Tokis-Phoenix said:
Some pets are cruely treated. Thus, you must be against the keeping of pets as well, it doesn't matter wether you may treat your pets well, that fact of the matter is that many thousands of pets are cruely treated everyday and by keeping pets you are encouraging others to have them and thus encouraging more animals to be bred and exposed to people.
I am against ownership of beings. What we own we may destroy. I may destroy my piano if I so wish. My neighbors may not destroy their children -- because their children are not
owned by them. Their children are merely in their parents' guardianship.
If your reasoning that you are against animal testing is because some lab animals may be cruely treated, then you must be against all forms of keeping animals where they are also somtimes cruely treated.
It doesn't matter if you keep your dogs well, some scientists keep their animals well, you are against any situation where the animal may be mistreated and thus you must put an end to that situation.
I am opposed to animal testing because it is a violation of the integrity of body and cruelty and suffering is a result of that. Violation of the integrity of body is the tool/activity which is a necessity for testing. Guardianship of children or animals in a family situation does not require and is not the overriding tool/activity which is necessary to have in those situations.
Your attempt at analogical parallels in these cases are off.
If you put an end to animal testing, thousands of animals will be put down regardless.
In what sense are you referring to?
As you said, america is against discrimination, but it sure still goes on- you seem to see this as reasoning enough for being against lab animals, so you must also be against the keeping of pets.
Tokis-Pheonix, I brought up the American discrimination analogy because YOU were the one who was so high on waving the banner that animal cruelty does not happen in England because of strong legislation protecting animals. You were insinuating that legislation in and of itself is the predeterminant factor that makes for cruelty to not exist -- saying that they are put down, or destroyed (just say killed to be honest) -- before they begin to suffer or feel pain (paraphrased).
Your pet dog is essentially your slave, even if you don't personally see it that way.
lol. I don`t know. I always thought slavery was a relationship in which one benefitted more that the other through exploitation. They don`t bring me a beer when I want one. They don`t even play with me when I want to play. I guess they are lazy slaves and they cause me to lose money every month. If all salvery were based on this model -- I am not sure it would have such a bad rap. lol.
No, they are not my slaves. They are beings that fall under my guardianship -- akin to a mentally undeveloped child who has been adopted by guardians who promise to care for the well being of the child. Is this child a slave?
By the way, the article is primarily against the funding issues over cancer research and not the way the mice were used-
The article cleary states that mice are not an appropriate model for cancer research.
...there are hundreds of scientists, and many in that article, that backed up the use of mice in cancer research.
Many? I think I may have counted two names that supported it. What is your definition of "many"?
Yes, and as the article pointed out, the many researches on mice cancer have done little for us (Perhaps because we are not mice). The article clearly states are losing the war on cancer and that if you want to see where we went wrong -- the mice is the best place to look -- and then it goes on to explain that the mice is a poor model.
You may try to pretend that the guy cares more about the mice than his own sorry life, but unfortunatly thats not the case.
Huh!? Where did I ever imply that? Do you have some privy access to my inner thoughts to know that I am pretending something? My posts have clearly put forth the position that he has been critical of the use of mice in modeling for human cancer.
I agree, funding over the decades for cancer cures, as for cancer preventation (where there are also millions of dollars have been spent on) has not always been used efficiently at times, but that does not change the fact mice as still a very valuable way of finding cures for cancer amoungst other illnesses.
More lives could be saved if the mice were relieved of its duties in syphoning funds because they (i.e. the funds) are not being used efficiently.
I have also already said i value human life over animal life many a time, so as for your "if" question/game thing,
You are the hypothetical "if game" innitiator, not me. Remember that. I entered into it after you launched one and then you didn`t have the courtesy to take your turn until much later -- even after firing more "if game" questions off. Like I said, I will play "quid pro quo" but you seem to not understand that or have ignored it -- at least until prodded, and even then not fully.
i thought to somone with your IQ it would be obvious what the answer would be due to this.
Ouch! Rude, personal insinuation, uncalled for.
A human being can give consent to testing, an animal cannot (who's to say what goes on in the mind of a mouse though),...
Animal ethologists. We need not know the complete intricate inner workings of an animal`s mind to grant them integrity of body. We do know that the state of pain is a state that is not pleasant and one in which we move away from when the stimulus causing it comes near. Animals display the same behaviour, and if their physiology allows them to, they will cry out as we do, too (albeit in the form of yelping or whining or screeching, etc...).
...because a human being has the ability to give consent they must be asked if they want to do somthing.
So, are you saying if a being cannot give consent then it is ok to cause them to have cancer so that we can experiment on them and vivisect them or other things we do to animals now? If "consent" is one of your markers, then many mentally impaired people are readily available for our white coated researchers and pharmies.
A human being is also capable of morality, there is practically no solid evidence of animals showing morality towards other animals. A mouse would never intentially save my live.
So what? Are you saying because a mouse wouldn`t save your life you can cause it to suffer? I am sure there are a lot of people in this world who are so selfish that they wouldn`t save your life -- does that mean you can cause them suffering?
The rat does not care if it eats the starving mans last peice of food while he is asleep.
So what? There are people like that, too. Does that give you the right to cause them suffering? That is also the nature of the rat. Are you saying the nature of man is to have a morality that is steeped in causing suffering for his own benefit?
I don`t think that could be the "nature" of man, because there are many ARists and some others who do not agree with that sentiment, and since we are a part of mankind, it is strange that this "nature" is easily thwarted by us.
The lion does not care if the zebra is still alive and screaming when it rips out its guts and licks up the blood.
So what? We are not lions. Are you saying we should adopt the lion mentality?
The fat pig does not care if it eats its dead owner, who cared for it with all his heart before he died.
Weren`t you the one who further up says, "real world example please, I am not much for vagueness"(paraphrased).
Please follow your exhortation and supply us with an example, in fact more than a few to show us that "pigs cared for with all the heart of its owner ate its dead owner"?
Animals are less equal than human beings if only for their complete lack of awareness or ability of morality concerned animals that they do not know personally. This may be one of the main reasons why animals are not equal to human beings.
Being equal in ability is a strange argument to rest on for consideration to not violate the integrity of another`s body. All humans are not equal in those abilities or practices, but I would not rest my logic on yours and make that to cause me support violating certain humans' integrity of body.
Human beings are capable of morality, and thus we should practice it when we can, but and animal life is not equal to a human life, so when one must be used to save the other, human life is more valuable.
Some humans are capable of more morality than others. Are those therefore more valuable and therefore have the right to use the lesser moral people to save themselves? Morality or a country`s or region of people' view/morality is often times based on one`s religion. A saudi textbook will say that the apes are Jews and the swine are Christians.
Apparantly morality has some thrashing out to do and your use of it doesn`t cut across the spectrum.