Animals Animal testing, your feelings?

("AT stands for "animal tested" or "animal testing").

  • I wouldn?ft take AT (whatever the animal)medicine/treatments even if my life depended on it.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I would take AT (whatever the animal) medicine/treatments if my life depended on it.

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • I would take AT medicine/treatments if I was in great discomfort but my life wasn?ft at stake.

    Votes: 8 42.1%
  • I would any AT medicines/treatments if I felt I needed them.

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • I wouldn?ft support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments even if they needed it badly.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I would support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments if they needed it badly.

    Votes: 9 47.4%
  • I would support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments depending on the situation.

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • I wouldn?ft use AT animal hygiene products whatever they were- would rather live in dirt.

    Votes: 4 21.1%
  • I would only use some AT hygiene products but only if I really needed them.

    Votes: 7 36.8%
  • I would use any AT hygiene products If they were good/I needed them.

    Votes: 4 21.1%
  • I wouldn?ft support AT for warfare/weapons even if my countries survival depended on them.

    Votes: 6 31.6%
  • I would support some AT for warfare/weapons if they would save loads of my peoples lives in war.

    Votes: 9 47.4%
  • I would support AT for warfare/weapons if it enabled us to kick the enemies ass.

    Votes: 2 10.5%
  • I would support any AT for warfare/weapons.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • All AT is wrong whatever the animal involved.

    Votes: 3 15.8%
  • Most of AT is wrong whatever the animal involved.

    Votes: 3 15.8%
  • AT is only wrong if the animal is intelligent(like an ape).

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • Most AT is ok, but sometimes wrong.

    Votes: 7 36.8%
  • AT is generally ok in my opinion.

    Votes: 5 26.3%
  • Other?c

    Votes: 1 5.3%

  • Total voters
    19
strongvoicesforward said:
Well, you kept on avoiding them and making statements as if you were not going to answer them.
It becomes a game when one keeps witholding the courtesy to reciprocate answering when it is their turn. Almost like playing "hide and seek." I called it a game because I knew that was what you were going to do, and the recent posts bear that out.
[quit]Will you answer my questions now or will you continue to avoid them?
You mean like you?
I am very thorough in my answers and only not answer when I notice someone like you have been doing lobbing questions but not answering. Have you answered all my questions?
Do acknowledge though, that you asked a lot of non-real world scenario questions and then hedged on addressing scenarios addressed to you.
Speak for yourself hipocrite. If this is a simple matter of answering questions in turn, then you have a lot of turns to catch up on ;) .
 
Tokis-
I believe that I agree with you in that I see tremendous value in animal testing and I do consider human life more valuable than animal life. I don't consider all life on the planet equal. I would not only accept animal testing if my life depended on it, I would accept it even if the safety of product was in question. Before you sell something, I want to know that it is safe. I have given my children vaccinations and if my child needed insulin, I would not deny it.

Some things occurred to me after reading your last two posts. I have been following half an argument and it is a bit hard to do... so forgive me if it seems like I don't have all the information, because I don't.
1. Risking your life for a cause does not make the cause just or rightous. People have died for causes that were quite evil and unjust.
2. What animal testing does discover may not lead directly to a cure or treatment of anything. But a better understanding of biology including microbiology, genetics, and biochemistry. leads to many advances including treatment and cures.
3. Bad science and weak ethics does not nullify good research and strong ethics.

This doesn't mean that I am in favor of making animals suffer and die for no significant reason or purpose or without strict ethical guidelines. If there is a reasonable option available, an animal should not be subjected to testing involving the risk of pain or death. No animal should suffer unnecessarily. Animals are indeed valuable and worthy of consideration, I just don't feel that we should give them consideration equal to that of human life.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
Speak for yourself hipocrite.

Ouch. Harsh and not very civil.

Do acknowledge though, that you asked a lot of non-real world scenario questions and then hedged on addressing scenarios addressed to you.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
What does fatali accompli mean?

It is more commonly referred to as "faits accompli"

fait accompli \fay-tah-kom-PLEE; fet-ah-\, noun;
plural faits accomplis \same or -PLEEZ\:
An accomplished and presumably irreversible deed or fact.​


Plus, i have answered all of your questions, you have not answered highly relevant questions i made pages ago which leads me to believe that your views/opinions are not well thought through/flawed (please prove me wrong).

I don`t mind answering questions relevant to the issue. However, my personal life is not the issue. My personal life is independent of the message that animal testing is wrong.
 
sabro said:
Tokis-
I believe that I agree with you in that I see tremendous value in animal testing and I do consider human life more valuable than animal life. I don't consider all life on the planet equal. I would not only accept animal testing if my life depended on it, I would accept it even if the safety of product was in question. Before you sell something, I want to know that it is safe. I have given my children vaccinations and if my child needed insulin, I would not deny it.
Some things occurred to me after reading your last two posts. I have been following half an argument and it is a bit hard to do... so forgive me if it seems like I don't have all the information, because I don't.
1. Risking your life for a cause does not make the cause just or rightous. People have died for causes that were quite evil and unjust.
2. What animal testing does discover may not lead directly to a cure or treatment of anything. But a better understanding of biology including microbiology, genetics, and biochemistry. leads to many advances including treatment and cures.
3. Bad science and weak ethics does not nullify good research and strong ethics.
This doesn't mean that I am in favor of making animals suffer and die for no significant reason or purpose or without strict ethical guidelines. If there is a reasonable option available, an animal should not be subjected to testing involving the risk of pain or death. No animal should suffer unnecessarily. Animals are indeed valuable and worthy of consideration, I just don't feel that we should give them consideration equal to that of human life.


sabro said:
Tokis-
I believe that I agree with you in that I see tremendous value in animal testing and I do consider human life more valuable than animal life. I don't consider all life on the planet equal. I would not only accept animal testing if my life depended on it, I would accept it even if the safety of product was in question. Before you sell something, I want to know that it is safe. I have given my children vaccinations and if my child needed insulin, I would not deny it.
Some things occurred to me after reading your last two posts. I have been following half an argument and it is a bit hard to do... so forgive me if it seems like I don't have all the information, because I don't.
1. Risking your life for a cause does not make the cause just or rightous. People have died for causes that were quite evil and unjust.
2. What animal testing does discover may not lead directly to a cure or treatment of anything. But a better understanding of biology including microbiology, genetics, and biochemistry. leads to many advances including treatment and cures.
3. Bad science and weak ethics does not nullify good research and strong ethics.
This doesn't mean that I am in favor of making animals suffer and die for no significant reason or purpose or without strict ethical guidelines. If there is a reasonable option available, an animal should not be subjected to testing involving the risk of pain or death. No animal should suffer unnecessarily. Animals are indeed valuable and worthy of consideration, I just don't feel that we should give them consideration equal to that of human life.



I strongly agree with you here :cool: , these are also some of the points i have been trying to make to SVF. I also think there is often an over-Romanticising of people during criminal acts in what they believe as a right or just cause, when this is often not the case in many respects.
Being a buddhist, i do not believe in violence as the solution to all problems- it is self-perpetuating, violence only sows the seeds for more suffering and violence.
But animal testing? I value human life more than animal life, as a matter of conduct i do not think people should cause unnesarsary suffering to any animal, but animal testing to try and find cures/medicines/treatments for deseases and illnesses (for both human and animal a like) i do see as nesarsary- a medicine may be used for hundreds of years, and more than pay back the debt in life and suffering it took to make it for example as well.
85% of animal testing last year was also done on rats and mice, which are the most favored animals for testing by scientists, which animals like monkeys making up 0.2% of research.

Finding a cure for an udder desease in cows, or parasitic internal worms in dogs, may cause suffering to the animals during the course of finding the cure, but may save many millions of animals lives and stop suffering to come in future generations of animals.
The same goes for people.
Scientists do their best not to cause the animals they are testing suffering, as that would be bad for the experiment, and also not all animal testing causes suffering to animals (for example research into genetics often just involves breeding creatures). There are very strict laws in england against cruelty in animals, and while it may go on in a few isolated cases, the cause of animal testing to better the well being of people and animals a like is still a noble and just cause- don't let a few bad apple spoil the whole bunch so to speak.

I do not agree with animal rights activists destroying or breaking into other peoples property, nor do i agree with them threatening or damaging the well being of peoples lives in their cause. One of the most successful anti-battery/intensive farming videos ever done was done by activists working legally and undercover, rather than breaking into some poor guys farm and destroying his property etc. A word of advice to animal rights activists- if you want to project a good image of your cause, don't do criminal activities or support them.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Tokis-Phoenix said:
What does fatali accompli mean?
It is more commonly referred to as "faits accompli"
fait accompli \fay-tah-kom-PLEE; fet-ah-\, noun;
plural faits accomplis \same or -PLEEZ\:
An accomplished and presumably irreversible deed or fact.​
I don`t mind answering questions relevant to the issue. However, my personal life is not the issue. My personal life is independent of the message that animal testing is wrong.


Your personal life is not the issue, on the other hand this thread is about your opinions or actions in certain circumstances (see the poll for example), so the questions are very relevant to the debate.

strongvoicesforward said:
Ouch. Harsh and not very civil.

Whats uncivil about making a point like that?
 
Will both of you stop this bickering or this thread will be locked. Be civil.
SVF, Tokis has asked five reasonable questions, which you have avoided for the past ten posts. Just answer the questions, if not then let the subject go, they are relevant to the discussion in the thread and will help give an idea of how you really view animal testing. If you are unwilling to answer the questions then you shouldn't be discussing the subject. Put your cards on the table as others have.
Tokis, quit baiting and getting personal. You have already been asked by Rocklee to stop it.

Now the questions to be answered are:
1. Do you agree with animal testing when it is finding cures for animal diseases/illnesses?

2. Would you accept animal tested treatments/medicines if your life depended on them?

3. Do you consider all life on this planet truly equal? If not, what forms of life do you not consider equal (this includes things like bacteria, insects, molluscs etc)?

4. If you had a child, would you give them vaccinations against deadly diseases?

5. If you had a child and they needed insulin, would you deny them it and let them die?



Once answered I feel that the discussion will get out of the rut it has fallen into.
 
Mycernius said:
Will both of you stop this bickering or this thread will be locked. Be civil.
SVF, Tokis has asked five reasonable questions, which you have avoided for the past ten posts. Just answer the questions, if not then let the subject go, they are relevant to the discussion in the thread and will help give an idea of how you really view animal testing. If you are unwilling to answer the questions then you shouldn't be discussing the subject. Put your cards on the table as others have.

Hi Mycernius. I have answered the questions but she hasn`t noticed or understood them.

Tokis, quit baiting and getting personal. You have already been asked by Rocklee to stop it.

Thank-you.

Now the questions to be answered are:

1. Do you agree with animal testing when it is finding cures for animal diseases/illnesses?


No, I do not agree with violating the integrity of another being's life for another's benefit when the one being tested on cannot grant their permission. If I did then I would also accept violating the integrity of retarded children for the benefit of other children. To me logic is important and it needs to balance out cutting across the spectrum without prejudice when it comes to pain and suffering because those are states that know being wishes to be in.

2. Would you accept animal tested treatments/medicines if your life depended on them?

Faits accompli answers that. What is done is done. What things are presently being created or on the drawing board for creation can be discontinued and that is what we have the power over to stop animal testing to put an end to ongoing and future suffering.

3. Do you consider all life on this planet truly equal? If not, what forms of life do you not consider equal (this includes things like bacteria, insects, molluscs etc)?

The question is loaded. All life is truly equal in the universal sense (unless you believe in a personal God that shows an affinity towards humans -- of which there is no proof of) in that one does not have any more right to be here than the other.

Why would the vastness of the universe care more about man on earth than a mouse? Likewise why would the universe care more about a tick than the even smaller parasites found in a tick's stomach? If your perspective is man-centric (or perhaps God centric -- again no proof), then you will view man as having more rights over anything else and "more equal" -- whatever that means. If your perspective is universal, then you will see that one life is not anymore equal than another.

Reminds me of George Orwell`s mocking tone of arrogance in "Animal Farm."

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."​
George Orwell, Animal Farm.​

Sounds like spin to me and an exercise in back bending justification.

Definitely not logical and the word "equal" lends itself to prejudice and exploitation when one is asserting self interest over others. If you value logic, you will see that "buts" are the perversion of logic.

Cruelty and suffering is bad, but some cruelty and suffering is not as bad as others so long as we are not the target of it and we benefit from that which we inflict because others are not "equal" to us. But, if we find someone more intelligent than us in a variety of aspects, we would not submit ourselves to pain for their benefit even though we do not equal them in intellect or ability or any aspect which we are familar with and value (not to mention all the additional ones they have over us).

So, my question is: Does logic rest on prejudice as its foundation? Maciamo also hinted at this in his thread about "laws not being applied consistantly." They are not applied consistantly because prejudice perverts the logic. That is what was anathema to Maciamo`s view on the point of logic and consistant application.

The right to integrity of body when one is not violating the life of another is what we are physically and morally able to grant to others as it pertains to how we live.

Now, if a person invades a bear?fs den, that bear is definitely right to kill him/her(violate the integrity of his/her body), for bears and humans do not naturally have a bond or natural tendency of close living arrangements such as this. Likewise, if a mosquito violates the integrity of someone`s body then that person is not wrong to protect themselves (which if they choose may be killing the mosquito).

When one is being deprived of their right to integrity of body( or feels the threat that it is imminant) from another being, then the being that is being assaulted then wields the right to protect themselves for self preservation from the one that is trying to violate its body.

We are able to apply that because we have logic, AND we should apply it because we know that the state of pain is bad and therefore should not inflict it on another being for self preservation -- other than the situation where we are immediately threatened by that being.

Going further and further down into the reductionist argument however is the one of futility. Man does not adhere to the futility of life.

So, why is ?gequal?h not appropriate in describing the rights of animals to integrity of body for another`s gain?

Because ?gequal?h in this case elevates a person to the level of judge and man is not the universal judge of life. Maciamo pointed out and hinted at this with his reference to ?gwhat if advanced beings more than us came here??h earlier in this thread (or was it the vegetarian thread -- either or, it is still applicable here). Would we then submit to the logic that we are not equal of deserving of integrity of body because we do not match up on levels that they judge on -- or even if their judgements were on the same aspects of what we judge as important and determining factors that give us what we think we have the right to do to animals here? I would not submit to that archaic logic and then march happily to the ?gmore than equals?f?h laboratories. Who would?

Furthermore, the word ?gequal?h is bogged down because things are just different. It is useless to talk about the equal rights of cats to have drivers licenses, because they have no need for and can`t possess the ability to drive. It is also meaningless to argue for the equal rights of men to have abortions. However, men are not less equal because they don`t have this right, are they?

The beings we know from science and observation which have shown us to possess the clear ability to feel pain and suffer, should not have the integrity of their bodies violated for another`s self benefit.

If logic is what one feels is something that should be consistant and cut across the spectrum then this is the view that does not contradict itself -- unless you say you would willingly march to the labs of superior intelligence beings than one`s self for their benefit because "benefit" of the more equal beings trumps any suffering or pain one may feel to us who are not equal. That is what the ?gequal?h logic based judgement will lead one to do -- again if logic is important to someone.

4. If you had a child, would you give them vaccinations against deadly diseases?

I answered this with faits accompli. What is done cannot be undone. However, I would not point a finger at any being and say take this being and violate the integrity of its body to test on to create something for another being (another being would include all beings and therefore you can assume myself or my children fall in that category).
Would you please exhort the other, and if you also feel like it, to answer my specific "why" follow up questions to the "Germany Jewish slave labor proffiting companies" analogy?

5. If you had a child and they needed insulin, would you deny them it and let them die?

Again, faits accompli applies.

-------------------------------------------------------
*btw, Mycernius, do you also not know what The Boston Tea Party is? Tokis hinted that she did not know what it was so I am trying to discern if UK schools do not touch on that as one of the starting points of direct action against British colonial rule in the Americas. I just want this information for my own reference because in the future I don`t want to reference it when discussing with people from the UK if I know beforehand they are not familiar with it. If I did reference it, when I brought it up I would then go into a little more detail to bring forth knowledge on that historical act between our two countries. Thanks, in advance.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
Hi Mycernius. I have answered the questions but she hasn`t noticed or understood them.
Thank-you.
[/color]
No, I do not agree with violating the integrity of another being's life for another's benefit when the one being tested on cannot grant their permission. If I did then I would also accept violating the integrity of retarded children for the benefit of other children. To me logic is important and it needs to balance out cutting across the spectrum without prejudice when it comes to pain and suffering because those are states that know being wishes to be in.

Faits accompli answers that. What is done is done. What things are presently being created or on the drawing board for creation can be discontinued and that is what we have the power over to stop animal testing to put an end to ongoing and future suffering.

The question is loaded. All life is truly equal in the universal sense (unless you believe in a personal God that shows an affinity towards humans -- of which there is no proof of) in that one does not have any more right to be here than the other.
Why would the vastness of the universe care more about man on earth than a mouse? Likewise why would the universe care more about a tick than the even smaller parasites found in a tick's stomach? If your perspective is man-centric (or perhaps God centric -- again no proof), then you will view man as having more rights over anything else and "more equal" -- whatever that means. If your perspective is universal, then you will see that one life is not anymore equal than another.
Reminds me of George Orwell`s mocking tone of arrogance in "Animal Farm."
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."​
George Orwell, Animal Farm.​
Sounds like spin to me and an exercise in back bending justification.
Definitely not logical and the word "equal" lends itself to prejudice and exploitation when one is asserting self interest over others. If you value logic, you will see that "buts" are the perversion of logic.
Cruelty and suffering is bad, but some cruelty and suffering is not as bad as others so long as we are not the target of it and we benefit from that which we inflict because others are not "equal" to us. But, if we find someone more intelligent than us in a variety of aspects, we would not submit ourselves to pain for their benefit even though we do not equal them in intellect or ability or any aspect which we are familar with and value (not to mention all the additional ones they have over us).
So, my question is: Does logic rest on prejudice as its foundation? Maciamo also hinted at this in his thread about "laws not being applied consistantly." They are not applied consistantly because prejudice perverts the logic. That is what was anathema to Maciamo`s view on the point of logic and consistant application.
The right to integrity of body when one is not violating the life of another is what we are physically and morally able to grant to others as it pertains to how we live.
Now, if a person invades a bear?fs den, that bear is definitely right to kill him/her(violate the integrity of his/her body), for bears and humans do not naturally have a bond or natural tendency of close living arrangements such as this. Likewise, if a mosquito violates the integrity of someone`s body then that person is not wrong to protect themselves (which if they choose may be killing the mosquito).
When one is being deprived of their right to integrity of body( or feels the threat that it is imminant) from another being, then the being that is being assaulted then wields the right to protect themselves for self preservation from the one that is trying to violate its body.
We are able to apply that because we have logic, AND we should apply it because we know that the state of pain is bad and therefore should not inflict it on another being for self preservation -- other than the situation where we are immediately threatened by that being.
Going further and further down into the reductionist argument however is the one of futility. Man does not adhere to the futility of life.
So, why is ?gequal?h not appropriate in describing the rights of animals to integrity of body for another`s gain?
Because ?gequal?h in this case elevates a person to the level of judge and man is not the universal judge of life. Maciamo pointed out and hinted at this with his reference to ?gwhat if advanced beings more than us came here??h earlier in this thread (or was it the vegetarian thread -- either or, it is still applicable here). Would we then submit to the logic that we are not equal of deserving of integrity of body because we do not match up on levels that they judge on -- or even if their judgements were on the same aspects of what we judge as important and determining factors that give us what we think we have the right to do to animals here? I would not submit to that archaic logic and then march happily to the ?gmore than equals?f?h laboratories. Who would?
Furthermore, the word ?gequal?h is bogged down because things are just different. It is useless to talk about the equal rights of cats to have drivers licenses, because they have no need for and can`t possess the ability to drive. It is also meaningless to argue for the equal rights of men to have abortions. However, men are not less equal because they don`t have this right, are they?
The beings we know from science and observation which have shown us to possess the clear ability to feel pain and suffer, should not have the integrity of their bodies violated for another`s self benefit.
If logic is what one feels is something that should be consistant and cut across the spectrum then this is the view that does not contradict itself -- unless you say you would willingly march to the labs of superior intelligence beings than one`s self for their benefit because "benefit" of the more equal beings trumps any suffering or pain one may feel to us who are not equal. That is what the ?gequal?h logic based judgement will lead one to do -- again if logic is important to someone.

I answered this with faits accompli. What is done cannot be undone. However, I would not point a finger at any being and say take this being and violate the integrity of its body to test on to create something for another being (another being would include all beings and therefore you can assume myself or my children fall in that category).
Would you please exhort the other, and if you also feel like it, to answer my specific "why" follow up questions to the "Germany Jewish slave labor proffiting companies" analogy?

Again, faits accompli applies.



So SVF, would i be wrong in assuming that you would give your child vacinations against deadly deseases, or insulin if they needed it? And you would accept animal tested treatments if your life depended on them because as you said, whats done is done?

"Ahem".

Using your reasoning, that whats done is done, could be used to reason wearing a fur coat while saying you hate people who wear dead animal products, or eating a mcdonalds burger while saying you despise battery farming- the animal is dead, "whats done is done" (or faits accompli as you put it).

When you take treatments or medicines that have been animal tested, you support animal testing because those medicines/treatments are still run as buisneses/companies and the money you pay for those treatments goes towards more research i.e. animal testing.
If more people consume somthing, there is more demand for it, and thus more supply to meet the demand.

Essentially you are saying you fight to put an end to all animal testing, while on the other hand you would support it in some circumstances.
One more thing though- the equality question. On one hand you seem to suggest that "all life is equal in a universal sense", on the other hand you say "Furthermore, the word ?gequal?h is bogged down because things are just different.". You sound like george orwells quote from animal farm "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.", just written in a different way but with the same meaning.
So do you believe that all life is equal on this planet (and i do mean all life), or is some life more equal than other forms of life to you in your honest opinion? (I'm not talking about all the rights that human beings have and animals don't, if we are truly equal then we should have the same basic rights and so forth).
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
So SVF, would i be wrong in assuming that you would give your child vacinations against deadly deseases, or insulin if they needed it? And you would accept animal tested treatments if your life depended on them because as you said, whats done is done?

I have already qualified that answer above.

Using your reasoning, that whats done is done, could be used to reason wearing a fur coat while saying you hate people who wear dead animal products, or eating a mcdonalds burger while saying you despise battery farming- the animal is dead, "whats done is done" (or faits accompli as you put it).

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.

When you take treatments or medicines that have been animal tested, you support animal testing because those medicines/treatments are still run as buisneses/companies and the money you pay for those treatments goes towards more research i.e. animal testing.
If more people consume somthing, there is more demand for it, and thus more supply to meet the demand.

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.

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.

Essentially you are saying you fight to put an end to all animal testing, while on the other hand you would support it in some circumstances.

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.

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.

One more thing though- the equality question. On one hand you seem to suggest that "all life is equal in a universal sense", on the other hand you say "Furthermore, the word ?gequal?h is bogged down because things are just different.". You sound like george orwells quote from animal farm "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.", just written in a different way but with the same meaning.

Not at all. "Equal" is not "different." Look at the cat and man/abortion qualifying analogy. 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.


So do you believe that all life is equal on this planet (and i do mean all life), or is some life more equal than other forms of life to you in your honest opinion? (I'm not talking about all the rights that human beings have and animals don't, if we are truly equal then we should have the same basic rights and so forth).

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.

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.
 
strongvoicesforward said:
I have already qualified that answer above.

Ah, so i assumed right.



strongvoicesforward said:
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?



strongvoicesforward said:
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.




strongvoicesforward said:
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.


strongvoicesforward said:
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?


strongvoicesforward said:
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...
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Tokis-Phoenix said:
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.
Tokis-Pheonix said:
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:
Revenant said:
...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.
 

This thread has been viewed 92730 times.

Back
Top