Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: ("AT stands for "animal tested" or "animal testing").

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • I wouldnft take AT (whatever the animal)medicine/treatments even if my life depended on it.

    0 0%
  • I would take AT (whatever the animal) medicine/treatments if my life depended on it.

    10 52.63%
  • I would take AT medicine/treatments if I was in great discomfort but my life wasnft at stake.

    8 42.11%
  • I would any AT medicines/treatments if I felt I needed them.

    10 52.63%
  • I wouldnft support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments even if they needed it badly.

    0 0%
  • I would support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments if they needed it badly.

    9 47.37%
  • I would support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments depending on the situation.

    10 52.63%
  • I wouldnft use AT animal hygiene products whatever they were- would rather live in dirt.

    4 21.05%
  • I would only use some AT hygiene products but only if I really needed them.

    7 36.84%
  • I would use any AT hygiene products If they were good/I needed them.

    4 21.05%
  • I wouldnft support AT for warfare/weapons even if my countries survival depended on them.

    6 31.58%
  • I would support some AT for warfare/weapons if they would save loads of my peoples lives in war.

    9 47.37%
  • I would support AT for warfare/weapons if it enabled us to kick the enemies ass.

    2 10.53%
  • I would support any AT for warfare/weapons.

    0 0%
  • All AT is wrong whatever the animal involved.

    3 15.79%
  • Most of AT is wrong whatever the animal involved.

    3 15.79%
  • AT is only wrong if the animal is intelligent(like an ape).

    1 5.26%
  • Most AT is ok, but sometimes wrong.

    7 36.84%
  • AT is generally ok in my opinion.

    5 26.32%
  • Otherc

    1 5.26%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 151 to 156 of 156

Thread: Animal testing, your feelings?

  1. #151
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom





    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    I have already qualified that answer above.
    Ah, so i assumed right.



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    IT MOST DEFINITELY COULD!
    And people have to make the personal choice of where they are going to draw the line with faits accompli and that is the point of the Animal Rights Liberation movement -- to grow so that more people draw the line on as many animal products as possible. Just like others have drawn the line on willingly accepting German made products from companies and a country that profitted from Jewish slave labor -- or in America on African slaves.
    The place where people draw the line is not static. It shifts within people. That is the purpose of campaigns and movements, to shift the lines of perspective and opinions and to at times change the thought of the status quo.
    Right again!
    ARists have never claimed to be perfect or not weak in violating their ethical beliefs. They most certainly do. However, in an ironic twist they do campaign for the abolition of what they do and can physically profit from. Irony is strange -- like politics makes strange bedfellows.
    Their weakness however does not change the truthfulness of the message that it is wrong to violate the integrity of another`s body for self gain. The rightness or wrongness of the message can stand independent of the messenger even with all his or her personal strengths or weaknesses.

    On the other hand though, if you think thats perfectly acceptable behavior in animal rights activists then you are a hypocrite (this is not a personal insult, just stating the facts if you see the definition of hypocrisey).
    There's a difference in "spreading a message" as you put it and trying to change the actual laws of your country though. Do you agree that before you preach to others, you must first change yourself?



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Even if a dispicable figure who caused war said, "World peace is great", the statement`s merit, or lack of, still stands on its own despite the person who issues it.
    Fatais accompli covers that wrapped up in all the personal weaknesses of people, who while strive to high ethical standards, may still fall short of what they profess. But the message the profess is not scathed. It stands independent. The future is the point of attack.
    I wouldn't call wearing a fur coat while ranting on about how you hate wearing fur coats "striving to high ethical standards". Its like beating up people on a regular basis while saying you are against violence- no one would consider you spreading a message about anti-violence, they would just see you being a hypocrite.




    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Thomas Jefferson or some other slave holders bear truth in their message that freedom should be granted to all, despite their still holding slaves. The message that "freedom should still be granted to all" is still a truthful message even though the slaveholder refuses to release the slaves.
    Not at all. "Equal" is not "different." Look at the cat and man/abortion qualifying analogy.
    What is your point of reference? The universe or God?
    If you are saying "I" am the point of reference (which I am supposing you are, since you are asking my "honest opinion"), then you already know how/what I (and other ARists) believe and have judged.
    On one hand, you apply human rights to animals, on the other hand, you deny animals human rights which they are perfectly capable of being subjected to (unlike your male abortion anology). Could answer a "yes" or "no" question: do you consider all life on this planet equal? I want a straight answer.


    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Again "equal" implies some judement based on measurement and in the perview of this discussion we are debating on what is "right" or "wrong" and my view has consistantly been that animal testing is not right on animals (i.e. wrong to do) we know to have the ability to suffer.
    I am not persuing the reductionist argument because it points to the futility of even trying to do things and humans do not live their lives based on futility.
    I have clearly said that animals which we know to suffer from pain should clearly have the right to not have the integrity of their bodies violated. In those cases we do not have any higher right than they. We only do so based on "might makes right."
    Will you address the logic applied to the aliens of higher intelligence coming? Thank you.

    You have said that animals are equal to human beings in previous posts (although its now hard to say your exact opinions as you see all life as different), even Rocklee has said that a hamster should have the same rights as a billion people, so do you agree that all life on this planet is equal? If the animal does not feel pain during experimentation due to anesthetic(sp?) and thus does not suffer, would you agree to this form of experimentation?


    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    My quote from Animal Farm is what wrecks your logic. Your logic can only stand in its face if you say you would submit to experimental suffering for beings who place themselves above you and you know to have higher intellect and ability in most things they value.

    Don't assume you are wreaking anyones logic when you have not even discussed somthing with them ;) .
    If aliens came this planet and their race was far more intelligent or superior to our race, and it wanted to use us for testing, then i would just have to submit to it (although not happily mind you, but you wern't asking that anyway). If it overpowered us, well then, there's nothing we can do about it- thus superior race wins the day. If their race overpowered us then that is that.
    My "logic" only applies to things that evolved on this planet though, and since life as we know it has...

  2. #152
    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 Tokis-Phoenix
    Ah, so i assumed right.
    The qualification stands. It is well explained with faits accompli, the German model, the U.S. slavery model, and the message as independent from the messenger.

    On the other hand though, if you think thats perfectly acceptable behavior in animal rights activists then you are a hypocrite (this is not a personal insult, just stating the facts if you see the definition of hypocrisey).
    The German model, the U.S. slavery model, and the message as independent from the messenger. Many more examples are available for faits accompli to make hypocrites of us all. I am not so concerned with myself, and if being a hypocrite (like all of us are who pay taxes to governments who engage in policies we don`t agree with) allows my voice to call for the cessation of animal testing and actually helps impact in some way, then I am fine with that.

    There's a difference in "spreading a message" as you put it and trying to change the actual laws of your country though.
    Go into more details on your thought here, please.

    Do you agree that before you preach to others, you must first change yourself?
    Not necessarily in all situations. The U.S. preaches that other countries should not possess nuclear weapons but still possesses its own -- as does well the U.K. Do you acknowledge that? An old lady in my neighborhood as a child who smoked herself to death still preached to us kids against smoking and I think her memory was a point that has always kept me from ever wanting to try it. Her preaching was quite effective in me and my other childhood friends in that small neighborhood. Sure, she was a hypocrite, but her message stood and stuck independent of her actions.

    I wouldn't call wearing a fur coat while ranting on about how you hate wearing fur coats "striving to high ethical standards".
    I don`t recall ever seeing a person in a fur coat doing that. While the tactic would not be the most effective -- the message would still be accurate. The message can stand independent of the messenger. Though, for maximum effectiveness -- it is best that the actions of the messenger match the messenger's message. But sometimes, even just 90% effectiveness or even a smaller amount is important. The animals in labs benefit from whatever pittance can be thrown their way. As much as possible is better than saying, "well, since it can`t be 100%, then it has to be nothing.k" That is a strategy of perfectionism which leads to frustration, abandonment of goals and ultimate failure. Activists need not be perfect, setting themselves up for dissappointment -- they need only do as best they can for as long as they can. I wouldn`t call the boy sticking his thumb and most of his fingers in the dike bad while he was keeping the floodwaters out just because he couldn`t or didn`t stick all his fingers and toes in the dike. I would encourage him to keep doing as much as he can and pass on gratitude for as much as he has lent towards keeping the floodwaters out.

    What would you do? Degrade him and call him a hypocrite just because he says he doesn`t want to drown but decides to keep a few fingers out just so he can use them to do with whatever he pleases? I never demand perfection from anyone. If someone wants to try and offer perfection, then that is fine. But to demand it is wrong because people aren`t perfect.

    Its like beating up people on a regular basis while saying you are against violence- no one would consider you spreading a message about anti-violence, they would just see you being a hypocrite.
    Look at the "smoking" and other examples above -- not to mention the hypocracy of paying taxes to a government you don`t agree with 100% of their policies. The message can stand independent.

    On one hand, you apply human rights to animals, on the other hand, you deny animals human rights which they are perfectly capable of being subjected to (unlike your male abortion anology). Could answer a "yes" or "no" question: do you consider all life on this planet equal? I want a straight answer.
    I have answered that already "qualified."

    You have said that animals are equal to human beings in previous posts (although its now hard to say your exact opinions as you see all life as different),...
    My answers are clearly qualified. They are there. Please go back and look.


    ...even Rocklee has said that a hamster should have the same rights as a billion people, so do you agree that all life on this planet is equal?
    Did he actually say that, or are you taking liberties with interpreting what he said? I am almost sure RockLee is not an animal rightist (unless he has become one recently). Correct me if I am wrong, RockLee. But, I am also sure that he is looking at the issues with an open mind and not just swallowing what tradition has put forth about animals in their relationship to us. At one time, I was probably in the exact position as he was in now, and even before that, where you are now, or even others who never gave a passing glance or care for animals, but then something clicked -- a wake-up call to the vileness of violating the integrity of another`s body.

    Whether RockLee ever moves on the spectrum, I can't say. But what I appreciate is that he is at least he seems to be looking at the issue with an open mind and not bent on trying to point out hypocracies because perfection is not a part of anyone.

    If the animal does not feel pain during experimentation due to anesthetic(sp?) and thus does not suffer, would you agree to this form of experimentation?
    No, because I would not agree to it for retarded people. My logic is consistant in that depriving a being its life for another`s benefit is wrong. I am not "man centric." I am "universal centric" and therefore my belief is that not one of us has anymore inherant right to not have adversity caused to them than another. I am able to extend the golden rule and therefore I exercise that which I can do to not spread death for my own purpose.

    Are you the antithesis of that? Does you logic cut across the spectrum and is consistant, or is it premised on prejudice?

    Don't assume you are wreaking[wrecking] anyones logic when you have not even discussed somthing with them ;) .
    If aliens came this planet and their race was far more intelligent or superior to our race, and it wanted to use us for testing, then i would just have to submit to it (although not happily mind you, but you wern't asking that anyway).
    I thought I had phrased it with "go willingly." Sorry if I am wrong but that is what I thought I said. Didn`t I use that phrasology? So, yes, that was included in the analogy.

    If it overpowered us, well then, there's nothing we can do about it- thus superior race wins the day. If their race overpowered us then that is that.
    My "logic" only applies to things that evolved on this planet though, and since life as we know it has...
    So, do you surrender to apathy and accept that "might makes right"? It sounds like it to me. Sounds like you are saying their "might" is what makes their actions ok. Is it ok?


    "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

  3. #153
    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



    One of the most respected persons in recent times has been Mahatma Ghandi. Not only did his respect for life extend to man, but to animals as well -- so much in fact that he did not view the life of man any more important than an animal and did not believe the different animals of the world were here for the sake of the human body. I am glad to count myself amongst the same thought on this issue as such a great man.

    To my mind the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. I should be unwilling to take the life of a lamb for the sake of the human body. I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man. --Mahatma Ghandi, The Story of My Experiment with Truth: An Autobiography

    And, on scientific discoveries from the blood of innocents:

    I abhor vivisection with my whole soul. All the scientific discoveries stained with innocent blood I count as of no consequence. Mahatma Gandhi

    There is not "more important." There is not any who are not "equal" in deserving the integrity of body. There is only "different," and Ghandi new that the "different and the weakest" amongst us all, made it even more the responsibility of the strong to protect them. He abhored science based on innocent blood and states clearly with passion that the life of an animal is no less precious than the life of a man.

    Many view Ghandi as an enlightened person of love and respect. I, too, am one who does. His circle of compassion was not a small one with only man permitted to enter. It emenated outward encompasing much more than just man and his narrow world view of self benefit at the expense of other beings. I throw my vote with the philosophy of Ghandi on lessening world suffering in all its forms.

    Good on Ghandi for the gift of his wisdom he spoke bravely on.

  4. #154
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    A note to all the vegans and animal rights activists here on the saying that has been used in this thread "whats done is done";
    a. An animal rights activist is an activist because they are active on their opinions. You cannot call yourself an animal righst activist if you are not active on your opinions (i.e. like you cannot call yourself a vicar if you never attend church, or a paleontologist if you never qualified as one etc)- if you would take animal tested products in any situation, you can hardly call yourself an activist against such a thing because in reality you would be a supporter through your actions.

    b. The aim of most vegans is to remove themselves from any form of actions that may have a negative effect on any any, wether it be a bee or a cow etc. If you are a vegan and take animal tested medicines, then surely you are being incredibly contradictary to you cause? I think so.

    c. The phrase "whats done is done" does not apply in this thread if you are willing to take animal tested products but at the same time are against them. There is not a single member here who would not take animal tested medicines if their life depended on it- despite them claiming that all life is equal. That must mean that all the people against animal testing here are hypocrites to their cause- that they'd rather deny someone else of animal tested medicines than deny them it to themselves, and they value their own life above hundreds/thousands of animals lives.
    U'know, while there have been thousands of quitters of smokers/drinkers, or people breaking the law, i have never heard of a single animal rights activist in history who was not actually a major hypocrite in some way or another to their cause.

    d. I am sure Ghandi's intention was not to deny a a dying child of animal tested medicines either or destroy a farmers property etc. Ghandi preached peace and tolerance- there is no word on his beliefs of equality of all life on earth though as far as i am aware.

  5. #155
    No Longer a Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    06-03-05
    Location
    Okayama, Japan
    Age
    43
    Posts
    374


    Ethnic group
    Native American
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    The aim of most vegans is to remove themselves from any form of actions that may have a negative effect on any any, wether it be a bee or a cow etc. If you are a vegan and take animal tested medicines, then surely you are being incredibly contradictary to you cause? I think so.
    I'm vegan more for environmental reasons.

    If one believes in protecting the more highly developed species over the less developed ones (I think on a gross scale, most people do, i.e. humans take priority over bacteria), then animal testing rather than testing on humans might be the way to go. Albeit, there is a difference between necessary life-prolonging medicine being tested on animals and simple beauty enhancing cosmetics. If one can get rid of some unnecessary suffering, then it really should be done.

    Going vegan to protect animals from unnecessary suffering would have an impact on a lot of animals. Going vegan for most people wouldn't actually be detrimental to their health, and even better for some.

    Just to make the above points clear, cause rereading them, I see that my point could be lost (inarticulate me). Lifesaving/pain-removing medicines are important. Animal based food for most people not necessary. Animal tested cosmetics completely unnecessary.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Pheonix
    There is not a single member here who would not take animal tested medicines if their life depended on it- despite them claiming that all life is equal.
    Perhaps not here, but certainly there are some people that would.

    Most people who have a cause are hypocritical to some extent. But in some cases, does one take the apathy, or the slight hypocrisy? The slightly hypocritical people may be moving in a much needed direction that others are not.

    Just cause person with a cause claims he wouldn't do actions A through G, but actually under some circumstances, would do action D, doesn't mean that his not doing actions A through C, and E through G didn't have a positive impact.
    Last edited by Revenant; 20-06-06 at 07:18. Reason: Took out a phrase that didn't make sense in it's context.
    "The whole purpose of religion is to facilitate love and compassion, patience, tolerance, humility, forgiveness."
    --H.H. the Dalai Lama

  6. #156
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Revenant
    ...and if one believes in protecting the more highly developed species over the less developed ones (I think on a gross scale, most people do, i.e. humans take priority over bacteria), then animal testing rather than testing on humans might be the way to go. Albeit, there is a difference between necessary life-prolonging medicine being tested on animals and simple beauty enhancing cosmetics. If one can get rid of some unnecessary suffering, then it really should be done...
    I think I fall into the "most people" category. I can't disagree with you on the rest of it. The heirarchy of values is definitely engrained in my mind although I can't cite an origin except that it is how I have always believed and it is still a value I carry. I do not believe that my cat's life and my son's life should be regarded equally.

    But I can still see logic in testing consumer products for safety... I believe we could do without poisonous lead glazes, uranium and arsnic glassware, and cosmetics such as ceruse- a mixture of lead and vinegar, vermillion- mercuric sulfide, and others containing sulpher, tin ash, arsnic, mercury, and chemicals I have never heard of. Although make-up is arguably not a necessity, it is used by quite a few of us humans and it needs to be safe. The ethics should be set quite high and enforced to the letter. Just because one assumes that one specie's life has less of a value than than a human life, does not mean that it has no value.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-03-19, 14:12
  2. Animal Rights
    By Tsuyoiko in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 20-10-13, 22:41
  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
  •