Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: How should we use animals?

Voters
52. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1.1 Eating meat is OK

    45 86.54%
  • 1.2 Eating meat is wrong

    7 13.46%
  • 2.1 Using products from live animals (e.g. dairy) is OK

    42 80.77%
  • 2.2 Using products from live animals (e.g. dairy) is wrong

    6 11.54%
  • 3.1 Testing on animals for medical purposes is OK

    35 67.31%
  • 3.2 Testing on animals for medical purposes is wrong

    11 21.15%
  • 4.1 Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is OK

    9 17.31%
  • 4.2 Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is wrong

    38 73.08%
  • 5.1 Using animals in circuses is OK

    21 40.38%
  • 5.2 Using animals in circuses is wrong

    24 46.15%
  • 6.1 Keeping animals in zoos is OK

    36 69.23%
  • 6.2 Keeping animals in zoos is wrong

    13 25.00%
  • 7.1 Hitting pets is OK

    13 25.00%
  • 7.2 Hitting pets is wrong

    29 55.77%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 139

Thread: Animal Rights

  1. #26
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan





    Quote Originally Posted by Miss_apollo7
    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.


    "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
    --Albert Einstein

  2. #27
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Reiku's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-08-04
    Location
    Pismo Beach, CA
    Posts
    138


    Country: United_States



    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.
    Baka ningen.

  3. #28
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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"?

  4. #29
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    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.

  5. #30
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Reiku's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-08-04
    Location
    Pismo Beach, CA
    Posts
    138


    Country: United_States



    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?

  6. #31
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward from thread HUNTING: The cruel sport of depravity; post #201
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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.

  7. #32
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    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.

  8. #33
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    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.

  9. #34
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    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.

  10. #35
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    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.

  11. #36
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    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.

  12. #37
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    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.

  13. #38
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    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>

  14. #39
    The Hairy Wookie Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience Points
    Mycernius's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-02-05
    Location
    Hometown of George Eliot
    Age
    49
    Posts
    916
    Points
    21,649
    Level
    44
    Points: 21,649, Level: 44
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 1
    Overall activity: 0%


    Ethnic group
    English
    Country: UK - England



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    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.

  15. #40
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Mycernius
    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.

  16. #41
    Cat lover Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Miss_apollo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    28-03-04
    Age
    40
    Posts
    315


    Ethnic group
    I am from YOKOHAMA,Japan!!
    Country: Denmark



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward


    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoices
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoices
    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..

    Quote Originally Posted by strogvoices
    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.

  17. #42
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    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.

  18. #43
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward[size="3"
    [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.

  19. #44
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Reiku's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-08-04
    Location
    Pismo Beach, CA
    Posts
    138


    Country: United_States



    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...

  20. #45
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    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.

  21. #46
    DON'T PANIC! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tsuyoiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-05
    Posts
    979


    Country: United Kingdom



    @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.

  22. #47
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Reiku's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-08-04
    Location
    Pismo Beach, CA
    Posts
    138


    Country: United_States



    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.

  23. #48
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Someday maybe the technology will be here and vivisection will be unnecessary.

  24. #49
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Reiku's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-08-04
    Location
    Pismo Beach, CA
    Posts
    138


    Country: United_States



    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.

  25. #50
    Bad at japanese Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    24-05-04
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Age
    31
    Posts
    55


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Maciamo
    Then we should exterminate all carnivorous species on this planet !



    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"
    私の趣味は金貨集めです。
    I collect gold coins

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-03-19, 14:12
  2. Animal testing, your feelings?
    By Tokis-Phoenix in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 20-06-06, 07:03
  3. Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty
    By strongvoicesforward in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 17-06-06, 15:28
  4. Animal speech
    By RockLee in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22-05-06, 09:06

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •