our protein (vague memories of biology). The only plant that does this is soya, which is why most vegatarian foods contain soya. Even the greats apes will eat meat to supplement thier diet. It is also a high energy food and most likely helped man to its intelligence. Human brains need a lot of energy.
I agree with Maciamo on the point for zoos. In the past they weren't very good, but nowadays they are used to maintain species and help those that are on the endangered list. Circus animals though are just for human entertainment and some are kept in appaling conditions. If I want to be entertained by animals I'll watch animal planet, at least there they are free and doing what they do naturally.
I think there use in medical research is justified. I would rather prefer an animal being used to find cures for cancer, heart disease and various other conditions, than see people die because these experiments were banned. Imagine the outcry if these experiments were being done on people. Josef Mengele did during WW2. Cosmetic experimenting is something different. Animals shouldn't suffer because of someones vanity.
Hitting is a bit of a grey area. I find the odd tap or smack while training a dog helps. My dog is very obedient and regards me as her master. Remember that is how a dominant pack member will keep its pack in line. A dog regards you as part of its pack. If you don't put some authority on it, it will become difficult. My aunt has this problem with her dog, plus it is inbred. Big, stupid and she has no real control over it. Smacking cats is pointless. Hit a cat and it will get revenge on you, or just piss off elsewhere. Hitting animals for no reason is just a sign of an insercure person who likes to bully things. Probably can't do it to people, so does it to something weaker than himself. In a way it is pathetic and sad.
I'm like Jack when it comes to kittens. So cute, despite using your leg as a climbing tower to get places. My brother two kittens do this to me every thime I go around his house. One has made it all the way to my shoulder. Little bugger!

Kinsao
08-11-05, 22:27
I'm OK with eating meat and using animal products such as dairy. HOWEVER, although I don't believe eating meat to be wrong as such, I feel very unhappy in some cases about the bad conditions in which they are kept (such as battery hens/chickens, or animals not being killed humanely). I'm not vegan or vegetarian, but in an ideal world I'd like for the animals I "use"/eat to be kept in comfortable life and killed painlessly. Maybe I'm hypocritical because it obviously doesn't stab my conscience enough to have made me a vegetarian... :bluush: ... on the other hand I seldom eat meat anyway, cos I'm lazy and eat mainly raw stuff and powdered soup. :sick:

I'm against animal testing for cosmetic purposes, and for medical purposes too. I had to think hard about that last one, but decided against it because no, animals should NOT be caused suffering, it's not right, and, I know medical research benefits for people with illnesses, but I think there should be other ways of testing... I think we have advanced technology to test without need of animals... and, animals react differently from humans, I wouldn't even be 100% satisfied if something had been tested on an animal that it would be OK for a person necessarily. I know you can say "there is a high chance" or whatever but it's still a risk.

Circuses are a "no" for me, not because I even think the animals would necessarily be treated badly, but I just think the animals aren't needed for "entertainment", a circus can be plenty good enough without animals, why put them through it.

I had to think hard about zoos and in the end checked both boxes. On balance it's a yes because zoos help to preserve species that would otherwise die out, protect them, help keep the natural balance and that... these days it's mostly done in an educated way, people know what they're doing, they want to help... but I'm against "bad" zoos where the animals are just cooped up and they're not well looked after. :(

I think hitting pets is wrong, no matter if they are a big dog. I believe in the "learning by reward" system. I'd only cause pain/harm to an animal if they were actively attacking or threatening me (or someone near me). But, a "tap" or "smack" (I don't mean a full-swing whack!) isn't the same thing as "hitting", I think it depends on the animal. For example, everyone knows a horse or a cow, you can smack them and they don't feel it so hard as a human would, or a small animal like a cat. It doesn't bother them (e.g. tap with a whip, on a horse). And a large dog, probably wouldn't feel a tap or smack to be very hard. When I think of "hitting" I think of a full-force hit in anger - a definite no-no.

lastmagi
09-11-05, 01:39
Interesting poll, Tsuyoiko.

Eating meat is OK
As Maciamo and Mycernius pointed out, eating meat is part of a natural process. Humans are all part of a larger system, not apart from it.

Using products from live animals is OK
After all, we get products from animals that are already bred for that purpose. If we let them loose now, they'd all get killed.

Testing on animals for medical purposes is OK
I agree completely with Mycernius on this one:


I think the[ir] use in medical research is justified. I would rather prefer an animal being used to find cures for cancer, heart disease and various other conditions, than see people die because these experiments were banned. Imagine the outcry if these experiments were being done on people. Josef Mengele did during WW2. Cosmetic experimenting is something different. Animals shouldn't suffer because of someones vanity.

Not much to add for the time being. I think it's actually quite inhumane to let potential medical cures be restricted for that reason. A quick search on google will give some basic myths and facts.

http://www.rds-online.org.uk/pages/page.asp?i_ToolbarID=2&i_PageID=48


I had to think hard about that last one, but decided against it because no, animals should NOT be caused suffering, it's not right

Working alongside scientists and researchers, you realize that they have the same ethical concerns as anyone else. They want to reduce the suffering as much as anyone else (many scientists start out with a love for the natural world, after all), but they also aim to reduce the suffering of humans, as well. Unfortunately, you can't have it both ways.

from the site:


Researchers are concerned about the welfare of the animals that they study and this concern is both humane and scientific. Scientists are at least as caring as other people and, like anyone else, often have pets of their own. They have no reason to mistreat research animals and good reason for treating them well, because the use of unhealthy, stressed or frightened animals would reduce the reliability of an experiments results. Researchers make sure that their animals are well fed, well housed and kept free of infections and other illnesses.


and, I know medical research benefits for people with illnesses, but I think there should be other ways of testing...

None of those alternatives should be taken in isolation. Indeed, I think it would be dangerous just to restrict oneself to certain alternatives.

from the site:


Non-animal methods - tissue culture, computer modelling, studies of patients and populations - are very widely used. In fact, only about ten pence in every pound spent on medical research goes on animal studies. The word alternatives, often used to describe these non-animal methods, can lead to confusion because these methods are generally used alongside animal studies, not instead of them. All these techniques have their place, and it is rarely possible to substitute one for another.

There are stages in any research programme when it is not enough to know how individual molecules, cells or tissues behave. The living body is much more than just a collection of these parts, and we need to understand how they interact, how they are controlled. There are ethical limits to the experiments that we can do using people, so the only alternative is to use the most suitable animal to study a particular disease or biological function.


and, animals react differently from humans, I wouldn't even be 100% satisfied if something had been tested on an animal that it would be OK for a person necessarily. I know you can say "there is a high chance" or whatever but it's still a risk.

I would argue that that's part of the process, in figuring out how relevant animal biology would be to human to minimize unnecessary pain later on.

Incidentally, there will never be a 100% guarantee about research. I made a thread once about how some researchers into communication devices for the paralyzed had their funding (almost?) cut because their device would not be 100% accurate. But biology is so complicated that a 100% of anything would immediately be suspect.

from the site


All mammals are descended from common ancestors, and one result of this is that humans are biologically very similar to other mammals. All mammals, including humans, have the same organs - heart, lungs, kidneys, liver etc - performing the same functions and controlled by the same mechanisms, via the blood stream and nervous system. Of course there are minor differences, but these are far outweighed by the remarkable similarities. The differences can give important clues about diseases and how they might be treated - for instance, if we knew why the mouse with muscular dystrophy suffers less muscle wasting than human patients, this might lead to a treatment for this debilitating and fatal disorder.

Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is wrong
Unnecessary.

Keeping animals in zoos is OK
for preservation purposes

circuses?
don't know. Never been to one.

Hitting pets?
Lightly and not too hard, and only for negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement should go together with negative reinforcement because it's harder, for example, to positively reinforce a dog to stay away from the road than to negatively reinforce him. Still I wouldn't hit any animal too hard.

Maciamo
09-11-05, 02:36
I feel that we are just one animal species among many, and that we don't have the right to use animals like a commodity. Eating meat seems as horrible to me as eating human flesh!

Then we should exterminate all carnivorous species on this planet ! :sorry:


But I know that my view is an extreme one

Yes, I never thought you'd see a lion, or even a little pussy cat, as murderers because they only eat meat.


think there use in medical research is justified. I would rather prefer an animal being used to find cures for cancer, heart disease and various other conditions, than see people die because these experiments were banned.

I already. Do you prefer to see a mouse die for the sake of research, or your cat catching it, playing with it, then opening its belly until the entrails come out, then leave the dying mouse on your doorstep as the cat is not hungry anyway. That's animal cruelty. But this is also nature. Animals (and humans) cannot control their instincts (humans sometimes can, but using a lot of efforts).


Smacking cats is pointless. Hit a cat and it will get revenge on you.

Haha. I know children who also behave like that.


I'm OK with eating meat and using animal products such as dairy. HOWEVER, although I don't believe eating meat to be wrong as such, I feel very unhappy in some cases about the bad conditions in which they are kept (such as battery hens/chickens, or animals not being killed humanely).

So you are saying that hunting is the ideal way of obtaining meat since animals are kept in the best ideal conditions (free in nature) when we kill them, right ?

CC1
09-11-05, 03:43
I have no problems with eating meat! As Maciamo said, many other animals would eat me if given the chance.

Medical research is ok with me...but not cosmetic research.

Using animal products? I see no harm in milk from a goat or cow, as it helps the animal, but I think if we ever figure out how to perform a liver transplant from an animal to a human that would be wrong!

Circus? Wrong

Zoo (or controlled habitats?) Ok, and somewhat necessary for education and study. Of course the zoo here in Okinawa is just wrong! This would depend on how the zoo is set up and how the animals are cared for!

Hitting animals? Wrong...except for training purposes as Maciamo suggested. (Wow I've never agreed with Maciamo this much in one post...prepare for Armageddon!)

@Maciamo Is it too late to make this a public poll? To see the responses of those that don't bother to post.

HomicidalMouse
09-11-05, 05:05
I worked at a medical research centre, and can safely say the mice i looked after were very well treated. Sometimes i thought they were treated better than me. Wonder what happened to Martin, Beans, Rollo and Squigs...? Probably dead... But i also learnt baby mice (or pups) make funny clicking noises :p
My apologies if i seem like im taking the p*ss :sorry: Im in a peculiar mood.
So yeah, i think medical testing on animals is ok, but not cosmetic testing for the same reason as Mycernius.

Maciamo
09-11-05, 05:20
@Maciamo Is it too late to make this a public poll? To see the responses of those that don't bother to post.

Unfortunately, we can't change a public to private poll or vice versa after the poll has been created...

Kinsao
09-11-05, 12:14
So you are saying that hunting is the ideal way of obtaining meat since animals are kept in the best ideal conditions (free in nature) when we kill them, right ?

Yeah! :cool: Errrr... but it's not very practical with our modern lifestyle... :blush: Although on balance I'd rather be spending the day out hunting my dinner than cooped up in an office... :(

Uhhh, and just to be a bit too serious about your joke, :bluush: I guess under hunting conditions animals aren't likely to be killed very humanely, though... no stun gun for the cavemen... :sorry:

Hehe, if I had my way we'd all still be running naked through the long grass... :p


I think if we ever figure out how to perform a liver transplant from an animal to a human that would be wrong!

I believe already has been performed a heart transplant from a pig to a human. Apparently pigs are one animal that is very biologically similar to human... :souka:


I worked at a medical research centre, and can safely say the mice i looked after were very well treated.

Well that's OK then. If they are not suffering, that's fine. :-)

Errrr... did you get your forum name from some interesting experience while you were doing that job? :?

Tsuyoiko
09-11-05, 12:36
Then we should exterminate all carnivorous species on this planet ! :sorry:
Yes, I never thought you'd see a lion, or even a little pussy cat, as murderers because they only eat meat.I think you know I don't mean that at all! Of course many animals need to eat meat to survive, and early humans needed to eat meat too, or we probably wouldn't have evolved large brains, or been able to survive ice ages. Maybe if I was starving I might eat meat - but I'm not starving yet! Since I can survive perfectly well without meat I'm glad I can make the choice not to eat it.

Maciamo
09-11-05, 12:51
I believe already has been performed a heart transplant from a pig to a human. Apparently pigs are one animal that is very biologically similar to human... :souka:

As Winston Churchill said : "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals."

He also used to draw a pig as a signature in letters to his wife (who'd draw a cat).

Maciamo
09-11-05, 12:54
A Japanese friend of mine keeps ants in an aquarium filled with earth as pets. In that particular case, I am not sure whether hitting pets is OK.

Tsuyoiko
09-11-05, 12:59
A Japanese friend of mine keeps ants in an aquarium filled with earth as pets. In that particular case, I am not sure whether hitting pets is OK.:D

What about pets attacking other pets? Iris likes to attack Nefertiti when he is in his exercise ball. :p

lastmagi
09-11-05, 18:44
Pardon my going slightly OT


I think you know I don't mean that at all! Of course many animals need to eat meat to survive, and early humans needed to eat meat too, or we probably wouldn't have evolved large brains, or been able to survive ice ages. Maybe if I was starving I might eat meat - but I'm not starving yet! Since I can survive perfectly well without meat I'm glad I can make the choice not to eat it.

I think vegetarianism is perfectly acceptable as a lifestyle choice. I think I've read articles about how (and I reserve the right to be wrong) calories are lost with each successive progression through the trophic levels.

As for me, I have to eat meat. I tried going vegetarian for some years during the spring and fall seasons because I wanted to test something I read about allergies being somewhat alleviated with non-animal product uptake, and I would always look longingly at the meat section of my school's cafeteria (whew, what a long runon sentence). Plus the vegan section always sucked in my school. :p

misa.j
10-11-05, 01:11
Great thread, Tsuyoiko.
Even though slaughter houses seem very strange and cruel to animals, I eat meat and do not think about what the chicken I eat had gone through. Hunting, if it's done clevery, helps the population of wild animals and is an ideal way to consume animals, but it's not practical. I'm definitely not for the safari hunters or those who use traps or lures to attract animals for hunting.

Keeping animals in the zoos seem very wrong to me. It doesn't seem possible to create the conditions how they should live.

Especially with dogs that are poorly trained, I have to say that hitting is necessary. If you are raising a puppy, they can be trained with less or no physical punishment. They are naturally dominant animals therefore they need to learn who the master is, and unfortunately sometimes that's how they understand.

HomicidalMouse
10-11-05, 01:34
Errrr... did you get your forum name from some interesting experience while you were doing that job? :?
No. I had this name before that job. You know baby mice get eaten by their parents. In fact mice arent that picky on what they eat. Baby mice, each other, my fingers...
God im full of useless facts about mice now... :okashii:

People who think old animals have no rights annoy me. Who are all like "but look how old an pathetic they are. They've gone blind and senile. Its best just to put them out of their misery". The same can be said about old people but you dont go around putting them outa their 'misery'. Just cause their old dont mean they dont have a right to live.

Tsuyoiko
10-11-05, 13:40
Even though slaughter houses seem very strange and cruel to animals, I eat meat and do not think about what the chicken I eat had gone through.You've just hit the nail on the head about why I can't eat meat. I can't separate the idea of 'meat' from the idea of a cute animal that has been slaughtered for the sole purpose of feeding people. Those of you that have pets, I'm sure most of you couldn't think of eating meat that had come from your pet. I feel the same about all animals. :(

Morfos
04-12-05, 09:33
I swung back and forth on this one.

yakutatazu
24-12-05, 21:26
ofcourse there would not be a middle.
I give my cat a sharp tap on the head if he scratches me YET AGAIN (without reason)
if a medicine is safe, but for legal reasons has to be tested, animals are OK, if not disadvantaged by it.

I must say I'm against people who won't eat meat-meat, but will eat fish-meat and bird-meat. what's with that?
fish and birds are just as concious as the rest.

No-name
24-12-05, 21:29
If you ever want to preserve a creature, put it on the dinner table or make a pet out of it. Cows, chickens,dogs and cats will never be extinct.

strongvoicesforward
25-12-05, 09:22
What are your opinions about what rights animals should have, if any?

Animals should not be comodified by us. They were put here for their own purposes and one has no right to exploit them any more than a white person has the right to do so to a black person or a male to do so to a female.

The concept of equal consideration of interests is what should guide us in our relations with animals. That interest should be codified and therefore protect their right to autonomy from invasive actions that harm or prevent them from living natural lives or ones that are lives of suffering due to our interference in them.


I was raised to believe that animals have as much right to life as humans.

You were raised correctly.


... and that we don't have the right to use animals like a commodity.

We don`t have the right to do so. We have only declared ourselves to have it.

Miss_apollo7
27-12-05, 13:05
I have voted.

Hitting pets is wrong, and experiments done on animals for cosmetics is wrong. "GO GO BODY SHOP"

Experiments done on animals for medical reasons is OK I guess, since it can cure illnesses and save human lives.
I eat meat, as long as animals have not suffered when slaughtered. I am really into animal welfare so animals should be treated properly..always.
Animals being kept in captivity in zoos and circuses is OK since the animals are treated properly.....

Anchyyy
27-12-05, 14:13
I voted too.:-)

1.1 Eating meat is OK ~ people are eating it for million years, that won't change, because people are used to eat, well except some(religion)

3.1 Testing on animals for medical purposes is OK ~ As long as those tests don't make them suffer, make them sick or kill them. On the other side, it could save many human lives, as miss apollo already said, but animals have feelings too. Imagine some aliens doing experiments on people.


4.2 Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is wrong

5.1 Using animals in circuses is OK ~ As long as they are treated well.

6.1 Keeping animals in zoos is OK ~ Ofcourse it would be better to let them live in the nature, but i guess it's ok, but they have to get food and fresh water everyday, zookeepers should clean their cages daily and so on.

7.1 Hitting pets is wrong ~ You can show them what's wrong and right with patience and love and not with hitting them and yelling at them. First they don't even understand you, they can become afraid of people and in this fear the animal will attack you.

strongvoicesforward
01-01-06, 12:54
I have voted.

Hitting pets is wrong, and experiments done on animals for cosmetics is wrong. "GO GO BODY SHOP"


Yes, we agree.


Experiments done on animals for medical reasons is OK I guess, since it can cure illnesses and save human lives.

You don`t sound too convinced, Miss_apollo7. Many more medical breakthroughs could occurr at a faster rate if we experimented on humans. Often, products, which have been tested on animals have been detrimental to the health of humans.

Being forced to suffer, is wrong, and being in a state of suffering and misery is not pleasant. Do you think it is right to force others to undergo something you would not want to be forced to undergo? I don`t.



I eat meat, as long as animals have not suffered when slaughtered.

How do you know they have not suffered? Have you found the farm and slaughterhouse where your supermarket meat comes from. Have you gone to see the conditions? Have you read any books on factory farming and slaughtering practices.



I am really into animal welfare so animals should be treated properly..always.

Good to hear, and we agree again. But, if you look into factory farming and slaughtering, you are sure to see that animal welfare is not much given thought to in those places. Buying those products is being complicit in activities that do not care much for animal welfare in those places.

You tagged "always" onto your statement, so I have to ask, if it isn`t, then should you reward those corporations with your money?



Animals being kept in captivity in zoos and circuses is OK since the animals are treated properly.....

Why do you think they are treated properly? Haven`t you researched or come across the abuses that go on in those industries?

Please do.

Reiku
01-01-06, 13:00
Well, the only thing I put "no" for was hitting pets--although Maciamo's arguments have put me on the fence about that one.

Here's the thing: Humans are animals, therefore I see no reason why the same rules should not apply. It is merely human arrogance that makes us believe we are "better" than animals--or even the dominant species of the planet. Arguably, the dominant species is bacteria.

Eating other animals: It's what half of our teeth are for. In fact, the only logical argument I can think of against canibalism is that humans are not civilized enough to safely interact without strong taboos against eating one another...

...scratch that--we can't safely interact anyway.

I have no problem with canibalism--people try to kill each other every day, better they do it for food than for nikes.

Using products from live animals: Having already established killing animals for food as being acceptable, I can see no reason why this would be any worse.

Medical Testing: Roughly the same argument as the food one--only without the same precedents. It's about survival. A species not willing to use every means to survive will not survive--it's just that simple.

Cosmetic Testing: This one's a bit trickier...

On the surface, you could dismiss it as vanity--but it's actually a question of attracting a mate, the single most important thing and sexually reproducing species must accomplish.

There is a veritable "arms race" in sexual attraction: A woman figures out that berry juice makes her lips red, and that this makes her more attractive to males--now every other female has to catch up or be left behind.

But then someone invents lipstick--which does the same job but the effects last longer and a greater variety of colors are possible.

Now there's a better weapon in the "war to get some".

Like all wars, it eventually comes down to a question of how far you are willing to go to have the upper hand.

If killing people became attractive--and I should point out that there are some instinctual triggers which make a male who kills other males more attractive to women--would you be willing to kill to make sure your genes were passed on?

If you answered yes, you get to go to round 2...

...if not, please step aside, you've lost--but thanks for playing the "Evolution Game". We have some lovely parting gifts for you, possibly including a place in the history of an extinct species.

Luckily, the sex arms race has only progressed to torturing other types of animals so far--but with the advent of cosmetic surgery we're getting very close to harvesting tissues from dead people--and the living are only a step away after that.

On to Circuses: Humans perform in them--why not other animals? I can't imagine a bengal tiger jumping through a ring of fire feels any more degraded than the trapeeze artists above--although the clowns might have cause for grievances.

Hitting Pets: Well, I personally don't believe in using violence to discipline others...

...wait a minute, yes I do--I just don't think hitting something you wish to care for makes any sense. If you are going to keep a pet, be it human or otherwise, I think you should keep it with the goal of caring for it--not disciplining it. If the pet doesn't respect your rules enough for your tastes, send it packing.

Pets are not unlike freinds or lovers in that respect--you shouldn't try or expect them to obey you.

Mycernius
01-01-06, 13:29
You don`t sound too convinced, Miss_apollo7. Many more medical breakthroughs could occurr at a faster rate if we experimented on humans. Often, products, which have been tested on animals have been detrimental to the health of humans.

What! Are you totally out of your tree? Imagine the uproar if we switched totally to human testing. Testing children and babies for infant drugs instead of seeing what sort of reaction they have on a similar species. What percentage would you find acceptable for failed experiments? How many people would you like to die? To purposely infect someone with AIDS just to test a drug. And if it doesn't work? "Tough mate, Here's some compensation and sorry we have just given you a deadly disease". Animal testing may seem cruel, but I rather it be on a chimp than a child, baby or adult human. I mean would you volunteer yourself for this?





How do you know they have not suffered? Have you found the farm and slaughterhouse where your supermarket meat comes from. Have you gone to see the conditions? Have you read any books on factory farming and slaughtering practices.
I don't know about the US, but in the UK and most of Europe strict guidelines and practices are laid down for the slaughter of animals making it as painless and qiuck as possible. How do I know? I was once involved in the industry. What about Jews and Muslims and the way that they slaughter their meat? Hang it up and slit its throat. Would you have a go at them. After all that is religious belief and is a direction from God as far as they are concerned. A somewhat higher authority than you


Why do you think they are treated properly? Haven`t you researched or come across the abuses that go on in those industries?

Please do.
Most books focus on the exemptions to the rule rather than the norm. What makes a better selling book or a headline; "Man Nice to animals" or "Cruel practices exposed"?

strongvoicesforward
01-01-06, 15:53
What! Are you totally out of your tree?

Calm down, Mycernius. Eeerrrr, why Mycernius, I don`t have a tree that I am usually in. But, yes, I am not in a tree -- I am sitting in a chair in front of a computer monitor.


Imagine the uproar if we switched totally to human testing.

It would be an uproar if we did forced testing on innocent beings, wouldn`t it? I would be against it as well. In fact, I am against it. What being wants to be forced to have AIDS or cancer? I would never say, "Tough luck for you. I am infecting your being with cancer because you can`t stop me."


Testing children and babies for infant drugs instead of seeing what sort of reaction they have on a similar species.

Similar species must share a lot of traits with us, huh? Do the majority of lab animals which are rodents share those similarities? In all probability you mean primates, right?

Gorillas and chimps can learn enough sign language to communicate with us, to tell us things they feel, want, or desire. They can display emotions of empathy towards each other, us, console, care for each other, etc... If a gorilla or chimpanzee could reach the same level of sign language communication and cognitive scoring on tests as a mentally impaired child of 6 years old who was deaf and used sign language as well (i.e. equal in all aspects, except form -- and that child, too, did not have any family ties[an orphan], then why should a gorilla or chimp be subjected to something that we would not want to subject the human animal (child or adult) to?


What percentage would you find acceptable for failed experiments? How many people would you like to die? To purposely infect someone with AIDS just to test a drug.


Well, gee, Mycernius, I wouldn`t like to see anyone die by forcing someone to submit to contracting a disease to test a new products? Though, I am sure pharmeceutical compannies, after animal testing is done and the treatment is going to market, make a percentage calculation from the population of possible users of their products as to how many people may have adverse affects and possibly die, and then take out insurance to protect against that possibility. I don`t need to valuate life, the pharmaceutical compannies already have. Direct your indignation at them. They are your proper target for it.

There are already more than enough people with AIDS to preclude someone having to be forced to contract the disease. Don`t you know that?

What is interesting, though, there are many people who want to volunteer for testing of products but are not permitted to do so. Why not let them choose for themselves?

Furthermore, what about the large number of murderers incarcerated? Although I am against forcing innocents to undergo testing, I may make an exception for serial child rapists. I think a serial child rapist should go to the front of the line for product testing before a baby chimpanzee does, or before one that sign on a communicative level and shows cognitive skills comparative to a small child.

I think there are almost 2 million people incarcerated in our prison system. I think many would volunteer for some low risk testing if it mean they could be awarded a TV in their cell or some other kind of small benefit. If they have taken something, like the precious life of a 3 year old child for their depraved cravings, then why shouldn`t we exact some benefit back to society rather than just satisfying a lust for punishment? Surely, both, punishment and getting something back can be exacted at the same time while they do their time. Merely executing a criminal is a waste, isn`t it?

How about this? Executing a heinous criminal and cremating him in toto OR putting him under alive to harvest evey possible organ to give to a child that is waiting near death for an organ to save their life? If that organ doesn`t come soon, then they are dead. Which is the better choice?


And if it [the tested drug on human test subject] doesn't work? "Tough mate, Here's some compensation and sorry we have just given you a deadly disease".


If it is a volunteer then the responsibility lies with the person who chose to undertake the testing. Remember, we don`t have to give anyone a disease to test products. Recruiting test subjects can be done from those who already have the disease and who are desparate for cures and don`t have time to wait for long lengthy trials. Theres is a battle against time with a sense of urgency.

But, since you seem to like the "tough mate" retort to me to use as a discrediting of failed treatements, how about those products that were indeed tested on animals, which really weren`t good options or similar to humans, but those products proved disasterous to those who they were given to after they had passed the animal testing stage. So, do you say, "Tough luck" to the women who were given Thalidamide and the deformed kids that resulted from that, and "here is your compensation"? Or, are you going to rely on a mere ledger of "more have been helped than harmed from the treatments from animals testing" so therefore the ones who were harmed by those drugs are discounted? If the "more are helped than harmed" argument is to be used, then it is logical that prisoners be forced or given incentives to volunteer to undergo testing, since "more would be helped than harmed."

In that case the model for testing would be a perfect dead on for humans, the consumers. A lot of time would be saved in the testing stages because it wouldn`t have to go up to larger and larger animals. Time saved would mean lives saved.


Animal testing may seem cruel, but I rather it be on a chimp than a child, baby or adult human. I mean would you volunteer yourself for this?


Not to contract a disease and then test it (but I might if it meant the possibility of saving a loved one, like say a child of mine). But, if I already had the disease and I was in a race against time, I sure would and many would.

Also, if I were on death row awaiting an execution date 20 years from now, but know that a computer and some other benefits would be provided in my cell but the treatment tests may cut my life short 15 years from now -- I think I would choose the benefits of an enriched cell than 20 years of a bare cell and then execution. Which would you choose?

If I were in for 10 years, I may volunteer for a cold medicine test if it meant a one year reduction from my time.

Lots of scenarios to consider and and a large number of menus related to benefits and reduced times could be hashed out that would provide large human volunteers that would not so outrage the conscience of society.

Reiku
02-01-06, 10:12
Hmm, actually--I would prefer medical testing was done on humans...

...with the condition that nobody does it to me, of course.

The thing is, there are differances between one species and another--so the only way to really tell for sure is to try oit on a human.

It does make sense to use animals first in order to cut down on the number of failed human experiments--simply because it's an "us or them, I chose us" type situation, not because humans are somehow more valuable.

But once we get to a certain point, human testing should proceed. I'm not saying we should infect people with diseases and then try to cure them--but if someone is already dying from AIDS for example, wouldn't they be likely to volunteer for such experiments on the off chance that they could be cured?

It certainly couldn't be any worse that what that formidable disease does to you in it's advanced stages.

I'm uncertain, but I believe there are currently laws that prevent a human from legally volunteering for certan types of experimentation--no matter what the circumstances. This strikes me as a rather foolish idea--after all, considering what certain people are willing to put themselves through experimenting with illegal drugs, why not give them the option of doing it legally in a controlled environment?

Certinly that type of drug testing couldn't be any worse for them--and with ready access to doctors and no leagal complications, they are more likely to survive a mishap than if they OD'ed on street drugs. I am reminded of the scene from Pulp Fiction where Mia Wallace mistakes powdered herion for cocane and almost dies because her date was afraid to take her to the hospital and risk arrest.

Hmm, this is a pretty broad and far reaching topic in and of itself--perhaps we should start a new thread?

Mycernius
02-01-06, 15:14
It is not a natural part of our lives now. We are a species which through ethical and moral thought on issues can choose to not cause suffering. We are a species who are naturally endowed with the ability to supress our urges. Why not honor THAT natural ability? Surely, it is there and has come about for a reason. The ability to suppress that which causes suffering is surely more noble and worthy of nurturing than the ability to cause suffering. I think so. Why don`t you?
I think this quote from your other thread belongs here to address your answer to this quote

Furthermore, what about the large number of murderers incarcerated? Although I am against forcing innocents to undergo testing, I may make an exception for serial child rapists. I think a serial child rapist should go to the front of the line for product testing before a baby chimpanzee does, or before one that sign on a communicative level and shows cognitive skills comparative to a small child.

I think there are almost 2 million people incarcerated in our prison system. I think many would volunteer for some low risk testing if it mean they could be awarded a TV in their cell or some other kind of small benefit. If they have taken something, like the precious life of a 3 year old child for their depraved cravings, then why shouldn`t we exact some benefit back to society rather than just satisfying a lust for punishment? Surely, both, punishment and getting something back can be exacted at the same time while they do their time. Merely executing a criminal is a waste, isn`t it?
It seem from these two quote that your morals on causing suffering seem to extend only to animals. On one hand you say we are above the animal for our morals and ethics and then you will quite happily let murderers, rapists or other criminals suffer pain at the hand of others. Just because someone has committed a henious crime doesn't automatically give you the right to do as you will. It seem that you show only compassion to animals and not to your fellow man. You show your cruel, barbaric side in this argument. Would you allow experiments on known maneaters or other animals that attack and kill humans? With most criminals there are very good and disturbing reason why they commit these acts. In other cases they could be innocent and wrongly imprisoned.

strongvoicesforward
02-01-06, 17:09
Mycernius: It seems from these two quotes that your morals on causing suffering seem to extend only to animals. On one hand you say we are above the animal for our morals and ethics and then you will quite happily let murderers, rapists or other criminals suffer pain at the hand of others. Just because someone has committed a henious crime doesn't automatically give you the right to do as you will. It seem that you show only compassion to animals and not to your fellow man. You show your cruel, barbaric side in this argument. Would you allow experiments on known maneaters or other animals that attack and kill humans? With most criminals there are very good and disturbing reason why they commit these acts. In other cases they could be innocent and wrongly imprisoned.

I didn`t say I had a right to force them, did I? I said that I may make an exception to forcing a child serial rapist to undergo testing before an innocent baby chimpanzee. Maybe, after all the appeals and final conviction in the courts, we could give some input on the decision to the family of the child who was repeatedly raped and then visciously murdered.

Furthermore, I quite clearly stated that a system promoting voluntary submitting one's self for testing would be quite possible. No one need be forced. Don`t forget, I had even said that many regular people (not in prison) who was in a race against time would also volunteer.

As for your attempt at clouding the issue with the "maneater" question, they are quite different from persons incarcerated for heinous crimes who have committed them to satisfy some greed, selfish, or self pleasuring reward for their deviant desires that do not conform with the human race's basic tenets for living with one another in society. If you want to spend your time spending your money to treat Charles Manson for his poor self and his problems of getting along with society, then fine. Do so. Perhaps you could arrange so that all of his support is done so by your money rather than the rest of us tax paying citizens. I`m sure he would appreciate your feeling for him.

I am just wondering if he would volunteer himself for some testing if he were offered some benefits or comforts in his cell in return for him submitting himself. It would be his choice. Giving a choice to someone without any choice is showing some compassion.

But, Mycernius, you are right -- my compassion does have limits and one of those limits is overly extending it to those who have raped, brutalized, and murdered children for their own sadistic pleasures. And I am also not forgiving to those who torture nonhuman animals for thier own sadistic pleasures. I guess that makes me no saint. Perhaps you are. Kudos to you.

No-name
02-01-06, 18:58
I would like to continue to have foods, medicines,and cosmetics tested on animals before human testing (which should be voluntary and informed) begins. I am no expert in this area and I know significant advances in computer modeling and other less invasive research methods. But I still believe it is necessary. Behavioral scientist also see some need for research. The recent drug recalls, market withdrawls and lawsuits demonstrate a continued need. I'm not a doctor or research scientist but there continues to be a need for live subject testing- and not all of it can be done by giving ten bucks to a college freshman.

There are ethical guidlines and I can remember fifteen or twenty years ago professor Liebeskind (sp?) was the head of the ethics board at UCLA and he discussed the guidline and process. His particular area of expertise was psychobiology and in particular the perception of pain. All his research involved administering pain to subject- animal and human- and have led to significant discoveries in chronic pain management.

Mycernius
02-01-06, 21:12
Charles Manson is psychotic, but has never killed anyone himself. Psychosis is treatable, but sometimes there is not much hope for those afflicted with this condition. Maybe you should check up on mental problems before fobbing them off in such a casual and underhanded manner.

strongvoicesforward
02-01-06, 21:33
Charles Manson is psychotic, but has never killed anyone himself. Psychosis is treatable, but sometimes there is not much hope for those afflicted with this condition. Maybe you should check up on mental problems before fobbing them off in such a casual and underhanded manner.

In any case, the option to test could be one he could volunteer for. Like I said, I wouldn`t force anyone -- human animal or non-human animal. The details of the program could be left to a think tank of professionals. I am just musing on the topic in a general sense.

Charles Manson was just a name chosen randomly. If his sickness bothers you and you have a special affinity towards compassion toward him, then think of the other scenario I proffered, child serial rapists -- many experts have said most violent molestors who are released end up repeating those crimes. Just something to muse on. Again, though, I would prefer your tax money go to support them as they play ping pong in a day room a few days a week for long prison terms than my tax monies.

Mycernius
02-01-06, 21:44
Your avoiding the subject by bringing up empathic examples. Try studying why people commit these crimes. I dislike child rapists and rapists as a whole, but I am not of the opinion of an eye for an eye. As far as I'm concerned by using a criminal for testing is going down to their level of criminality. You are saying you killed someone, but now we are going to test on you all these drugs. Under other circumstances this could be called torture. Like I have mentioned in other ways, you mention your disgust at torture of animals, but you seem to have a different view when it comes to the torture of people, regardless of what they have done. In fact in most of your posts you seem to hold the rights of animals above those of your fellow man.

No-name
02-01-06, 22:16
Perhaps there is some biological psychology decribed in deviant human behavior that can be divined through experimentation on mamals with similar brain structures and chemistry. If we can find the structure and chemistry responsible for such behavior maybe punishment and rehabilitation are not the only options.

strongvoicesforward
03-01-06, 10:06
Your avoiding the subject by bringing up empathic examples.

Examples are quite appropriate for use in discussion or debate. Why do you think they are not and can you show me any academic or professional journal on rhettoric or debate that says examples are not permissable? Please do and I may consider your protest against them valid.


Try studying why people commit these crimes.

Why don`t you try understanding the term "voluntary," as I have said that on a number of times now.


I dislike child rapists and rapists as a whole, but I am not of the opinion of an eye for an eye.

An "eye for an eye" means a forced retribution. Again, understand the meaning of "voluntary."


As far as I'm concerned by using a criminal for testing is going down to their level of criminality. You are saying you killed someone, but now we are going to test on you all these drugs. Under other circumstances this could be called torture.

Voluntary voluntary voluntary. Please do re-read my previous posts on the matter, Mycernius.


Like I have mentioned in other ways, you mention your disgust at torture of animals, but you seem to have a different view when it comes to the torture of people, regardless of what they have done.

Animals have not committed a crime to satisfy sadistic urges for sadistic pleasures. Furthermore, they have not voluteered for the testing.


In fact in most of your posts you seem to hold the rights of animals above those of your fellow man.

Show me where I said that. Though, clever of you to give yourself a trap door out of this dilema with qualifying your statment with "seem." It allows you to not be able to find a place where I put animal rights above human rights and still be somewhat correct in your statement.

But, man is an animal, isn`t he? How can I put animal rights above animal rights? <a little semantics to you> ;-)

Mycernius
03-01-06, 17:21
Furthermore, what about the large number of murderers incarcerated? Although I am against forcing innocents to undergo testing, I may make an exception for serial child rapists. I think a serial child rapist should go to the front of the line for product testing before a baby chimpanzee does, or before one that sign on a communicative level and shows cognitive skills comparative to a small child.
I don't see the word volunter anywhere in this statement. Instead it makes out you would could be quite willingly force (your words) a child rapist into what you call torture for animals. I do re-read your posts, maybe you should try the same. Nuff said.

strongvoicesforward
03-01-06, 17:32
I don't see the word volunter anywhere in this statement. Instead it makes out you would could be quite willingly force (your words) a child rapist into what you call torture for animals. I do re-read your posts, maybe you should try the same. Nuff said.

Mycernius, I said I "may" make an exception. Nothing concrete about that. That whole paragraph is followed by qualifying remarks (btw -- nice of you to cut it and try to make it stand alone) that clearly show I am for a system of encouraging volunteers.

Miss_apollo7
03-01-06, 18:18
You don`t sound too convinced, Miss_apollo7. Many more medical breakthroughs could occurr at a faster rate if we experimented on humans. Often, products, which have been tested on animals have been detrimental to the health of humans.

True, but if we could get human volunteers - I agree....in fact I volunteered to become a "guinea pig" a couple of years back when they wanted to research the affect of muscle tissue after some extensive exercise without the take of medicine (compared to people who took medicine in this experiment) - gosh! That was a painful experience: They had to cut a piece of my muscle to see the development!! I am sure they couldn't do the same research if it was done on mice.....

But I don't see any problems with medical testing on animals IF it could save human lives...


How do you know they have not suffered? Have you found the farm and slaughterhouse where your supermarket meat comes from. Have you gone to see the conditions? Have you read any books on factory farming and slaughtering practices.

I can never be 100% sure, and I don't personally visit farms on a daily basis to see where my meat comes from. I only trust the labels the chicken had....and trust the strict law which the Danish government has imposed, which is the welfare of the animals comes first.
My cousin is a vet, employed by a government control body, and his only "mission" the past 5 years is to see to it that the cows/pigs etc...are having a "good" life before they get slaughtered.

I might have eaten unhappy chickens, or cows, but........ I just follow "my set of rules," which are highlighted in blue below....

Nope, I haven't read any books about this matter specifically, but articles about it in the media etc, and from the Danish brochures of what is is equivalent to RSPCA.




Good to hear, and we agree again. But, if you look into factory farming and slaughtering, you are sure to see that animal welfare is not much given thought to in those places. Buying those products is being complicit in activities that do not care much for animal welfare in those places.

Well, I try to buy meat from places which believe in welfare of the animals. I love meat too much that I couldn't give it up.....
E.g. regarding milk, in Denmark the milk and dairy products are produced by a monopoly compay called "Arla," which is a co-operative dairy which prints on the cartons where the milk came from, and from which farm (and even time the cow "contributed" with the milk) in Denmark...meaning I could visit the farm if I really wanted to..



Why do you think they are treated properly? Haven`t you researched or come across the abuses that go on in those industries? You have very strong opinion on this matter, more than me.

Have I researched the subject? No, but I read the papers and support (donate) to the Danish RSPCA and WSPA in Denmark every month....Apart from this, I just try to be conscious of where the meat comes from....although, as you have said, 100% sure I can never be, but being conscious of it I think is a good thing.

One of my best friends is a journalist and does documentaries, and once he did a documentary about welfare of animals in China, which was shown on TV...and I helped proofread his script because I am very interested in this subject in Denmark. (However, I am not as active as you apparently).
It was about the welfare of chickens, cats, dogs, rabbits and other animals, which suffered and of course apalled a lot of viewers in Denmark.

How am I conscious? my set of rules:
Never buy cosmetics which have been tested on animals.
Never hunt for fun. I only shoot at shooting ranges.
Never wear fur...
Never buy skin from threatened beings, (e.g. python skin belts, shoes)

But this apparently, I know, is not enough for you...I can do much more, but I think we have different opinions on this matter...I love meat tooo much to give it up entirely....I just focus on the welfare as much as I can. :-)

strongvoicesforward
03-01-06, 18:45
Fair enough answer Miss_Apollo7.

I do know that animal welfare laws in Europe protecting farm animals are much stricter there than in the U.S. That however, is in part due to the very strong direct actions and lobbying by Animal Rightists. Europe has been a hot bed for AR and it was mostly because of European activists that direct action for animals spread to the U.S.

You guys are on the cutting edge of AR. Germany even recently added animals into their constitution. While that action is nowhere near protecting them from total exploitation, just getting into a country`s constitution is a watershed and will be the basis for further codification of more rights in the future. For the first time a country is saying in their constitution that rights do exist for animals -- that they do matter so much that they need to be mentioned in an institution created by man for protecting man. The animals have their foot in the door.

No-name
03-01-06, 20:12
[FONT="Times New Roman"]You don`t sound too convinced, Miss_apollo7. Many more medical breakthroughs could occurr at a faster rate if we experimented on humans. Often, products, which have been tested on animals have been detrimental to the health of humans.

Being forced to suffer, is wrong, and being in a state of suffering and misery is not pleasant. Do you think it is right to force others to undergo something you would not want to be forced to undergo? I don`t.

It is a risk. If testing were done on humans, it might result in more medical break throughs, but it would also result in all the side effects from unknown actions and interactions, over or under doses, and other flaws in the intended medication or procedure- occuring on a human subject. Human subject testing is usually done after the animal testing has ruled out most, but not all of the nastiness unintentially caused by the medical break through- and then with careful study to determine if any other nastiness shows up.

The fact that detrimental effects show up at this stage, or sometimes after the drug or procedure is in production and being used in the field on a much larger sample- is that we are human, and as close as animal testing is, we are a unique species. Animal testing risks animal lives. (It is a value judgement.)

"Do I think it is right to force other to undergo something I would not want to be forced to undergo?"

Yes. It would depend on who the other was, and what the level of "force" was. Humans often are "forced" to undergo things I would not want to go through- whether by circumstance, or by their committment to the military...for a myriad of other reasons. Animals could be an acceptable alternative to the risk human lives. I'm certain the metaphorical canary sent into the coal mines as a carbon monoxide detector did not appreciate the use of its more sensitive systems and life as a warning device, but I am certain that in the absence of better technology that the coal minors appreciated the little bird's risk.

Reiku
03-01-06, 23:26
I should point out that "voluntary" testing of prisoners and mental patients often turns out to be anything but--as there is little oversight of the people in charge--such that opening the door to "voluntary" testing of prisoners also garutees a certain number will be forced to do so...

...I should point this out, but I've been up all night, and am tired--so I won't.

Oh, wait... :D

No-name
04-01-06, 08:01
There are plenty of concievable reasaons which would make people desperate enough to take such a risk. And it certainly would risk becoming just another way of exploiting human suffering. I'm uncertain I would like my safety and the future of medicine dependent upon the altruism of criminals.

Tsuyoiko
04-01-06, 13:01
@Miss Apollo - I think your views are sensible and commendable.

@SFV, Mycernius, Sabro etc, on the subject of human testing v animal testing. I've mentioned elsewhere that I take a utilitarian view on big issues - I choose the course that will lead to best outcome, even if it means doing some 'wrong' things along the way. So although I think testing drugs on animals is wrong, I might concede that it is sometimes necessary, although I don't have enough information to make a definitive decision - I don't know how many lives are actually saved because of animal experiments, and I don't know exactly how much suffering is involved. My decision would have to be based on those things, and it's a minefield with no easy answers available.

As for human testing, my main concern is just how possible it would be for it to be voluntary. If someone is desperate, they are probably in no state of mind to make a truly voluntary decision. As for criminals, there are a few problems. As Reiku says, can we be sure there would be no corruption? Also, taking on Mycernius' point about Charles Manson, if a prisoner is psychotic, would he be allowed to volunteer? Don't certain mental illnesses mean that that individual is considered incapable of making certain decisions for themselves? Would that apply in this case?

On balance, I think carefully managed, truly voluntary human testing is preferable because a) it is voluntary and b) the results are bound to be more reliable BUT I am skeptical about whether it can be achieved. I just try to live my own life as much as possible in accordance with my feelings and principles - so I don't eat meat or wear fur, I avoid leather, I buy cruelty-free cosmetics and I take drugs only when absolutely necessary. But I also understand that most people don't view animals the same way as I do.

Reiku
05-01-06, 00:56
Hai, that seems to be a rercuring problem doesn't it?

We have something good we could do, but just aren't mature enough as a species to do it.

Ah well, we'll get there someday--maybe.

Meanwhile I'll continue to wallow cheerfully in my numerous vices. :evil:

No-name
05-01-06, 01:11
Someday maybe the technology will be here and vivisection will be unnecessary.

Reiku
05-01-06, 01:39
Well, they can do some of that with MRI and CAT scans...

...that's more an issue of cost rather than ability--actually that's true of many technological advances: We know enough to do it, or at least we know the direction we have to go, but there isn't enough money to follow through. That or nobody's willing to spend the money on it.

I still can't decide whether money was a good idea or not.

GoldCoinLover
05-01-06, 09:47
Then we should exterminate all carnivorous species on this planet ! :sorry:



Yes, I never thought you'd see a lion, or even a little pussy cat, as murderers because they only eat meat.



I already. Do you prefer to see a mouse die for the sake of research, or your cat catching it, playing with it, then opening its belly until the entrails come out, then leave the dying mouse on your doorstep as the cat is not hungry anyway. That's animal cruelty. But this is also nature. Animals (and humans) cannot control their instincts (humans sometimes can, but using a lot of efforts).



Haha. I know children who also behave like that.



So you are saying that hunting is the ideal way of obtaining meat since animals are kept in the best ideal conditions (free in nature) when we kill them, right ?


::::sigh::::, this thread reminds me of a vegan friend on this forum. I totally disagree with him, unfortunately, but he's naitve japanese and very nice.

He is way out there. He made a song that was in english and translated it into japanese:
07:03 pm - Meat Is Murder

Heifer whines could be human cries 雌牛の鳴き声は人間の泣き声
Closer comes the screaming knife 金切り声で叫ぶ小刀
This beautiful creature must die 美しい生き物が死ななければならない
This beautiful creature must die 優しい生き物が死ななければならない
A death for no reason 理由もなく殺されている
And death for no reason is murder だから理由のない殺しは殺人と同で る

And the flesh you so fancifully fry 君が空想の中で焼いている肉体は
Is not succulent, tasty or kind 肉汁たっぷりでも、おいしくも、優しくもない
It’s death for no reason 理由のなく殺された死体で る
And death for no reason is murder 理由のない殺しは殺人と同じで る

And the calf that you carve with a smile 君が微笑みながら子牛は切り分ける行為は
Is murder 殺人と同じで る
And the turkey you festively slice 君がお祭り気分で七面鳥を着る行為は
Is murder 殺人と同じで る
Do you know how animals die? 動物がどうやって殺されているか知ってる?

Kitchen aromas aren’t very homely 台所の臭いは家庭的ではない
It’s not comforting, cheery or kind 居心地良くも、明るくも、優しくもない
It’s sizzling blood and the unholy stench 茹だるような血と不自然な臭いで満ちている
Of murder 殺人が行われた後のね

It’s not natural, normal or kind 自然でも、普通でも、優しくもない
The flesh you so fancifully fry 君が空想の中で痛めている肉体は
The meat in your mouth 君の口の中に る肉は
As you savour the flavour 君が味を付けたものだ
Of murder 殺人が行われた後にね

No, no, no, it’s murder 違う、違う、違う、肉食は殺人と同じ
No, no, no, it’s murder 違う、違う、違う、肉食は殺人と同じ
Oh ... and who hears when animals cry?  れ・・・なんで動物達の叫びを聞く人はいない の?


What's interesting is he can write almost perfect english, but reading sites like CNN is a different story.

Since he had to translate this song from english TO japanese, I was wondering how fluent the translation is? 違う is interesting, as it means literally in japanesese as "Wrong, wrong, wrong" than in english "No, no, no"

Reiku
14-01-06, 15:39
::::sigh::::, this thread reminds me of a vegan friend on this forum. I totally disagree with him, unfortunately, but he's naitve japanese and very nice.
He is way out there. He made a song that was in english and translated it into japanese:
07:03 pm - Meat Is Murder
Heifer whines could be human cries 雌牛の鳴き声は人間の泣き声
Closer comes the screaming knife 金切り声で叫ぶ小刀
This beautiful creature must die 美しい生き物が死ななければならない
This beautiful creature must die 優しい生き物が死ななければならない
A death for no reason 理由もなく殺されている
And death for no reason is murder だから理由のない殺しは殺人と同である
And the flesh you so fancifully fry 君が空想の中で焼いている肉体は
Is not succulent, tasty or kind 肉汁たっぷりでも、おいしくも、優しくもない
It’s death for no reason 理由のなく殺された死体である
And death for no reason is murder 理由のない殺しは殺人と同じである
And the calf that you carve with a smile 君が微笑みながら子牛は切り分ける行為は
Is murder 殺人と同じである
And the turkey you festively slice 君がお祭り気分で七面鳥を着る行為は
Is murder 殺人と同じである
Do you know how animals die? 動物がどうやって殺されているか知ってる?
Kitchen aromas aren’t very homely 台所の臭いは家庭的ではない
It’s not comforting, cheery or kind 居心地良くも、明るくも、優しくもない
It’s sizzling blood and the unholy stench 茹だるような血と不自然な臭いで満ちている
Of murder 殺人が行われた後のね
It’s not natural, normal or kind 自然でも、普通でも、優しくもない
The flesh you so fancifully fry 君が空想の中で痛めている肉体は
The meat in your mouth 君の口の中にある肉は
As you savour the flavour 君が味を付けたものだ
Of murder 殺人が行われた後にね
No, no, no, it’s murder 違う、違う、違う、肉食は殺人と同じ
No, no, no, it’s murder 違う、違う、違う、肉食は殺人と同じ
Oh ... and who hears when animals cry? あれ・・・なんで動物達の叫びを聞く人はいないの?
What's interesting is he can write almost perfect english, but reading sites like CNN is a different story.
Since he had to translate this song from english TO japanese, I was wondering how fluent the translation is? 違う is interesting, as it means literally in japanesese as "Wrong, wrong, wrong" than in english "No, no, no"


You know, I should thank this guy...

...I'll have to sing this song the next time I'm cooking up a wokfull of curried beef.

"Savor the flavor of murder" eh? :evil:

The things is, I'm the kind of person who prefers to make his own moral judgemnents--regardless of what anyone else thinks of them.

One of my old signatures from an anime site was: "If downloading anime is wrong, I'm happy to be a villain."

Likewise, if eating meat it wrong, I'm happy to be a villain. Heck, I'd kill the cow myself if I could--but as I can't afford to own cattle that's not possible.

I guess what it comes down to is that you can think what you like about people, but we are going to like what we are going to like--be it meat, drugs, violent videogames, porn, stealing, or just about anything else.

That's why I've always considered it important that governments not legislate issues of morality--because one man's depravity is another's fun, and all you really succede in doing by passing laws against this and that is label another group of people "criminals". It's better to keep that to an absolute minimum, in my opinion.

Now, stealing affects other people directly, so it makes sense to make it illegal for purely social reasons--but even many things which are currently ilegal could have their negative social impact significantly reduced or even removed by other means without criminalizing it.

In fact, under certain circumstances, even the social impact of theft isn't entirely negative.

That doesn't really answer the question of "is this moral"--but what we should really be asking ourselves is:

"Do I think this is moral?"

and

"Do I care?"

But before you decide: "I think this is wrong, therefore nobody should do it", you should ask yourself whether you approve of facism first.

Just something to think about...

Dutch Baka
14-01-06, 15:43
Hitting pets (lightly) like dogs or cats is sometimes necessary, as it is with children, to make them understand that they have done something wrong. In fact, it's difficult to have authority and respect from some dogs without hitting them once or twice and shouting on them to scare them enough so that they understand who commands. My in-laws can't do that and their dog does mischiefs all the time. I tried my methods, and the dog not only behaves in my presence but seem to regard me as the master now (a bit embarassing as it's not my dog).
I am against testing on animals for cosmetic purposes, but probably for testing for medical research, as it can saves uncountable lives in the future.
Agree, Medical research I think is okay, with of course 1000 of conditions...
the hitting thing yeah, Correction hit..
Keeping animals in a Zoo, is only when they can not live in the Wild.
Nice thread.. as you do many times:wave:

No-name
04-02-06, 07:27
I don't think we are at the stage where medical research involving live subjects including animals can be abandoned.

螟ァ縺阪>繧「繝。繝ェ繧ォ莠コ
05-02-06, 01:57
animals shouldnt have rights, there made to be eaten

No-name
05-02-06, 06:47
The right to be baked, barbequed, broasted, braised, fried, grilled, or sauteed...? LOL that is not much of a right.

Has anyone had this experience: I had a strange discussion with one of the "vegetarians" on campus that was trying to tell me that fish was not meat. She also said that chicken- although it was an animal, is not as "bad" as "meat." I couldn't agree. My friend Larry who is a "real" vegetarian said that she was a little misinformed.

strongvoicesforward
05-02-06, 07:44
animals shouldnt have rights, there made to be eaten

We are animals. Does that mean you are made to be eaten?

Ha!

螟ァ縺阪>繧「繝。繝ェ繧ォ莠コ
05-02-06, 08:01
We are animals. Does that mean you are made to be eaten?
Ha!This site explains it all so I dont have to:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=animals

No-name
05-02-06, 08:20
大きいアメリカ人
That page was....interesting?

By the way, what does your name mean? It looks like "big deal" or something to do with big or big hearted and merit?

螟ァ縺阪>繧「繝。繝ェ繧ォ莠コ
05-02-06, 08:25
Its suppose to mean FatAmerican but im not great at japanese and probably messed it up.

No-name
05-02-06, 08:39
I got the big part (fat) but let me sound out the American part a little more carefully...

I guess at some level I am meant to be eaten. Either at my death or shortly thereafter whatever the carnivores don't eat, decomposer will surely get...except that if they bury me, first they embalm my sad corpse so that no self respecting worm or bacterium would want it...so I might as well be creamated, so basically all these wonderful proteins, amino acids, calories from fat, micronutrients, minerals and carbohydrates will all go to waste.

strongvoicesforward
05-02-06, 11:35
This site explains it all so I dont have to:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=animals

LOL!

It sure did explain that he is "tired." I guess so with all the ranting. He should calm down, because his elevated heart rate along with his rage could cause him to have a heart attack and then there would be one less meat eater on the planet.

Though, it really was funny. I almost sensed fear in his words that the ARists were going to take away his steak. However, we are little by little achieving victories.

In due time, in due time. ;-)

Tsuyoiko
05-02-06, 12:27
Has anyone had this experience: I had a strange discussion with one of the "vegetarians" on campus that was trying to tell me that fish was not meat. She also said that chicken- although it was an animal, is not as "bad" as "meat." I couldn't agree. My friend Larry who is a "real" vegetarian said that she was a little misinformed.That is one of the most frequent questions I am asked when I tell someone I'm a vegetarian - "Do you eat fish?" Of course not! Fish, chickens, beetles (as in red cochineal food colouring) - they're all animals, so I don't eat them!

Tsuyoiko
05-02-06, 12:29
This site explains it all so I dont have to:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=animals
For every site like that, there's one like this: http://www.wordwiz72.com/veg.html

No-name
05-02-06, 17:59
Thank you Tsuyoiko, that site was a little more sensible and it also explains Mr.Phillips-- she obviously is a pesci-vegetarian who cheats with chicken.

螟ァ縺阪>繧「繝。繝ェ繧ォ莠コ
05-02-06, 21:24
LOL!
It sure did explain that he is "tired." I guess so with all the ranting. He should calm down, because his elevated heart rate along with his rage could cause him to have a heart attack and then there would be one less meat eater on the planet.
Though, it really was funny. I almost sensed fear in his words that the ARists were going to take away his steak. However, we are little by little achieving victories.
In due time, in due time. ;-)I eat meat every day, its probably 75% of my diet. (Other 25% being candy products). No one, and I mean no one is going to take meat away from me, they would have to kill me because I would go on a mad mans rampage with a 44 in PETA HQ.

I consiter it disturbing people wishing for the death of human beings for the sake of animals, those people are scum. Animals are not people, they are not on the same level as people, and those who believe they are need to be comitted.

I dont necessarly "hate" animals, as I have a dog, and a cat, but I do not consiter them my equals. People who do seriously need to get a reality check, animals exist simpally for the food, service and entertainment of human beings.

Sensuikan San
06-02-06, 01:05
We are animals. Does that mean you are made to be eaten?
Ha!

Yes.

Ask any crocodile or shark (... or in lean times, any grizzly bear, cougar, wolf, hyena, ... or even another human ...! ).

ジョン

No-name
06-02-06, 06:50
Ahhhh to hear only half of an argument. I hesitate to become involved...

Interesting thought about the "humans are not supposed to eat animals" and they should live to be 100 argument: It doesn't seem to serve much of an evolutionary purpose to live past the nominal breeding age. There is no genetic advantage to living longer. Living past 100 actually places an evolutionary drag on the species. I also wonder about the specific micro-nutrient deficiency caused by avoiding meat and enzymes that we produce to break down meat if they are some evidence that meat has been a part of our diet for quite some time. Does anyone have more specific information on this?

nurizeko
06-02-06, 07:21
I voted eating meat is fine, life on earth has been doing it since the first single celled organism started chowing on their smaller neighbours, and it will be doing it long after the last remenants of humanity and vegetarians have faded to dust.
If eating meat is wrong, ill gladly point anyone forcing vegetarianism on me to the nearest carnivore cage at the local zoo. As someone mentioned about his cat, its a bit rich accusing humans meat needs as murder when animals like cats can kill and toy with a mouse then leave it there because it cant be arsed eating it.
And before its brought up, i highly doubt cats learned this "unatural" bevahiour from their human owners, watch animal planet any given time a documentary is on with a carnivore in it and chances are there will be footage of it killing something, then leaving it to rot.

Testing on animals for medical purpouses is okay i think, aslong as its done as friendly as possible, testing on animals for cosmetics is sick and i would never tolerate it.

Hitting animals malicously is wrong, the odd light disciplinary hit is fine.


This site explains it all so I dont have to:
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=animals

I know maddox's "best page in the universe" article when i see one, funny stuff, and in regard to SVF's response to it, email your reply to maddox, and see how far you get, its not the first time SVF refers to someone as ranting.

As for the fat american bloke (nice avatar) just ignore SVF.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/artfuldodger.htm

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/atheist.htm

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm

No-name
06-02-06, 07:52
Nurizeko,
I like the sites you linked. Colorful and informative. I recognize that behavior not only in the person you refer to, but occasionally also in myself. I definitely have some OCD tendencies. I hope fat american will recognize the type of conflict he has engaged, and learn from this.

Fatamerican, I also have diabetes, could you also eat some chocolate for me?

螟ァ縺阪>繧「繝。繝ェ繧ォ莠コ
06-02-06, 09:31
I eat it all the time and it never gave me diabetes.

Reiku
06-02-06, 10:04
We are animals. Does that mean you are made to be eaten?
Ha!

Humans are animals, funny--I think I've heard that somewhere...

Anyway, I'll go back to just watching this train wreck now.

Tsuyoiko
06-02-06, 12:33
I eat meat every day, its probably 75% of my diet. (Other 25% being candy products).That is hardly going to convince anyone of the virtues of meat-eating! :D
No one, and I mean no one is going to take meat away from me, they would have to kill me because I would go on a mad mans rampage with a 44 in PETA HQ.Most vegetarians, and probably most animal rights activists, are not trying to take your meat away. For most of us, vegetarianism is a personal choice that we would never force on others. My husband eats meat (although I won't cook it for him).
I consiter it disturbing people wishing for the death of human beings for the sake of animals, those people are scum.Name-calling aside, I agree that animal rights activists should not resort to violence. The vast majority do not, and I don't support those who do.
Animals are not people, they are not on the same level as people, and those who believe they are need to be comitted.
I dont necessarly "hate" animals, as I have a dog, and a cat, but I do not consiter them my equals. People who do seriously need to get a reality check, animals exist simpally for the food, service and entertainment of human beings.This is your opinion. Others differ, and I find it unacceptable that you say they should be 'committed'. Please stick to rational argument.

Tsuyoiko
06-02-06, 12:49
Interesting thought about the "humans are not supposed to eat animals" and they should live to be 100 argument: It doesn't seem to serve much of an evolutionary purpose to live past the nominal breeding age. There is no genetic advantage to living longer. Living past 100 actually places an evolutionary drag on the species. I also wonder about the specific micro-nutrient deficiency caused by avoiding meat and enzymes that we produce to break down meat if they are some evidence that meat has been a part of our diet for quite some time. Does anyone have more specific information on this?I accept that we needed meat to evolve as we have. It may also be true that being a vegetarian causes some nutrient deficiencies - but there are also many health problems that are aggravated by eating too much meat. A vegetarian who lives on lettuce leaves and a meat eater with a 75% meat/25% candy diet are setting themselves up for health problems. Anyone who eats a balanced diet, and cares about what they eat - whether or not that includes meat - is more likely to be in good general health.

nurizeko
06-02-06, 13:38
Japan related (yaaaaay!) almost all the japanese ive seen are very thin and weak, a ceramic garden pot full of plants and stuff my girlfriends family bought once wasnt light but it wasnt heavy either, it was a good managable weight, and i could carry it quite comfortably with two arms, but my girlfriends family found it too heavy, and could only tolerate it for a short while.

Japan is a country that is very heavy on plant intake, and meat is mostly bits of fish and other sea-critters.

They say its a healthy diet and stuff, and japanese live lnoger but at what price, japanese seem to age fast and un-gracefully, japanese old ladies are very bent, and small, and japanese people dont seem to have much endurance or muscle strength.

Of course this doesnt speak for all japanese, ive seen fat japanese and bulky japanese, but chances are these are the ones with high meat in-take.

I might not live to 100, but at least with my natural omnivore diet, im physically in better shape then many japanese blokes my age ive passed.

Their not collapsing but, i dont think being white is the reason im stronger, as ive said, ive seen some bulked up japanese blokes, and american-japanese seem much bulkier and fitter, so, there is alot to be said in favour of meat-including diets.

I like tsu's vegetarian philosophy, live and let live.

And also on a personal level, i find purely vegetarian diets kinda boring, as a "bloated fat rich cosy lifestyle westerner" ive grown used to enjoying my food aswell as it having nutritional value. :cool:

(it was sarcasm, im actually quite fit, not rich, and i live in the blasted chill-wastes of scotland, if you can call that cosy your either an eskimo or a corpse:blush: ).

Tsuyoiko
06-02-06, 14:56
And also on a personal level, i find purely vegetarian diets kinda boring.That's because you haven't tasted my cooking :cool:

strongvoicesforward
06-02-06, 16:30
That's because you haven't tasted my cooking :cool:

Or my wife`s either. hmmmm mmmm good!

strongvoicesforward
06-02-06, 16:48
Most vegetarians, and probably most animal rights activists, are not trying to take your meat away.

That is right to some extent. I sure have never gone up to someone`s plate in a restaurant and tried to take their meat away. But, I have leafleted and tabled the reason to go vegetarian. Vegetarians are usually involved in a battle of getting the vegetarian lifestyle out and to move society to adopt the vegetarian diet through convincing them that a vegetarian diet is the kinder choice.

However, a part of The AR Movement does consist of direct action against the industry. This can have an affect on prices which is one way of putting the product further from reach.



For most of us, vegetarianism is a personal choice that we would never force on others.

It could never be forced. However, it or parts of the meat industry could be legislated to such an extent that the price of production would cause more to chose it as a lifestyle.


...I find it unacceptable that you say they should be 'committed'. Please stick to rational argument.

Well, at least it isn`t as bad as someone saying they would get their gun and go to PETA`s HQs.

No-name
06-02-06, 17:32
Eating too much meat can definitely damage your health. Heart disease, hypertension, obesity, colon cancer and gout... definitely don't over-do it. I have a tendency toward hyper-hematosis--- too much iron... it clogs up your liver. It is not to say that you can't have any meat... but there are good and/or bad consequences for every action.

Eating too much candy, while it doesn't cause diabetes... once you hit a certain age, if you have been bathing your system in sugar on a constant basis and have put on some mid-life poundage- the tendency toward insulin resistance or type II diabetes is greatly increased.

Suddenly, you hit forty thinking everything is honky dory, and this young guy in a lab coat starts telling you not to eat this or that, to lose 25 pound, to excercise and to take these pills. Now you got pills, and monitors for blood pressure and glucose, and this eating plan that cuts out anything and everything you like... It is probably better to have started earlier and stayed healthy.

Mycernius
06-02-06, 18:28
A vegetarian who lives on lettuce leaves and a meat eater with a 75% meat/25% candy diet are setting themselves up for health problems. Anyone who eats a balanced diet, and cares about what they eat - whether or not that includes meat - is more likely to be in good general health.
A lettuce sandwich is good for helping you sleep. There is something in it that induces sleep. Another lettuce fact: it takes more energy to eat a lettuce than you get from it.



That is right to some extent. I sure have never gone up to someone`s plate in a restaurant and tried to take their meat away. But, I have leafleted and tabled the reason to go vegetarian. Vegetarians are usually involved in a battle of getting the vegetarian lifestyle out and to move society to adopt the vegetarian diet through convincing them that a vegetarian diet is the kinder choice.
Actually I would find this offensive. You do not like Christians coming up to you and doing the same with their leaflets, so why should it be right for you to do it? You are promoting a lifestyle the same way a JW or mormon are promoting their lifestyles. You have chosen to be a vegetarian and you are happy with it. Good for you. I am happy with my omnivorous diet, so let me be. If I wanted to think about vegetarianism I would look it up for myself. Although there is one livestock animal that is safe from me and they are pigs, because I don't like pork. (Tasteless or oversalted, uggh) You already know my views on the human diet, so I'm not going any more into that:-)

strongvoicesforward
07-02-06, 02:07
Actually I would find this offensive. You do not like Christians coming up to you and doing the same with their leaflets, so why should it be right for you to do it?

You are right in that both are at times bothersome to the targets. But, often the targets are receptive to the message, either be it on Christianity or Vegetarianism.

Mycernius, I tolerate Christians coming up to me. In fact, when I see a group of them circling about outside a Starbacks, I often place myself in their path so that they talk to me about their superstition. You should see it, after a few minutes they raise eyebrows to others that have not decended upon me yet and soon they are all in a frenzy around me. It is quite fun to see them in that state.

I don`t find their antics at approaching me causing me to not "like it." I enjoy it. It is entertaining. I am all for freedom of speech and that does include being able to approach people.

The difference between what vegetarians are offering and what Christians are offering is in non-delivery of the goods that are being offered. That means fraud.

There is a lot of research and there are many studies that show a vegetarian diet can be quite healthful to many. Land use for animal agriculture often pollutes environment. Factory farming causes paine, misery and suffering. These are all things that can be observed. Choosing to not support this system of meat consumption through the market place decreases demand for the product that causes these problems. All of it is testable.

Christianity, however, cannot give any evidence to support what it is offering. It is promising something without evidence. It suggests supernatural beings and events without evidence and wants those supernatural things relayed by word of mouth to be trusted. There is that stinking smell of fraud there.


You are promoting a lifestyle the same way a JW or mormon are promoting their lifestyles.

Yes, one based on observation and testable/researched data. Not one based on no evidence. There is no reliabel evidence for Christianity that is consistant and besides the point that it is not uncorrupted and has shady origins begun by people whom themselves are not really known.


You have chosen to be a vegetarian and you are happy with it. Good for you. I am happy with my omnivorous diet, so let me be. If I wanted to think about vegetarianism I would look it up for myself.

Well, if you wanted to think about buying a new Toyota Landcruiser, I guess you could look that up, too. But, Toyota, is not going to wait for you to get interested, are they? Of course not. They will be coming into your living room through your TV or as ad banners on different sites. Christians will tell you, their success is due to the nature of going out and "telling the Good News." In fact, all marketers and ad agencies will tell you the public is swayable and one`s position can be greatly strengthened if one gets their message out by being pro-active -- not passive.

So, Mycernius, sorry. You will not be left alone. The V-team will keep pushing and actively making inroads directly to more and more people. And, hey! It has been working. All we`ve done is taken a page right out of the playbook of past advertisers, be it corporate or religio.


Although there is one livestock animal that is safe from me and they are pigs, because I don't like pork.

Mr. Cromwell (forgot first name), the actor who starred in the Babe series became a vegetarian during the filming of Babe. He said he was very touched by the story and the plight of factory farmed animals. Good on you Mycernius for not eating pork.

No-name
07-02-06, 02:25
My sister and her husband used to "evangelize" her vegetarian lifestyle. I generally ignored her and her husband...But then she would occasionally cheat. There son hated it and chose to sneak out with friends for burgers and pizza all the time. Now he doesn't even hide his carnivorous leanings. My brother in law's health problems- back, joints, losing toe nails... the guy is in constant pain... never really helped to sell me on the overall health benefits. Likewise, my sister has had the normal range of health problems and is no healthier (or unhealthy) than my other sister who used to hunt and raise pigs. I am going to have to agree that a healthy diet is essential, but need not be vegetarian.

I also had a friend and fellow musician at church that was so forceful and controlling that his entire family finally began ignoring him and then up and left him. He would sit with us and constantly badger us about how we could eat blood and guts, how we could cause so much pain...blah blah blah, and we would go on eating. It was about control and this irritating black and white thinking- bordering on paranoia. He did that to his wife and kids, and she put up with it until eating disorders began to show up in his teenage daughter. She basically proved that he could not control her by not eating at all. Finally his wife shut him out and then left him.

Too bad however, he was one of the few Nisei on the mountain and a good musician.

strongvoicesforward
07-02-06, 03:06
There are those vegetarians who are not very focused on their diet and do not get all their body's needs to stay healthy. One does have to be focused on their food. But, being focused on food is a good thing.

I knew a vegetarian once who ate a lot of junk food, didn`t care about B12 or protein intake and she did not fare too well. Like anything, there are stupid people in all categories -- be it sports, vegetarians, flesh eaters, or Christians. No one has a monopoly on stupidity.

I also knew a Christian, in fact many, who evangelized and turned off many of friends and got devorced. However, during all their talk about the stories of which they believed in, they always failed to point out that vegetarianism was the original plan for man and that meat consumption was brought about after man had entered a state of sin.

Mycernius
07-02-06, 18:05
Land use for animal agriculture often pollutes environment. Factory farming causes paine, misery and suffering. These are all things that can be observed. Choosing to not support this system of meat consumption through the market place decreases demand for the product that causes these problems.
Land used for plant agriculture is just as polluting. After all there are all the fertilizers and pesticides that are used on the fields for plant production. Destablisiing the nitrogen content of the soil. Killing of species throuhg poisoning the environment. Plus the fact that a lot more land has to be used for grain production. Imagine the amount of bison that used to roam the plains that are now used for the production of wheat and other crops. Bison might not have been killed for that, but because they are gone man has used it to his advantage. Either way mass food production, whether it is for plant or meat, are both bad for the environment. The argument against pollution is circular. The same argument can be used for or against plant/meat production.

Tsuyoiko
07-02-06, 18:21
The same argument can be used for or against plant/meat production.Not quite. Purely from the land use argument, vegetarianism is more environmentally sound. From the link I quoted above (whatever post # that was):
The amount of land needed to produce a one-year food supply for a person who has to support a meat-eating habit is 3.25 acres. The amount of land needed to produce a one-year food supply for a pure vegetarian is 1/6 acre. As cited by John Robbins in his book Diet for a New America, Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council has estimated that if Americans would reduce their consumption of meat by only 10%, the amount of grain wasted on animal feed that could be diverted for direct human consumption would be sufficient to adequately feed every one of the 60 million people who die from hunger each year.

Production of meat in developing countries trying to emulate the American lifestyle is a major cause of deforestation as jungle habitats are replaced with large ranches to raise livestock. Those who want to "save the rainforests" should consider giving up meat.

Production of meat also wastes precious water resources for watering and cleaning livestock animals and their equipment and facilities. Producing one pound of meat requires about 2,500 gallons of water. Those who eat meat require more than twelve times as much water as is needed for a pure vegetarian.

Mycernius
07-02-06, 18:44
Okay, I concede on that, but there is still the pesticides and fertilizers used.

strongvoicesforward
07-02-06, 19:21
Okay, I concede on that, but there is still the pesticides and fertilizers used.

If it takes more crops to feed animals, it is only reasonable to accept that it would take more pesitcides to grow more crops for them. More pesiticides and fertilizer use causes more environmental degredation.

Choosing to go vegetarian is not about choosing a perfect choice (there will alsways be some environmental degredation) -- it is about choosing the best one available that is practical and allows for the least degredation but still allows for us to consume food products readily available via mass production to support a large population.

No-name
07-02-06, 19:31
Meat is definitely not as efficient or cost effective as farming. We could feed more people on the planet more food if we limited our meat intake... but the general problem of overpopulation would not be answered. All we would have done in the long run is to increase the planet's carrying capacity and extended our impact on the environment.

strongvoicesforward
08-02-06, 17:11
Animal Rights is not some abstract thought about what should or might be -- it is shaping up to and on the road to wiggling into the corridors of courtrooms and law. Just a matter of time.

The nation`s most prestigious school for cranking out lawyers and future jugdges, Harvard, has greatly increased their offerings of courses specialising in and Animal Rights Law. Just 5 years ago Bob Barker convinced his production company to donate $500,000 to Harvard to develope courses and research into this emerging field where young people have grown up with knowledge and news stories of Peta and other animal rights/welfare groups in the public.

“Harvard Law School is known for the depth and breadth of its curriculum, which includes approximately 260 different courses and seminars,” said Dean Robert C. Clark. “This fund will allow our faculty and students to explore in depth an emerging field of law that has ramifications in many traditional legal areas. We are grateful to Pearson Television for this gift―our students will benefit greatly from their generosity and from Bob Barker’s sensitivity to the issue of animal rights.”

As students and graduates of such schools where courses are offered gradually infiltrate the court systems, city elected positions, etc... more and more decisions for animals and aggressive legislation will gain momentum.

Strong Animal Rights legislation is not a question of “If,” but “When.” Time will bear that out. But, like many oppressed people in the past can attest to, change can take a long time in coming. But... it does come.

Toward Animal Liberation

No-name
09-02-06, 08:16
I was just thinking about a couple of point for Mycernius and Tsuyoiko: The biggest threat to wildlife, to the disappearance of species- is not hunting, but rather loss of habitat. Development and farming still pose the biggest threat to bio-diversity and long term species survival. Ranching a free range actually has less of an effect-- unless a particular species competes or threatens the rancher's livelyhood. Feedlots on the otherhand create a fairly significant ecological impact.

Tokis-Phoenix
09-02-06, 09:53
"1.1 Eating meat is OK
1.2 Eating meat is wrong
2.1 Using products from live animals (e.g. dairy) is OK
2.2 Using products from live animals (e.g. dairy) is wrong
3.1 Testing on animals for medical purposes is OK
3.2 Testing on animals for medical purposes is wrong
4.1 Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is OK
4.2 Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is wrong
5.1 Using animals in circuses is OK
5.2 Using animals in circuses is wrong
6.1 Keeping animals in zoos is OK
6.2 Keeping animals in zoos is wrong
7.1 Hitting pets is OK
7.2 Hitting pets is wrong"
I havn't voted on any of these so far as they have so many more factors to take into consideration than just them being either ok or not ok.
As far as meat eating is concerned, i agree, its a normal part of our nature- we were evolved and designed to eat a variety of foods including meat and vegetables etc.
The bit that concerns me, is wether the animal has been raised in a morally correct mannor or not and humanely killed- by morally correct mannor, i mean, the animal has been properly given the basic needs it has to be "happy" i.e.;
a. A decent amount of space to move about in.
b. The chance to see the sun at least a couple of times in its life/the ability to go out doors at least a couple of times at least in its life.
c. At least some of its natural foods given in a naturally prepared mannor i.e if it is a chicken, it should be fed at least some whole grain foods and not just powdered foods, or if it is a cow it should be allowed to eat fresh growing grass etc.
d. The animal should not be fed animal products.
e. The animal should be allowed to fullfill some of its social requirements like the ability to interact with its own kind if it is a sociable animal for example.
f. The animal should be killed effectively and not be forced to go through prolonged suffering.
g. The animal should not be given chemicals that will cause it suffering throughout its life.
There are a couple more points, but thats the jist of things.
I eat meat, but i do not eat battery farmed animal products(including intensively dairy farmed products), at all. Nothing. And rarely ever barn ranged animal products as there is little difference in the upraising of the animal in question. This is partly due to the fact, that in the vast majority of battery farmed animal cases, none of the above factors are even taken into consideration.
I was born and raised on a farm for most of my life, i also worked for a couple of days in a battery chicken farm- and i can tell you, i never seen anything so horrific in my life as a battery chicken farm.
I do not eat things like macdonalds, kfc, burger king and similar large company chain product foods due to the fact that all of their animal products are battery farmed.
I can tell you, that almost every animal that can be farmed, people have found a way to intensively farm it in a cruel mannor;
Pigs are battery farmed.
Chickens are battery farmed.
Ducks are battery farmed.
Turkeys are battery farmed.
Cows can be "0 grazing" farmed(i.e. kept in doors their entire life, never see a green feild in their life).
Etc...The only animal i can think of that i know isn't intensively farmed in a battery-style mannor are sheep, but then again they are a whole different story and can often endure great suffering.
I strongly disagree with battery farming, intensive dairy farming and 0 grazing farming, so i refuse to financially support it with my money- trust me, you would throw up if you knew what went into half of the food you eat, i know, because i have seen the raising of many animals and delt with food production. Thus i only eat animal products if they are organic and have been raised in a morally correct manner and humanely killed, and ironically, i hardly ever get the chance to eat good meat because its so hard to find with just these basic factors attended to.
Im against testing on animals purely for cosmetic purposes, and often against testing on animals for "medical purposes"(because you'd be suprised at how many utterly useless and horrible experiments on animals go under the the catagory for medical purposes)- as far as medical testing on animals go, im largely undecided, although i strongly believe its what exactly is tested on the animal in the name of medicine that is the deciding factor.
Im not against circuses or zoo's as long as the animals are well-treated and happy, but in the case of there being an endangered animal being held in captivity that is the right age and health for breeding, i believe that is must be given a proper chance to breed- if its highly unlikely it will breed in its current enviroment, it should be removed to a reserve where it will be given a proper chance.
Hitting pets is a grey area...I guess some of it comes down to what type of animal you are hitting, where you are hitting it and how hard. For example, its highly stupid to hit a hamster because it bit you, because hamsters bite when they are not handled enough by their owner, and they honestly do not benifet in anyway from being physically harmed.
But if a dog bites you, i think its fair enough to hit it back(although gently, i always found that a tap on the nose was more than enough)- dogs are often intelligent enough to register its negative actions with your negative re-actions, and they are often strong enough to never be harmed, but i only i think you should hit a dog for example if it bites you. I always believe that violence should always be a last resort though, because the majority of dogs are very intelligent animals, its almost always more than enough to just somthing else they dont like, like spray some water on them from a water gun( a friend of mine who bought a badly behaved dog actually used this method and the dog turned into an angel within a couple of weeks of getting soaked in water) :) .

strongvoicesforward
13-02-06, 03:15
In addition to Bob Barker convincing his production company to give $500,000 to Harvard Law School for courses and research focusing on Animal Rights Law, he also donated personally $1,000,000 of his own money to the University of California, law school, to make an endowment for Animal Rights Law there.

Helping to grow today`s officers of the court for tomorrow`s victories is just one of the multi-pronged strategies being used to wage the battle for winning animal rights.

-rika- shinya`
13-02-06, 06:02
But if a dog bites you, i think its fair enough to hit it back(although gently, i always found that a tap on the nose was more than enough)
Do you mean a stray dog or your own dog? omg if a stray dog is fierce to want to bite me,I won't make it easier by feeding my hand to it just to want to tap its nose :D But my dog is okay. It will never bite my hand in the first place.

1.1 Eating meat is OK
since I am not a vegetarian myself, i chose this. i eat chicken and sometimes pork. I find eating something like whale is wrong though. and for eating things alive is WRONG. and there is also the monkey. I find it digusting and so CRUEL to scrape the brain out and eat it alive. being human doesn't make you superior and earn you the right to do that!

2.1 Using products from live animals (e.g. dairy) is OK
I don't see what is wrong to use them. Unless it is eggs or something from protected and near to extinct species.

3.2 Testing on animals for medical purposes is wrong
4.2 Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is wrong
cosmetic purposes is definately wrong to me! and to test them on medical purposes..sometimes animals have different reactions as humans.

5.1 Using animals in circuses is OK
it is okay if they are treated nicely and not abused

6.1 Keeping animals in zoos is OK
same as above. and sometimes it is necessary to protect the species from dying out.

7.1 Hitting pets is wrong
this is just wrong. pets are for you to love them. but last time, i scold my dog for pooping everywhere too. and now it knows always to go the toilet for it's needs. But it's sad to see that some people are hitting/shouting their pets constantly just for something trivial like barking.

and it is wrong to ignore them too, like always chaining the dog outside the gate/only giving it food and drinks occasionally and the dog is so skinny and sick looking. If you can't take care of it, then why even bother having a pet!

No-name
13-02-06, 06:09
I guess the dog has the right to bite my hand. Whether I try to smack it or not might depend on the circumstances and threat level. A strange dog charging me might get a different reaction than a familiar dog, or a dog in its own yard.

(The only time my dog ever bit my hand was when we were playing and he had enough... ouch!)

strongvoicesforward
14-02-06, 17:33
6.1 Keeping animals in zoos is OK
same as above. and sometimes it is necessary to protect the species from dying out.

Rika- shinya, could you tell me which animal species have been saved by zoos so that they did not die out? After they were saved, which 'saved species' has ever been reintroduced successfully after all wild populations of them had no longer existed?

Tokis-Phoenix
14-02-06, 17:47
Rika- shinya, could you tell me which animal species have been saved by zoos so that they did not die out? After they were saved, which 'saved species' has ever been reintroduced successfully after all wild populations of them had no longer existed?

Not that you are asking my opinion, but anyways, thought you and rika would like to check these out;

Baby zoo tortoise species' 'saviour';

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4099574.stm

Breeding success for very endangered zoo snails;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4475654.stm

But then again, its not all success, so i wether i agree or not on zoo's keeping endangered animal breeding programs depends on the success of them in general and the long run in comparsion to other places and what they are breeding, for example;

Born free?;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/4708066.stm

What i mainly dont agree about in this in particular is the major difference in budgets that various wildlife reserves and zoo's get. Yes, zoo's have have helped save many animals from the brink of extinction, but at the same time its not always the case for others- its not fair though that some zoo's get far more money to spend per acre than what various wildlife reserves do.

-rika- shinya`
14-02-06, 21:38
thanx for those links tokis-phoenix!

strongvoicesforward, do you accept those? :souka:

Tokis-Phoenix
15-02-06, 11:28
thanx for those links tokis-phoenix!
strongvoicesforward, do you accept those? :souka:
Glad to help :cool: .
I personally believe that both zoo's and wildlife reserves have their places in wildlife conservation respectively. I completely agree that people should do their best to support wildlife reserves, but on the other hand many wildlife reserves face problems that are often out of the hands of people to help control, for example;
a. Poaching
b. Non-native animal species threatening native animal species
c. Enviromental concerns/issues like lack of water/rain
Most wildlife reserves face at least one if not all of these problems, and i think that zoo's can often help out in these situations like this when it comes to wildlife conservation. For example, the artifical enviroment of the zoo can often offer a huge amount of protection against poachers or other species of animals threatening the endangered ones; on the other hand the wildlife reserves can offer things that the zoo cannot often offer, like huge expanses of completely natural native habitat which makes it ideal for native endangered animals to breed in. Many species of animals simply cannot breed very easily in zoo enviroments because its often almost imposible to re-create a completely natural habitat in a zoo and many endangered species of animals are often extremely picky about their enviroment when it comes to breeding succesfully and/or rearing young.
Zoo's can also have other places in wildlife conservation, like getting the public interested in rare or endangered animals, many wildlife reserves or charitys completely rely on the publics funding support to keep them going, and in this respect i think zoo's are very important in educating the public about wildlife not only native to their own country but other parts of the world too and getting them interested in supporting these animals :cool: .

strongvoicesforward
15-02-06, 15:25
thanx for those links tokis-phoenix!
strongvoicesforward, do you accept those?

Yes, I accept them partly in some way, but those are hopes of helping a species for the future based on their endangerment presently.

I am wondering if a zoo has ever been successful at saving an animal from extinction and then reintroducing it and that the recovery of that species was catagorically due to the zoo`s intervention. I don`t think that has ever happened. I could be wrong and would like to see that. If that has happened many times then I think that zoos have demonstrated their worth as a kind of "ark" for animals. But, if that has not happened, I think they are using that as an excuse to justify their continued existance in the face of declining visitors and more harsh criticism of them in recent years.

The thing is, with environment for animals disappearing, those animals who are ushered into this "Ark" are on a one way voyage with no hope to dock and go 'ashore.' Are zoos to become their destined existance -- a place to be ogled at by the curious? Will they ever add to the variety of the echosystem again once they have no range to go back to?

I think in one of the links above it talked about snails. Well fine, make a zoo for snails. Or, if an animal is endangered and close to extinction, make a zoo for that animal only. It is wrong to take an animal that is not endangered and deprive it of its freedom for the curiosity and profit of others. If a zoo can`t survive without the support of people who see no fun in going to see a zoo full of snails and other small animals, then the public is voting with their dollars that they don`t support their efforts. An elephant or a lion (animals not on the verge of extinction), should not be forced to live in prison just to attract crowds to make money simply because a snail would not be a crowd pull.

As for protecting an animal species because their numbers are threatened because of developement creep on environment and poaching, then large swaths of guarded and enclosed sanctuaries should be created with government and private support.

For the most part, zoos are about entertainment. Many border on a carnival like atmoshere with cotton candy, rides, and animal shows. They often try to cload themselves in the guise of education, but you still see animals enclosed in small cages and unenriched environments. Simply put, zoos cannot provide for many of the species they seek to exploit because of the complex needs of these species. Even at many of the best zoos you can spot animals with stress, such as pacing, strange and erratic behaviour, threatening gestures, etc... It is quite sad to see many of them in their psychotic mental state.

What kids are implicitly learning about when they go to the zoo (even if they can`t articulate it) is that it is ok for us to oppress a species and force them into confinement or make them do tricks for our entertainment and amusement.

One thing I did like about a few zoos I vaguely remember when I had visited when I was young (and read about in other books/mags) is that in some exhibits at the entrance there would be a full body length mirror with a sign above it stating: "You are looking at the most dangerous animal in the world." How true!

Tokis-Phoenix
15-02-06, 17:05
Yes, I accept them partly in some way, but those are hopes of helping a species for the future based on their endangerment presently.
I am wondering if a zoo has ever been successful at saving an animal from extinction and then reintroducing it and that the recovery of that species was catagorically due to the zoo`s intervention. I don`t think that has ever happened. I could be wrong and would like to see that. If that has happened many times then I think that zoos have demonstrated their worth as a kind of "ark" for animals. But, if that has not happened, I think they are using that as an excuse to justify their continued existance in the face of declining visitors and more harsh criticism of them in recent years.
The thing is, with environment for animals disappearing, those animals who are ushered into this "Ark" are on a one way voyage with no hope to dock and go 'ashore.' Are zoos to become their destined existance -- a place to be ogled at by the curious? Will they ever add to the variety of the echosystem again once they have no range to go back to?
I think in one of the links above it talked about snails. Well fine, make a zoo for snails. Or, if an animal is endangered and close to extinction, make a zoo for that animal only. It is wrong to take an animal that is not endangered and deprive it of its freedom for the curiosity and profit of others. If a zoo can`t survive without the support of people who see no fun in going to see a zoo full of snails and other small animals, then the public is voting with their dollars that they don`t support their efforts. An elephant or a lion (animals not on the verge of extinction), should not be forced to live in prison just to attract crowds to make money simply because a snail would not be a crowd pull.
As for protecting an animal species because their numbers are threatened because of developement creep on environment and poaching, then large swaths of guarded and enclosed sanctuaries should be created with government and private support.
For the most part, zoos are about entertainment. Many border on a carnival like atmoshere with cotton candy, rides, and animal shows. They often try to cload themselves in the guise of education, but you still see animals enclosed in small cages and unenriched environments. Simply put, zoos cannot provide for many of the species they seek to exploit because of the complex needs of these species. Even at many of the best zoos you can spot animals with stress, such as pacing, strange and erratic behaviour, threatening gestures, etc... It is quite sad to see many of them in their psychotic mental state.
What kids are implicitly learning about when they go to the zoo (even if they can`t articulate it) is that it is ok for us to oppress a species and force them into confinement or make them do tricks for our entertainment and amusement.
One thing I did like about a few zoos I vaguely remember when I had visited when I was young (and read about in other books/mags) is that in some exhibits at the entrance there would be a full body length mirror with a sign above it stating: "You are looking at the most dangerous animal in the world." How true!

If you've ever had to manage a farm(lets say 6-11 hundred acres) you'll understand how pretty much imposible it is to completely protect it from poachers- you simply can't be in every place in every point of time to protect from poachers. Most wildlife reserves already have fencing and guards/people to help out but they are more of a deterant to poachers rather than a real protection- its not just a matter of putting in taller fences and more guards alot of the time, if people are really determined to kill a particular animal for alot of money, they'll find a way. You also have to take into consideration that many countrys that have very endangered animals suffer alot of political unrest and we simply cannot barge into them placing our guards left and right. Many wildlife reserves are completely off-limits to us because of political issues.

Alot of endangered zoo animals come from countrys or parts of countrys where the governments can barely feed their people let alone look after all the animals. Orang-utangs will most be extinct in the wild in decades because of poaching, enviroment loss and non native animal species threatening them for example, and they will only exist in zoos.
Most animals that end up in zoo's on breeding programs do so because the reserves can no longer look after them properly or keep them alive- that is why they rarely get introduced completely as a species back into the wild, for example like the turtles, because many threats to native wildlife are practically imposible to get rid of like non native species threatening others. Even though we have been dealing with the grey squirrel/red squirrel crisis for decades in england, red squirels are seriously declining still and i think its safe to say that they may only exist in controlled zoo enviroments one day.


With the onset of the global climate changes we are facing now, even if you chuck billions of pounds into wildlife researves, you cannot change the weather. Many wildlife reserves in africa for example are struggling even when they can get the funding they need because of the major lack of water/rain destroying all the wildlife.

You may not like it, part zoo's do have an important part in wildlife conservation for thousands of species of animals- im not saying i agree with every type of animal being in a zoo, for example endangered ones that are obviously not breeding in the zoo enviroment successfully in comparsion to wildlife reserves, but the importance of zoo's will only increase as global warming or natural disasters increase, or even political unrest in countries etc- all these things are inevitable. Im also not saying that every zoo is great, some are still stuck in the victorian exotic animal exhibit stage, but many zoo's now days are doing alot to change their ways to become better places for the animals involved, and i think we should encourage that.

Do you agree that zoo's help get the public interested in wildlife across the world?

Tokis-Phoenix
16-02-06, 10:55
Oh right...Sorry i forgot that strongvoicesforward is making an effort to ignore what i say since a couple of days ago, anyone else here agree with him that i can chat to about this topic or do most people here agree that zoo's have their place in wildlife conservation?

Reiku
16-02-06, 11:09
Mycernius, I tolerate Christians coming up to me. In fact, when I see a group of them circling about outside a Starbacks, I often place myself in their path so that they talk to me about their superstition. You should see it, after a few minutes they raise eyebrows to others that have not decended upon me yet and soon they are all in a frenzy around me. It is quite fun to see them in that state.

Hah, I guess we have something in common after all--I've been doing the same thing with the animal rights people on this forum, haven't I? :D

No-name
25-02-06, 07:01
Just thought I would throw in another shameless plug for my brother's great novel: Atomik Aztex by Sesshu Foster. If you believe in animal rights you need to rush out and but the novel right away. (Check out the blog at: http://www.citylights.com/blog/) The protagonist in "his" reality is a high aztec priest who has nightmares of an alternate reality where he a slave who slaughters pigs for a living at the Farmer John Vernon plant. As such it can be viewed as an oblique criticism of the industrialized meat processing industry- which is graphically described in the "nightmares" Zenzotli has.

Questions from the blog site:
there's a bumpersticker that says, "meat is murder". do you feel that the industrial process of food is well-hidden from you? does food and your place in the industrial food process matter?

and
a reviewer for the san antonio mercury wrote: "The result is a clever psychodrama of false consciousness and misidentification, brought into stark relief by the visions that torment our Aztek protagonist: He dreams that he is a "slave" in a meat-packing plant in Southern California." what role does "false consciousness and misidentification" play in the novel? what role does "false consciousness and misidentification" play in life?

strongvoicesforward
26-02-06, 06:46
I posted the following earlier and wondered if anyone could address the bolded -- if they have information showing success:

>I am wondering if a zoo has ever been successful at saving an animal from extinction and then reintroducing it and that the recovery of that species was catagorically due to the zoo`s intervention and that agreed to by the majority of zoologists and biologists. I don`t think that has ever happened. I could be wrong. If that has happened many times then I think that zoos have demonstrated their worth as a kind of "ark" for animals. But, if that has not happened, I think they are using that as an excuse to justify their continued existance in the face of declining visitors and more harsh criticism of them in recent years.<

Tokis-Phoenix
26-02-06, 17:09
I posted the following earlier and wondered if anyone could address the bolded -- if they have information showing success:
>I am wondering if a zoo has ever been successful at saving an animal from extinction and then reintroducing it and that the recovery of that species was catagorically due to the zoo`s intervention and that agreed to by the majority of zoologists and biologists. I don`t think that has ever happened. I could be wrong. If that has happened many times then I think that zoos have demonstrated their worth as a kind of "ark" for animals. But, if that has not happened, I think they are using that as an excuse to justify their continued existance in the face of declining visitors and more harsh criticism of them in recent years.<

Can you give any examples when an endangered animal at a zoo has a suitable habitat to go back to? Its well known that zoo's have helped save many animals from the brink of extinction, but it is pointless returning them back to the wild if their natural habitats cannot support them properly, which is why most endangered animals on breeding programs end up in zoo's being there in the first place. You seem to want to get rid of all zoo's, which is just ridiculous right now looking from many of the animals point of view in how they fair.

Mycernius
26-02-06, 17:13
Can you give any examples when an endangered animal at a zoo has a suitable habitat to go back to? Its well known that zoo's have helped save many animals from the brink of extinction, but it is pointless returning them back to the wild if their natural habitats cannot support them properly, which is why most endangered animals on breeding programs end up in zoo's being there in the first place. You seem to want to get rid of all zoo's, which is just ridiculous right now looking from many of the animals point of view in how they fair.
The Mexican Grey wolf. They used ones in captivity to breed from and released them into the wild in areas where they were wiped out.
Here is a link:
http://www.fws.gov/ifw2es/mexicanwolf/
I saw a programme on the TV about it. I have just had to find it, as I couldn't quite remember the extact species

Silverbackman
26-02-06, 22:08
Eating meat is most definitely okay. We are omnivores by definition and meat played a big role in the development of our species's brain. I think it is okay to eat most species except humans and other great apes (only in rare circumstances when they are dead and you are starving, is it okay to consume humans and great apes).

Dairy products from non-human animals are perfectly fine, don't see anything wrong with that.

Zoos and circuses are okay as long as the animals are kept in a healthy clean environment.

It depends on the animal when it comes to animal tests. Using great apes maybe unethical, I haven't decided on that. However using rats IMO are okay.

If by cosmetic you mean furs and skins, I am partially against it. Well, if you use the furs of mass-bred farm animals like sheep then it is okay I guess. Using wild animals for some of these is a definite no no . Poaching is immoral and cruel and is a major reason why many animals are becoming endangered.

I don't suggest people hitting their pets unless it is a last resort and the pet is being really bad. I doubt it will do much though. When doing it though people must do it in a non-abusive way.

SortOf
26-02-06, 23:38
I think its ok to eat animals, as long as there not human like such as apes and monkeys. Cows, pigs, chickens, turkey, rabbits and things of that nature are all ok. I however don't think something like a dog, or cat should be eaten because it possesses a certain level of intelligence.

Its ok for animals to have rights, to an extent, as long as they don't impose on the rights of humans or cause inconvenience for them. But nothing is going to stop me from picking up a hamburger, eating bacon and eggs for breakfast, or having a steak on a night out.

No-name
27-02-06, 00:09
In California: Big Horn Sheep, California Condor, Pronghorn, Musk Elk, Golden Trout...

strongvoicesforward
27-02-06, 03:17
The Mexican Grey wolf. They used ones in captivity to breed from and released them into the wild in areas where they were wiped out.
Here is a link:
http://www.fws.gov/ifw2es/mexicanwolf/
I saw a programme on the TV about it. I have just had to find it, as I couldn't quite remember the extact species

Looked at the page. Didn`t see anywhere in there that a zoo was mentioned as being responsible for the program or for saving the Mexican Grey Wolf from extinction. Perhaps my eyes are bad and I missed it. If so, please point it out to me.

strongvoicesforward
27-02-06, 03:42
I still haven`t seen any animals, let alone many, that have been saved from the brink of extinction and reintroduced successfully and recovered because of zoos.

In most cases, as far as North American endangered animals are concerned, the US Fish and Wildlife Services is the leading org spearheading the efforts. Zoos seem to be tagging along here and there but that in no way allows them to claim responsibility.

Again, are there many animals that have been saved from extinction by zoos, successfully reintroduced and recovered because of their leading efforts? I still haven`t seen that in one case, let alone many. Can someone show me a case study where a zoo has lead the way at saving a species, reintroducing it, and then it being successfully recovered?

bossel
27-02-06, 05:04
I still haven`t seen any animals, let alone many, that have been saved from the brink of extinction and reintroduced successfully and recovered because of zoos.
Really nice how you try to define the conditions in a way that they can't be met.

Of course I don't agree with your conditions. I just want to give some examples of animals which were successfully re-introduced:

Lammergeier in the Alps
European Lynx in Switzerland & in the Harz, Germany
Wisent in Eastern Europe
European Beaver in Bavaria

There are numerous other re-introduction projects ongoing.

strongvoicesforward
27-02-06, 06:48
Really nice how you try to define the conditions in a way that they can't be met.

Wrong.

They can be met. They are not defying any laws of physics.

They are not met because zoos do not take a leading role in saving animlas from extinction for recovery and reintroduction. If they have, have they ever been successful to where the animal has recovered?

Do you have any examples that show a zoo has been responsible in many cases of saving an animal from the brink of extinction, then reintroducing it and it has recovered?

Mycernius
27-02-06, 18:03
Normally when something says breeding from captive animals, it usually infers a zoo or animal sanctuary. Not unless people are breeding them from animals that are kept away from the public eye. If you want to see the word zoo, click on captive management in the link I provided. This is part of the text:

Mexican wolves are routinely transferred among the zoos and other SSP holding facilities in order to facilitate genetic exchange, thus maintaining the health and genetic diversity of the captive population. The SSP maintains the goal of housing a minimum of 240 wolves in captivity at all times to ensure the security of the species in captivity, while still being able to produce surplus animals for reintroduction.

strongvoicesforward
27-02-06, 18:14
Is there a specific statement lauding zoos or any zoo in particular for being responsible for saving an endangered animal from extinction, reintroducing a species and then that species recovering -- and that statement recognized largely by by peers, conservationists, media, etc...? I am not talking about sanctuaries or official conservation orgs. I am asking about zoos and their leadership in this area. What species have zoos unequivicably been responsible for saving, reintroducing and causing them to recover?

I have yet to see a case study presented stating specifically that zoo so and so successfully saved species X from extinction, reintroduced that species, and that species recovered. If zoos are going to wrap themselves in this cloak of saving endangered species, then they should be honest that they serve merely as an ark, and as of yet, their ark has been on a one way trip where their animals will not be, or never will be allowed to disembark.

When zoos have been cited in case studies, for the most part they are relegated to support status and their mission in the recovery plan is not anything that could not be performed by sanctuaries or other non-zoo orgs.

In effect, zoos as they are now, are not essential for animal recovery. Sanctuaries without the spectacle of a festival/carnival like atmosphere of entertainment and cotton candy could perform the duties of protecting and mating animals for reintroducing.

Tokis-Phoenix
27-02-06, 20:37
I think its ok to eat animals, as long as there not human like such as apes and monkeys. Cows, pigs, chickens, turkey, rabbits and things of that nature are all ok. I however don't think something like a dog, or cat should be eaten because it possesses a certain level of intelligence.
Its ok for animals to have rights, to an extent, as long as they don't impose on the rights of humans or cause inconvenience for them. But nothing is going to stop me from picking up a hamburger, eating bacon and eggs for breakfast, or having a steak on a night out.

Actually pigs are more intelligent than both cats and dogs on average, with cats being pretty much at the botton of the IQ table with the animals you listed. To simply not eat certain animals due to their intelligence, well then, that would open up alot of animals for eating while stop other commonly consumed animals for eating.
I think part of it boils down to culture in your country(as all countrys will have certain animals that are more acceptable to eat than others, for example is quite acceptable to eat dogs in china, whale in japan, and horses in germany, but these sorts of animals are not really acceptable in places like england etc), and what animals are commonly kept as pets, as i do believe that when people keep a particular type of animal as a pet they appreiciate it alot more for it is and refrain from eating its species/type.
I think its fine to eat any animal though as long as it has been specifically raised for human consumption in a humane and morally correct enviroment/conditions and also killed in a humane mannor, and its species is not rare or endangered or anything- even better if its species itself was specifically bred for human consumption like the modern cow or sheep. Then you can apply intelligence if you want, although alot of farm animals are a heck of a lot more intelligent than people give them credit for like pigs, which is why i stopped eating pig as i just didn't like the thought of eating one of the most intelligent animals in the world that is so close to us in so many ways- but thats another story.

Animal rights is important, to say though animal rights is only worth upholding when it doesn't create inconvenience for people is such a vague thing to say it could be used to justify all mannor of bad things for example chickens should be battery farmed because it creates cheap chicken meat, and if it was stopped chicken meat prices would go through the roof and be inconvinient for people, which would be just wrong- theres nothing good about a battery chickens life whatsoever, and they have no basic needs attended to them for like enough space to turn around and take more than one step in front of them.

So no, i dont think that animal rights should just be applied when it is convinient enough for people. I think it just be applied logically with an awareness of morality involved. For example, unlike strongvoicesforward here, i do think people should have the right to farm animals for human consumption, but on the other hand i think if they are to be farmed for human consumption they should be done so in a humane and morally correct mannor with the animals in question basic need properly attended too(i.e. enough space, good diet, social requirements met, keep in good health etc).
True, we evolved to eat meat along with our veg, and to raise a human child on a diet of veg and meat plus associated foods once weaned off the breast is still by far the best way to raise a healthy child, but we should still do so in a morally correct and humane mannor as far as the animals are concerned because we are human beings and we know the we have the ability of such awareness over such things and thus i think we should use it, not just applied to when it is convinient for us, but when the animal chosen for consumption has its best interests at heart too for the length of its life too :) .

Tokis-Phoenix
27-02-06, 20:47
Is there a specific statement lauding zoos or any zoo in particular for being responsible for saving an endangered animal from extinction, reintroducing a species and then that species recovering -- and that statement recognized largely by by peers, conservationists, media, etc...? I am not talking about sanctuaries or official conservation orgs. I am asking about zoos and their leadership in this area. What species have zoos unequivicably been responsible for saving, reintroducing and causing them to recover?
I have yet to see a case study presented stating specifically that zoo so and so successfully saved species X from extinction, reintroduced that species, and that species recovered. If zoos are going to wrap themselves in this cloak of saving endangered species, then they should be honest that they serve merely as an ark, and as of yet, their ark has been on a one way trip where their animals will not be, or never will be allowed to disembark.
When zoos have been cited in case studies, for the most part they are relegated to support status and their mission in the recovery plan is not anything that could not be performed by sanctuaries or other non-zoo orgs.
In effect, zoos as they are now, are not essential for animal recovery. Sanctuaries without the spectacle of a festival/carnival like atmosphere of entertainment and cotton candy could perform the duties of protecting and mating animals for reintroducing.
Actually your initial question was more like this;

Rika- shinya, could you tell me which animal species have been saved by zoos so that they did not die out? After they were saved, which 'saved species' has ever been reintroduced successfully after all wild populations of them had no longer existed?
Which is kinda different from question you just asked.
But anyways..
People here have given you plenty of examples of saving animals from extinction by zoo's, if the particular zoo's hadn't of existed many of those animals would or will have died out. And thats a fact.
To say or imply that zoo's have no place in wildlife conservation is very ignorant because they have shown plenty of examples of where they do have an important place in wildlife consservation. Or are you only interested when the species in question that has been saved once again thrives in its natural habitat?

When zoos have been cited in case studies, for the most part they are relegated to support status and their mission in the recovery plan is not anything that could not be performed by sanctuaries or other non-zoo orgs.
In effect, zoos as they are now, are not essential for animal recovery.
Plus, in my original post to the question you posed to rika, i gave you plenty of cases where zoo's can perform acts of wildlife conservation that the wildlife researves in question cannot- you should take this into note.

strongvoicesforward
28-02-06, 02:48
A lot has been said, but a case study, let alone many, has still not been put forth that says a zoo saved an animal from extinction, reintroduced it, and then it has recovered.

The point is, zoos are not mainly about ecology, conservation, or even education. They are primarily entities centered on entertainment. Can anyone show me what percentage of a zoo`s profits are plowed into land purchases for maintaining environments for endangered species? Have zoos been investing heavily in this or just lightly, when looking at their total profits? What percentage is being allocated for species reintroduction?

Again, as for mating animals so that they don`t die out, sanctuaries nestled in large natural settings or other places without the festival like atmosphere can perform those duties without having to have animals on display for finger pointing, laughing kids and their high percentage of obese American parents drinking a beer, or lapping ice cream in a cone.

bossel
28-02-06, 04:05
Have zoos been investing heavily in this or just lightly, when looking at their total profits?
Er..., which profits?
Well, I don't know about US zoos, but in Germany they rely heavily on grants & subsidies.

strongvoicesforward
28-02-06, 06:49
Er..., which profits?

lol. Yes, good point. A lot of zoos are struggling. I guess I mean their bottom line. At the end of the year when they tally everything up, are they ahead, behind, breaking even? If ahead, how much and what percent of that is put into saving species from extinction and reintroducing them?


Well, I don't know about US zoos, but in Germany they rely heavily on grants & subsidies.

Good point. The populace these days just do not feel like voting for keeping zoos around with their money through attendance.

Struggle struggle zoos,
Your education and conservation we know are a ruse.
It`s a prison in fact,
With flowery words that you try to wrap.

SortOf
28-02-06, 06:58
I liked sea world, you got to see alot of things most zoos dont have.

strongvoicesforward
28-02-06, 08:16
I liked sea world, you got to see alot of things most zoos dont have.

Yeah, like dolphins who are often taken from the sea after their mothers and many others in their pod have been killed. Why would an aquarium want to spend more time training an adult when it is easier to do so with the young ones? Only thing is, it means ripping them away from their families -- like a brutal kidnapping.

But hey, what`s a little kidnapping and causing stress and having some degree of mortality rate in transportation so long as it makes people laugh, ooh and ahhh at jumps through hoops and swimming pool volleyball, right?

And, if that isn`t enough to make you gush with joy at their imprisonment, they may even be able to click you a Happy Birthday tune.

Duo
28-02-06, 10:13
That sounds very sad... but then I remebered that it also happens to humans on regular basis so in comparison to that these kidnapped dolphins are at times treated better than their human counterpart

strongvoicesforward
28-02-06, 13:56
That sounds very sad... but then I remebered that it also happens to humans on regular basis so in comparison to that these kidnapped dolphins are at times treated better than their human counterpart


Yes, it is sad if we can look pass all the goofy antics they are made to do in order to get the audience to laugh and gush at how cute, or how human they are.

I don`t accept the reasoning that the 'crime' of killing one`s parents and kidnapping them is mitigated just because their life from then on in some aspects might have someone fawning over them or lavishing them with treats because they performed a routine they were trained to do. And, just because a human is treated worse in some cases is no reason to accept, blindly ignore, and not speak out against the wrong that is perpetrated on animals.

strongvoicesforward
28-02-06, 14:19
Hi SortOf, I know this is the second time I have used your quote to make my point about aquariums, but it is an interesting topic and not so different from zoos. My remarks are not really directed toward you, but toward this same mentality of enjoyment that many have at seeing creatures in captivity.


I liked sea world, you got to see alot of things most zoos dont have.

Taking animals out of the ocean and putting them in our man-made worlds makes them vulnerable to disasters that we have no control of. Why should these animals be put at risk for our amusement?

On October 24, last year, Hurricane Wilma pounded Florida, and Miami`s Seaquarium`s 250,000 gallon reef park was devastated, killing more than a thousand fish. Only 2 fish survived.

The only good result from it is the fish were uninsurable and now because of that and light gate sales since 911, the park is now 2 million dollars in the red. Being closed for 16 weeks (because of Wilma`s damage) as they went to the ocean to catch sea life for replenishing the aquarium has really hurt them. They are not willing to buy creatures from dealers that raise them. They prefer to get their specimens on the cheap by going out and plundering the oceans, imprisoning all those who come to their nets.

It will be nice if gate prices go up to cover the losses so that more would decline to visit these vulnerable water prisons.

strongvoicesforward
28-02-06, 14:46
What was I educated about a polar bear in a larger than 'normal' enclosure at a zoo I had visited in the past?

I learned how it behaved in captivity. It performed stereotypical repetitive motions known as Ozoochosis. These animals are often referred to as being zoochotic.

Several years ago the Polar Bear in the Manila Zoo of the philipines became green because of algae growing on its fur. I guess Philipinos learned that polar bears become green sometimes.

The zoos and aquarium parks also teaches us that people think the aligator area is a wishing well and seeing all the pennies in the bottom, I have to wonder if they were wishing for the poor animal to be released into the wild. But maybe not -- for I did see some pennies directly on the back of the animal. I guess those people thought getting a penny on the creature meant more good fortune.

Don`t take my word for it. Look at what an employee of one of these places says about it:

One addition, however, is the placement of signs reading ``Please do not throw objects at these live animals. Coins will injure and poison them.''

This doesn't stop anyone. Every day, people gather around the swamp and toss pennies, nickels and occasionally larger denominations into the water and atop the alligators. If the creatures open their toothy mouths, people will rush to land a coin inside.

``One of the big problems is that nickel and zinc are fairly toxic to the animals,'' Howell says as he sprays hundreds of coins toward the drain. ``If it gets in their mouth, they can die from it.''

He figures it's the ``wishing-well syndrome'' -- people get near a small body of water, and their first instinct is to toss in a coin. That this particular body of water is occupied by monstrous-looking creatures that have changed very little in 80 million years apparently is of little concern.

``I've picked up nails, tacks, condoms, foreign coins of all kinds, wine glasses,'' Howell says, shaking his head. But he doesn't want to say anything negative about the aquarium's paying customers. He knows how his toast is buttered. See full story HERE (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/08/27/BU82509.DTL).

Yes, indeed. He has a job, earning money -- all comes down to money and exploitation of animals -- why would you want to upset the applecart for an animal`s benefit when you are making a pretty penny off the back of another creature?

Ohhhhh... conservation and education at work for the public. We sure do learn a lot, don`t we?

strongvoicesforward
28-02-06, 15:06
Correction above: The polar bear that turned green was not in a Phillipine zoo. It was in a Singapore zoo.

Knowing that, I am glad to think that Philipinos don`t sometimes think that polar bears are supposed to turn green at times. However, people in Singapore may think so now.

On a bright side, Singaporean zoo officials have learned something from all this: They now know they can reverse such a condition by washing the animal with a bleach solution of hydrogen-peroxide.

Oh yes, the wonderful things we learn and are educated about animals from zoos.

If you want to see the folly of the Singapore zoo experts keeping cold climate animals in a warm environment and the green result, look here: Education in Zoo Folly (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3518631.stm).

Mycernius
28-02-06, 18:03
I should point out that not all zoos or animal sancturaies were set up for huiman entertainment. Some are just rescue centres that have opened their doors to the public to generate more income for these places to help rescue other animals or to care for the ones in need. There is a sanctary in Dorset that rescues apes from various places such as labs, illigal trade, pets that have gotten too big. Most of these apes could not be released back into the wild because they were parted from their parents at such an early age and do not have the skills that wild apes have and they would struggle and die if this was allowed. Which do you prefer? Animals to be kept safe from labs etc, in a safe and secure environment, or released back into the wild wre they would quickly die?
Link to Monkey World (http://www.monkeyworld.org/) in case you are interested

strongvoicesforward
01-03-06, 17:32
Sancutaries for rescued animals are not zoos. Some zoos try to get in on the 'rescue' image to help them with a legitimate/noble purpose, but in the end, zoos are venues of entertainment.

What zoo is stocked with only rescued animals or animals that have not been traded/purchased amongst them and other zoos -- or ones that do not have animals which were captured from the wild, or offspring of animals that were captured in the wild? Are these injured animals which cannot be returned to the wild because of permanent injuries breeded so that a stock of them continues for future visitors?

Do these zoos, set up as 'sanctuaries,' have an intensive infrastructure meant to cater to visitors and their comforts? Do they have animal shows to entertain the visitors?

Some simple questions can soon let us know if they are actually zoos or sanctuaries.

If animals such as those rescued from labs or roadside injuries cannot be released back into the wild, they should be allowed to live out their lives in a naturally managed environment at a sanctuary -- a place where the atmosphere is not one built to cater to visitors or a carnival like atmosphere with rides, sliced pizza, and enclosures where animals can`t completely disappear if they want.

I know of Monkey World and have seen videos of the place. The atmosphere does not have a carnival like atmosphere and the primates from what I have read are all rescued animals from abusive or neglectful situations. Their environments are enriched to provide for the mental and physical needs. The management of the place is not actively in the market to swell its animal numbers for visitors, but accepts those that are in dire need of a home. They do not have the philosophy of trying to gather a bunch of different kinds of animals from all over the world for the curious.

So many city zoos have anywhere between 20 to 40 acres. If they focused on one animal like Monkey World and create an environment of primordal adventure of looking at a natural environment, then they could offer a valuable service in the area of rescue such as Monkey World. I hope that Monkey World will become the norm and model for future zoos (moving away from the zoo concept and toward the sanctuary concept) as they struggle to stay profitable in the face of fewer and fewer visitors.

strongvoicesforward
25-03-06, 13:30
Just last week a precedent has been set in Japanese courts slightly distancing animals from just mere property status.

Until recently all pets were considered just property and in past cases where, say a dog, was killed due to behaviour from someone else, it was prosecuted as denying rightful property to the owner and the value of the dog (i.e. that amount which it would take to buy a same kind/breed of dog) was rewarded to the plaintif/victim. Therefore, most awards were on average \30,000.

However, last week a judge ruled in a case in which a mongrel dog left to roam freely in the neighborhood by its owner and which caused the death of a dachshound, found that the plaintiff was entitled to approx \650,000 (about $6,000) citing that the dog was viewed as part of the family of the 73 yr old lady and that her emotional damage at this "family member`s" loss was to be taken into account.

The first ever decision like this in Japan. Always good to see animals in court which result in decisions not being based merely on blue book value of property.

nurizeko
25-03-06, 15:17
When i wonder if i really can live in a touchy-feely world of lvoe and magic where everyone and everything gets along and nobody has to eat anybody else to you know, continue living, im reminded of the simple un-assailable reality of the nature of nature and the universe by this simple image.

http://www.pc-wallpapers.co.uk/wallpapers/Animals/aquatic/Killer_whale_attack_1024.jpg

That image sums up everything about nature in some simple image.

"Life is pain, get over it."-A quote thats stayed with me a while.

strongvoicesforward
25-03-06, 15:32
"Life is pain, get over it."-A quote thats stayed with me a while.

"Life" need not be a constant state of "chronic pain". Pain rushes forward with peaks and ebbs with valleys. We have the ability to affect our lives and the environment in which we live our lives in a way that could lessen the height of the painful peaks and lengthen the breadth and widths of the unpainful valleys. To not try is to embrace futility.

strongvoicesforward
02-05-06, 17:53
Continuing on the theme that we do not have a right to impose on animals for our entertainment: zoos and aquariums often put animals in danger because the biologists that often supervise these exhibitions are ignorant. Why should an animal pay with its life because of human greed, entertainment, and downright ignorance? They shouldn`t. They should be granted the right to live a natural life and left alone as much as possible.

But, here is the result of biologists' ignorance and corporate handiwork for profit. An amazing short two minute clip if you have the time:

OCTOPUS EATS SHARK (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7004909622962894202).

strongvoicesforward
23-05-06, 08:58
Often, zoos are said to be places of education -- a dismal reason for keeping them stocked with healthy animals that should be rehabilitated to the wild wherever possible. However, previously in this thread we have seen how they educate people on polar bears turning green with algae and that zoo officials learned to turn them white again by bleaching them. Yes, we learn a lot, don`t we?

Oh, and we also learn that zoo officials don`t care too much about the animals in their charge -- or are too ignorant about the animals in their charge -- that they mix two entirely different species of animals from totally different geographic areas. The result? -- Parents and children get a screaming education of a Barbary coast macaque monkey (native to Morocco) being chased and eaten alive by a sloth bear (native to India).

What a display, huh? Can you imagine it? If the screaming sound was anything like the pig my father castrated when I was a child -- it surely was horrifying.

And how do the officials at the zoo in Amsterdam explain the incident? -- “Harmony disturbed.”!


..."In an area where Sloth bears, great apes and Barbary macaques have coexisted peacefully for a long time, the harmony was temporarily disturbed during opening hours on Sunday."

I don`t know. When I think about “harmony disturbed” I imagine a baby crying on a transcontinental flight, or even a verbal scuffle or a perhaps even some pushing and shoving. An incident where a monkey is screaming as it is being EATEN ALIVE is more than “harmony disturbed.” I would say "harmony" has collapsed and in this case an 'unatural' killing has occurred.


...the bear climbed onto a horizontal pole, and, standing stretched on two legs, "used its sharp canines to pull the macaque, which was shrieking and resisting, from its perch."
The bear then brought the animal to a concrete den, where three bears ate it.

The pictures are not bloody. Just shows the bear grasping it in its jaws and a terrified look on its face. If you want to see several pics -- all of which are not bloody -- just the bear nibbling and pulling the screaming monkey as it is clutching the pole for its dear life -- you can look here for a set of pics on google: Bears Eat Monkey. (http://images.google.com/images?q=sloth+bear+eats+monkey&hl=en&btnG=Search+Images) Besides being on Yahoo, these pics and story made the CBS evening news a few weeks ago.

Here is one and all are mostly like this one:

http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/mmsource/images/2006/05/16/0562eat-macaque.jpg


But, in the end, I geuss a lot of little kids got an education on the dangers of zoos to their animals and biologists who just don`t have their act together.

Full story here: Bears Eat Monkey in Front of Zoo Visitors (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060517/ap_on_fe_st/netherlands_bear_eats_monkey;_ylt=AgUvc8yF3Lsp016A 3l4qVh94hMgF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNh dA--)

RockLee
24-05-06, 10:10
Yeah, I heard it on the radio. The weird thing is, It's a honeybear, and they use to eat fruits, and occasionally small mammals. So it was freaky.

Aristander
24-07-10, 01:34
1. Eating meat is perfectly acceptable, we are humans and have the big brains we have because our ancestors ate meat.
2. Medical testing is acceptable as long as the animals are treated humanely.
3. Test for cosmetic purposes is not acceptable, if someone wants to use cosmetics then they need to assume the dangers associated with it. :grin:
4. Animals need to be treated with gentleness and respect, but if they need a swat to correct their behavior then they should get it. I have swatted my dog with a rolled up newspaper when they needed and slapped horses for unprovoked biting.
5. Zoos and animal refuges are necessary to try and protect endangered species. Once they are gone they are gone.

LeBrok
24-07-10, 05:51
Physical punishment is very natural, it's one of natural way to educate. Look at pack of wolfs or chimpanzees. They don't explain or spend time to repeat tricks, the members of a pack are bitten, smack around, and chased in anger etc. This shows how things are done in animal kingdom. So get over it.
How can you explain to small kids not to hurt brothers or sisters, or not to do many stupid things. Some pain in buttocks can save their lives, or bring respect and orther.
I'm assuming that pain is not done by psychopathic individuals that hurt others for their enjoyment.
As long as physical punishment is used in proper way it is a vital tool in kids education.
Not to make my post too long, I generally agree with Maciamos and Mycernius posts on this subject.

alayka
11-10-13, 14:36
Animals surely deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation.All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering.So we don't have the right to do this !!

alayka
11-10-13, 14:44
Animals surely deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation.All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. We believe that every creature with a will to live has a right to live free from pain and suffering.So we don't have the right to do this !!

Twilight
20-10-13, 22:41
As my Step-Father used to tell me when I was little "for what we hunt, we should learn to respect and honor their place on this earth" a speech I shall never forget. When it comes to zoos, I feel like it's okay for the purpose of education and taking care of endangered species but these creatures are our cousins, you go back far enough, every single one of us is family.