Animals Animal Rights

How should we use animals?

  • 1.1 Eating meat is OK

    Votes: 42 85.7%
  • 1.2 Eating meat is wrong

    Votes: 7 14.3%
  • 2.1 Using products from live animals (e.g. dairy) is OK

    Votes: 40 81.6%
  • 2.2 Using products from live animals (e.g. dairy) is wrong

    Votes: 6 12.2%
  • 3.1 Testing on animals for medical purposes is OK

    Votes: 33 67.3%
  • 3.2 Testing on animals for medical purposes is wrong

    Votes: 11 22.4%
  • 4.1 Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is OK

    Votes: 8 16.3%
  • 4.2 Testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is wrong

    Votes: 37 75.5%
  • 5.1 Using animals in circuses is OK

    Votes: 19 38.8%
  • 5.2 Using animals in circuses is wrong

    Votes: 24 49.0%
  • 6.1 Keeping animals in zoos is OK

    Votes: 34 69.4%
  • 6.2 Keeping animals in zoos is wrong

    Votes: 13 26.5%
  • 7.1 Hitting pets is OK

    Votes: 12 24.5%
  • 7.2 Hitting pets is wrong

    Votes: 29 59.2%

  • Total voters
    49
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.
 
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.
 
Tsuyoiko said:
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.
 
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.....
 
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.
 
Miss_apollo7 said:
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.
 
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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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"?
 
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.
 
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?
 
strongvoicesforward from thread HUNTING: The cruel sport of depravity; post #201 said:
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
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Mycernius said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Mycernius said:
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> ;)
 
strongvoicesforward said:
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.
 
Mycernius said:
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.
 

This thread has been viewed 91398 times.

Back
Top