Animals Animal testing, your feelings?

[No-name]

They get it. From the page above:
We believe the best science is humane science. Our programs seek to provide a better, safer, more humane future for people and animals.

I can agree with that.

(although my ethics do tend to greatly favor humans over other species...)

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Things sure do not happen overnight -- especially when changing perceptions of ethics in regards to animals is going against thousands of years of traditional use and exploitation. Look at how many thousands of years it took for slavery to get wiped out -- errrrrr, actually it is still around in some forms. ARists have no illusions about the tough fight ahead. We live in reality and therefore just don`t sit around and wish for things to happen. We organize an act on our convictions with multi-pronged approaches and strategies, always being dynamic adopting the new and the old which has been tried and tested in history.

Despite your strong held veiws, i think you are just like the rest of us.
If you life was ever on the line and your survival depended on taking animal tested treatments, i think you would take those treatments rather than die. If a loved one you knew was in the same situation, i think you'd be fine with them taking animal tested treatments for the sake of saving their life.
If our country was invaded by north korea tomorrow(highly unlikely i know, but just an example), and we all faced living in a highly corrupt hell hole of a country with millions of people dying of starvation and execution every year, i'm sure you'd be ok with animal tested weapons saving your country and millions of peoples and animals lives and keeping it nice and wealthy-western.

If we banned animal testing and animal tested products tomorrow, millions of people would die- and animals too! Where do you think those medicines to treat those injured zebra or pregnant cows in distress came from? Even animal medicines are animal tested- we aern't just talking about human products here, animals themselves have benefetted from animal tested treatments in many ways. Many highly infectious killer animal deseases have been dealt and detroyed with animal tested treatments.

So the big question is, if you were going to die, but you could be saved from taking animal tested treatments, would you take them? Because overall, i think you would. Many of your animal rights buddies will more than happily argue against the use of animal tested medicines and treatments, even if banning them would mean the deaths of millions of other people they don't know, but i'm sure if any of them ever came into the situation where they desperatly needed them themselves, i'm sure they'd more than easily take the descision of supporting the sacrifice of a few thousand lab rats to save their own sorry lives.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

So the big question is, if you were going to die, but you could be saved from taking animal tested treatments, would you take them? Because overall, i think you would.

I don't think most of us would even have to be at risk of dying. Although it would make me very uncomfortable, I would take AT drugs to improve my quality of life. I'm sure paracetamol were tested on animals at some point, but I will take them for bad pain. Sometimes one has to sacrfice one's principles to be able to continue to fight for those principles!

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Britches the monkey was rescued in a raid on an animal testing lab. His eyes had been sewn shut so that researchers could study the effects of sudden sight after being deprived of it since birth.

To take a being from birth and make it so that it is deprived of a sense given to it as its own, so that it serves our selfish purposes makes monsters out of those who would do such a thing. Kind of reminds me of the chills I had when watching the old Ulyses movie where Cyclops keeps Ulyses and his men corralled for the pleasure of satisfying his appetite pleasures. The exploited always see the exploiter as a monster. The monster stops being a monster when it can truly reflect on its horrendous acts and reform itself in such a way where it no longer causes fear and cowering in others at its approach.

Nice to know Britches was taken from the clutches of the monsters.

Britches with bandages over head and eyes with sonar device grafted to head.

Britches liberated and bandages and device removed. Eyelids still sewn shut.

 

[Reiku]

Personally, I'm more concerned with the intent than anything else. In general, I really don't have a problem with animal testing--even if it puts the animals through something cruel--so long as that's not why you're doing it.

If you wanted to test the safety of a new medicine or medical procedure, for example, I wouldn't have a proplen with animal testing even if it meant alot of animals ended up dying a horrible death. You have to test and practice things like that, and it's better than trying it out on people until you get it right.

It's not that the human animal is inheirantly more valuable than any other animals, just that our priority--like every other creature's--should be to the benifit of our own species.

[edit] Regarding SVC's post above me, while I don't neccesarily agree with what was done to that animal--particularly if it was just for mere curiosity--I have to disagree with your use of the term "monsters".

From my experience, what we call a "monster" is just something we refuse to find any common ground with--it's basically a term of bigotry.

The cyclops in Homer's Odyessy is considered a monster, but when you consider his actions, he was just following his nature. We humans do similar things to cattle and sheep--in fact, the Cyclops himself was a sheperd. If he had a rather barbaric means of keeping and slaughtering his livestock, that's only because he was limited by the knowlege and resources available to him--humans at that time didn't treat their animals much better.

Or is it because the Cyclops was eating humans, instead of what we would consider an "acceptable" life form?

That shows the crux of the problem right there, because one person will argue that eating animals is okay, while others will say that only non-intelligent animals are "ok" to eat, and another will say only plants, and so on.

I suppose to vegitarians--and especially to vegans--I am a monster, because of my fondness for various meat and dairy products.

Something I've been reminded of recently is why it's so hard to be truly toerant of other people:

Some of the core beliefs about what's "right" and "wrong" vary from person to person.

A Christian who agressively tries to convert others believes he's saving people's souls, and when I preach self interest I beleive I'm doing the same thing...

...saving people's souls from firey damnation, saving people's souls from a grasping Deity--we both thing we're doing what's right against a terrible evil...

...but to Christians, I'm the evil--and to me they are.

It's the same way with the treatment of animals.

Were the surviving members of the Donner party evil for eating peaple to stay alive?

Though we don't usually think of it this way, life is essentially a race against death--and one that we inevitably lose.

Is it evil to to whatever we can to prolong and enrich the short time we have before we die?

It is a matter of survival after all.

This is why I try to judge a person's intent rather than their actions:

If a Christian is trying to save people's souls, then that is a good and noble (if misguided, IMO) goal.

If the people who did that to "Britches" were honestly trying to gain knowlege for the betterment of mankind, then that is also a good and noble goal--even if I don't like what they had to do to get that knowlege.

That's assuming the best of course--somthing I don't often do with humanity.

I'm more inclined to beleive that they're bastards who chose to sew a monkey's eyelids shut because they thought it was funny.

Ultimately, I don't have any basis for either oinion, except my of prejudices--and neither do an of you, I think.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Reiku, I am almost tempted to engage you with a discussion, but I have found in the past that you can`t control yourself. I guess I am saying I don`T want to be called a "Hitler" again (a monster I think we would all agree on) and have someone hope for animals to "rip me to pieces."

But, I do think I remember you posting in your one thread that in other dimensions or universes (Abandon Reason or was it Sanity or something like that, To All Who Enter Here) -- we are all right and that everything is possible. So, I guess I am right, too.


*It`s been a while since I visited that thread, so -- sorry if my paraphrase is wrong.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Good post Reiku, a mature approach to a sensitive subject and the meaning of "monster"/inferior .
I would like to add some things though;

Take action;
No one can afford to assume that someone else will solve our problems. Every individual has a responsibility to help guide our human family in the right direction. Good wishes are not sufficient.

The moral code;
Irrespective of wether we are a believer or an agnostic, wether we believe in God or karma, moral ethics is a code which everyone is able to pursue.

The moral perspective;
To pursue growth properly, we need to renew out commitment to human values in many fields. Political life, of course, requires an ethical foundation, but science and religion as well should be pursued from a moral basis.

Take responsibility for those in need;
It is the nature of human beings to yearn for freedom, equality and dignity. If we accept that others have a right to peace and happiness equal to our own, do we not have a responsibility to help those in need?

The root of all problems;
Anger, attachment, jealousy, hatred...These are the real enemy.

Negativity is never the solution;
Anger, jealousy, impatience and hatred are the real troublemakers; with them problems cannot be solved. Though one may have temporary success, ultimately one?fs hatred and anger will create further difficulties.

No good ever came of anger;
Anger may seem to offer and energetic way of getting things done, but such a perception of the world is misguided. The only certainty about anger and hatred is that they are destructive.

Two kinds of anger;
Anger I think can be of two types; hatred with ill-feeling is one while another anger, with compassion as the basis of concern- may be positive.

Keep anger in check;
Usually people consider that anger is part of the mind, and that it is better to show it, to let it come. I think that?fs the wrong conception?cResentment because of grievances may be let out, because then it is finished?cConstant anger- that, I think, it is better to check.

Violence is self-perpetuating;
If you succeed through violence at the expense of others rights and welfare, you have not solved the problem, but only created the seeds for another.

The paradox of self-interest;
If we adopt a self-centered approach to life by which we attempt to use others for our own self interest, we might be able to gain temporary benefit, but in the long run we will not succeed in achieving even our personal happiness.

Purity of intention;
Once you have pure and sincere motivation, all the rest follows. You can develop this right attitude towards others on the basis of kindness, love and respect, and on the clear realisation of the oneness of all human beings.

Give and take;
By showing concern for other people's welfare, sharing other peoples suffering, and helping other people, ultimately one will benefet. If one thinks only of oneself and forgets about others, ultimately one will lose.

Optimism achieves greatness;
An optimistic attitude is the key factor for sucess. Right from the beginning, if you hold a pesimistic attitude even small things may not be acheived.

Teaching by example;
Before teaching others, before changing others, we ourselves must change. We must be honest, sincere, kind-hearted.

Self-importance;
Tolerance and patience with courage are not signs of failure but signs of victory...Actually, if you are too important, thats a real failure.

 

[No-name]

Yeah Reiku!
You horrible horrible human being! How could you ever compare someone to a Nazi! It's not like the guy is a Christian or anything! After all, he a VEGETARIAN for cripes sake! (This is sarcasm meant to imply that Mr Forward is guilty of exactly the same thing and correction of this sort comming from him is laughable.)

The thought that all opinions are equally valid is known as a variation of the relativistic fallacy.

We should be careful at who we compare to Nazis and Hitler.

 

[KrazyKat]

Personally, I'm more concerned with the intent than anything else. In general, I really don't have a problem with animal testing--even if it puts the animals through something cruel--so long as that's not why you're doing it.
This is why I try to judge a person's intent rather than their actions:
If a Christian is trying to save people's souls, then that is a good and noble (if misguided, IMO) goal.
If the people who did that to "Britches" were honestly trying to gain knowlege for the betterment of mankind, then that is also a good and noble goal--even if I don't like what they had to do to get that knowlege.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here Reiku. I'm not going to argue here against animal testing, but against your idea of, how I see it as, the 'intent' justifiying the means.

This is because the same argument could be used to justify horrible acts like
suicide bombings in Israel/palistine. An independant, free, Palistinian state is certainly a noble goal, but I would no way see that as justifying those acts of terrorism.
Stability and democracy in the Middle East is certainly a noble goal, but does that justify the invasion of Iraq?
Preventing exploitation of animals is certainly a noble goal, but does that justify the acts by ALF?

Eventually you will likely reach a point where the sacrifices for the goal are acceptable, but this does not mean that any sacrifice is acceptable if the goal is noble. With your example of the Christians, exactly how far would you allow them to go in trying to save souls before you stop seeing them as performing good (if misguided acts)? Knocking on people's doors? Forced conversions? Death penalty for those that leave the religion?

 

[Ermac]

Imagine if Martin Luther King had said "apartheid will continue to be a way of life long after I'm gone" kashii:

I don't see how you can compare lab animals to MLK......

 

[strongvoicesforward]

I don't see how you can compare lab animals to MLK......

Tsuyoiko is not comparing lab animals to MLK. She is comparing the logic of accepting futility, the status quo -- or the decision to accept or not actively agitate for change just because something will be a long hard struggle through activism.

*If I am wrong by what you meant by your post, Tsuyoiko, please let me know. Don`t mean to speak for you. Feel free to add to my interpretation of what you meant.


Logic is not a monopoly contained in one entity. It cuts through every thing and is not dependent upon man for its existence. If A=B=C=A** on Earth, then it will be so on the moon, Mars, etc... as well.

**Hope my memory of Formal Reasoning in university is right, here.

 

[No-name]

What if we said: I doubt the technology and science to replace animal testing will be perfected before I die.

 

[Mitsuo]

I would believe you. (^_^)

 

[Reiku]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here Reiku. I'm not going to argue here against animal testing, but against your idea of, how I see it as, the 'intent' justifiying the means.
This is because the same argument could be used to justify horrible acts like
suicide bombings in Israel/palistine. An independant, free, Palistinian state is certainly a noble goal, but I would no way see that as justifying those acts of terrorism.
Stability and democracy in the Middle East is certainly a noble goal, but does that justify the invasion of Iraq?
Preventing exploitation of animals is certainly a noble goal, but does that justify the acts by ALF?
Eventually you will likely reach a point where the sacrifices for the goal are acceptable, but this does not mean that any sacrifice is acceptable if the goal is noble. With your example of the Christians, exactly how far would you allow them to go in trying to save souls before you stop seeing them as performing good (if misguided acts)? Knocking on people's doors? Forced conversions? Death penalty for those that leave the religion?

>Sigh<

Can't a guy say anything these days without being accused of supporting terrorism? :blush:

You miss my point, I'm not saying the ends justify the means--I'm saying that a person who does something we consider evil is not nessecarily a bad person.

To bring up SVF's little jab at me earlier: No, I don't agree that Hitler was a monster--I think he was honestly trying to do what he thought was right and good...

...I also think he was dead wrong, but being mistaken does not make you a monster--it just makes you an idiot. :blush:

That's what scares me, you see: Many people would consider me an abominable monster if they knew some of my opionions and beliefs--I'm basicly one slip aways from having pitchforks at my door--so I really can't advocate attacking someone for acting on their beliefs.

If their beleifs lead them to attack you first, then by all means kick their ass--but do it because they attacked you, not because they're somehow "evil" for believing that you should die--otherwise you're doing the exact same thing they are: Attacking someone based on your judgement of their beliefs.

What I'm saying is that if a person is trying to do what they think is right, you shouldn't call them a monster just because their idea of right seems wrong to you.

If it is their intent to be evil, then they're evil--otherwise they're just misguided.

...and while I'm at it, here's a list of beliefs that could get me shot: :evil:

Good post Reiku, a mature approach to a sensitive subject and the meaning of "monster"/inferior .
I would like to add some things though;

Take action;
No one can afford to assume that someone else will solve our problems. Every individual has a responsibility to help guide our human family in the right direction. Good wishes are not sufficient.

I disagree. Helping the species is a bonus, nor a requirement--and very few people if any are wise enough to do anything other than force their values on everyone if they try.

I say leave people alone.

If I want to eat meat, drink booze, have lots of sex and just generally wallow in sin and vice, I say find me a group of like minded people and let us go about our buisness--we'll be too preocupied to bother you.

The moral code;
Irrespective of wether we are a believer or an agnostic, wether we believe in God or karma, moral ethics is a code which everyone is able to pursue.

True, but everyone's moral code is different.

Some say "thou shalt not kill", some say "hang the bastard"--some say both at the same time, which is very entertaining IMO. :blush:

Personally, I believe in vengeance killing--good old fasioned samurai style "I have come for your head!" stuff--I don't even care what your reasons are, if it was bad enough to make you want to kill the guy, that's good enough for me.

I personally believe this is a right and moral thing to do, some people disagree with me--thus we have problems.

The moral perspective;
To pursue growth properly, we need to renew out commitment to human values in many fields. Political life, of course, requires an ethical foundation, but science and religion as well should be pursued from a moral basis.

Again, who decides what's moral and ethical?

A majority vote doesn't tell you who's right, just who's in the majority. Ultimately there's no way for us to accurately judge right and wrong, we each have to go by our own feelings and prejudices.

Take responsibility for those in need;
It is the nature of human beings to yearn for freedom, equality and dignity. If we accept that others have a right to peace and happiness equal to our own, do we not have a responsibility to help those in need?

No.

Nononononononnononononono!

90% of the trouble we get into is by trying to "help" people.

Our idea of happiness is not nessecarily going to make them happy, in fact, their idea of happiness is not necessarily going to make them happy--it's something we each have to discover on our own.

If you want to help someone, and they want your help, fine--but it's not a requirement.

Heck, some people actually like fighting through their own problems--us downtrodden aren't all helpless and lazy, you know. :blush:

The root of all problems;
Anger, attachment, jealousy, hatred...These are the real enemy.
Negativity is never the solution;
Anger, jealousy, impatience and hatred are the real troublemakers; with them problems cannot be solved. Though one may have temporary success, ultimately one?fs hatred and anger will create further difficulties.
No good ever came of anger;
Anger may seem to offer and energetic way of getting things done, but such a perception of the world is misguided. The only certainty about anger and hatred is that they are destructive.
Two kinds of anger;
Anger I think can be of two types; hatred with ill-feeling is one while another anger, with compassion as the basis of concern- may be positive.
Keep anger in check;
Usually people consider that anger is part of the mind, and that it is better to show it, to let it come. I think that?fs the wrong conception?cResentment because of grievances may be let out, because then it is finished?cConstant anger- that, I think, it is better to check.
Violence is self-perpetuating;
If you succeed through violence at the expense of others rights and welfare, you have not solved the problem, but only created the seeds for another.
The paradox of self-interest;
If we adopt a self-centered approach to life by which we attempt to use others for our own self interest, we might be able to gain temporary benefit, but in the long run we will not succeed in achieving even our personal happiness.

The root of all problems is someone deciding they know what the root of all problems is--and taking a bottle of roundup to it.

Personally, I enjoy being angry--a lot.

I really have to agree with the Chinese on that whole yin-yang, negative-positive thing, balance is what's needed in the world--not all of one and none of the other.

You make a lot of judgements in that one bsed on your own personal feelings--or maybe just some pretty words you heard somewhere and decided to agree with without really thinking it over.

Some people enjoy using or hurting others--not me personally, at least not unless they've pissed me off--but some do and a selfless, goody-goody world would make them want to kill themselves.

You're first reaction might be to say that evil people like that shouldn't be in the world--replace the word "evil" with "black" or "Jewish" and see how you feel about saying that.

"But that's different!" You cry...

...that's just what the KKK says. :blush:

"Evil" is just a label we use for people we think it's okay to destroy--more often than not they feel the same way about us, and I'm okay with that.

Purity of intention;
Once you have pure and sincere motivation, all the rest follows. You can develop this right attitude towards others on the basis of kindness, love and respect, and on the clear realisation of the oneness of all human beings.

Yeah, but love and peace aren't the only pure intentions out there--hatred can be quite pure as well.

Once again you're deciding you know what is right and wrong--your intentions may be pure, but some of us human beings like a little conflict to break up our oneness every once in a while.

Give and take;
By showing concern for other people's welfare, sharing other peoples suffering, and helping other people, ultimately one will benefet. If one thinks only of oneself and forgets about others, ultimately one will lose.
Optimism achieves greatness;
An optimistic attitude is the key factor for sucess. Right from the beginning, if you hold a pesimistic attitude even small things may not be acheived.

Not true.

My life became a lot better once I became a pessimistc, selfish bastard.

To quote a few lines from a song I wrote:

I tried
To save this wretched world
I tried
But my heart just filled with hurt
I tried
To do all that I could
I tried
To care more than I should!

I guess I'll find
Another way

I guess I'll find...

>wailing guitar<

I'll be an anti-hero!

I'll step back
And watch you burn!

You're gonna' feel your blood flow
But it's a lesson we all must learn...

Get learnin'. :evil:

Teaching by example;
Before teaching others, before changing others, we ourselves must change. We must be honest, sincere, kind-hearted.
Self-importance;
Tolerance and patience with courage are not signs of failure but signs of victory...Actually, if you are too important, thats a real failure.

This doesn't always work. Witness the hippy movement and the sudden rise of selfish yuppies in the next generation--or the current "liberal backlash" my country is in the middle of. :blush:

So anyway yeah, bring your pichforks--I've got my katana's and I always love a good fight.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

>Sigh<
I disagree. Helping the species is a bonus, nor a requirement--and very few people if any are wise enough to do anything other than force their values on everyone if they try.
I say leave people alone.
If I want to eat meat, drink booze, have lots of sex and just generally wallow in sin and vice, I say find me a group of like minded people and let us go about our buisness--we'll be too preocupied to bother you.

I agree, forcing one's values on another is not good, as inner peace shall only come from within and not from the outside, like from from money or power. But real peace, tranquillity, should come from within.
If you disagree with my views/statements, then that is fine with me, i apologise if i was appearing to force anything upon you at all. Helping the species isn't a "requirement" either. You can do what you want in your life, and i will never judge you.
But human beings are social creatures, and a concern for each other is the very basis of our life together. Do as you would be done by- since the very beginning and end of our lives we are so dependant on other's kindness, how can it be that in the middle ne neglect kindness towards others.

True, but everyone's moral code is different.
Some say "thou shalt not kill", some say "hang the bastard"--some say both at the same time, which is very entertaining IMO. :blush:
Personally, I believe in vengeance killing--good old fasioned samurai style "I have come for your head!" stuff--I don't even care what your reasons are, if it was bad enough to make you want to kill the guy, that's good enough for me.
I personally believe this is a right and moral thing to do, some people disagree with me--thus we have problems.

Everyone's moral code can be different. Personally i believe that anger, hatred and violence are destructive and if you live your way of life that way, you will only cause destruction to not just others but yourself as well. Things have a ripple effect- you live or aim to live your life by compassion, love, peace and kindness then you will reap the benefets. If you live your life by anger, hatred and violence you will only surely end up hurting yourself?
Love is always appropriate- love and kindness are always appropriate. Wether or not you believe in rebirth, you will need love in this life. If we have love, there is hope to have real families, real brotherhood, real equanimity, real peace. Every one of us has the capacity for kindness- the development of a kind heart, or feelings of closeness for all human beings, does not involve any kind of religiosity we normally associate with it...It is for everyone, irrespective of race, religeon or any political affiliation.

Again, who decides what's moral and ethical?
A majority vote doesn't tell you who's right, just who's in the majority. Ultimately there's no way for us to accurately judge right and wrong, we each have to go by our own feelings and prejudices.

You have to decide yourself what is moral and ethical, you cannot expect others to solve your own problems. Wether others agree with you or not is another matter.

No.
Nononononononnononononono!
90% of the trouble we get into is by trying to "help" people.
Our idea of happiness is not nessecarily going to make them happy, in fact, their idea of happiness is not necessarily going to make them happy--it's something we each have to discover on our own.
If you want to help someone, and they want your help, fine--but it's not a requirement.
Heck, some people actually like fighting through their own problems--us downtrodden aren't all helpless and lazy, you know. :blush:

Nothing good can come of selfishness, if we never tried to help anyone in our lives we would just be a consumer, and never leave the world better for our existance. You choose how you want to live your existance, but you will realise that every human alive at least some point in their own existance has wanted to be happy, then you will begin to realise the oneness of all human beings- i guess some of it is also what you percieve as "true happyness".
90% of the trouble we get into is from is not from trying to "help" other people but from unsincere motives, selfishness, anger, hatred, greed, jealousy etc- true compassion and love cannot be born out of these things.

The root of all problems is someone deciding they know what the root of all problems is--and taking a bottle of roundup to it.
Personally, I enjoy being angry--a lot.
I really have to agree with the Chinese on that whole yin-yang, negative-positive thing, balance is what's needed in the world--not all of one and none of the other.
You make a lot of judgements in that one bsed on your own personal feelings--or maybe just some pretty words you heard soewhere and decided to agree with without really thinking it over.
Some people enjoy using or hurting others--not me personally, at least not unless they've pissed me off--but some do and a selfless, goody-goody world would make them want to kill themselves.
You're first reaction might be to say that evil people like that shouldn't be in the world--replace the word "evil" with "black" or "Jewish" and see how you feel about saying that.
"But that's different!" You cry...
...that's just what the KKK says. :blush:
"Evil" is just a label we use for people we think it's okay to destroy--more often than not they feel the same way about us, and I'm okay with that.
Yeah, but love and peace aren't the only pure intentions out there--hatred can be quite pure as well.

I've never used the word "evil", "evil" is often a term applied to what we believe as our "enemies". I believe i have no true enemies, the only real enemies i have are the ones inside me- when you kill another person, you are not killing your enemy, but just another human being like yourself. Hatred cannot be overcome by hatred...Hatred will only generate more problems. Fear arises when we veiw everyone else with suspicion. The only certainty about hatred and anger is that they are destructive.

Once again you're deciding you know what is right and wrong--your intentions may be pure, but some of us human beings like a little conflict to break up our oneness every once in a while.
Not true.
My life became a lot better once I became a pessimistc, selfish bastard.
To quote a few lines from a song I wrote:
I tried
To save this wretched world
I tried
But my heart just filled with hurt
I tried
To do all that I could
I tried
To care more than I should!
I guess I'll find
Another way
I guess I'll find...
>wailing guitar<
I'll be an anti-hero!
I'll step back
And watch you burn!
You're gonna' feel your blood flow
But it's a lesson we all must learn...
Get learnin'. :evil:
This doesn't always work. Witness the hippy movement and the sudden rise of selfish yuppies in the next generation--or the current "liberal backlash" my country is in the middle of. :blush:
So anyway yeah, bring your pichforks--I've got my katana's and I always love a good fight.

Violence is self perpetuating- if you succeed through violence at the expense of others rights and welfare, you have not solved the problem, but only created seeds for another. I don't lnow "the truth" or the meaning to life or anything like that, i don't even claim to, i don't force my beliefs on others. But this is a conversation, where we hear others opinions- how you lead your life is completely you choice. I have no pitchfork. I have no sword, no gun. Cut me down if you want, that is your choice. But i personally don't think you'll gain any true happyness from my misfortune.

 

[No-name]

My only divergences from the last two posts are that I do believe that there is a common core of values all human society shares, that we can generalize a basic set of positive characteristics that all cultures strive for, and that it problable serves these values to be highly idealistic and to act as if things matter.

I do believe people like Hitler are more than just a little misguided. I do believe that some people are evil, and that regardless of their end motives, they have accepted the evil that they are doing. It is not a case of good ends justifying bad means, but of evil means and evil ends. When people accept that it is okay to inflict suffering on others or to gain pleasure in the suffering of others...I believe they are evil.

I also think that we can make some generalities about peace and violence, right and wrong, love, hate and truth that are universals. That golden rule thing: do unto others... I believe is one of those universals.

The mistake among the animal rights people is that I believe they are attempting to extend these values to include not just humanity, but every living creature on the planet. I don't think this is a good idea at all.

 

[KrazyKat]

>Sigh<
Can't a guy say anything these days without being accused of supporting terrorism? :blush:
You miss my point, I'm not saying the ends justify the means--I'm saying that a person who does something we consider evil is not nessecarily a bad person.

OK, sorry. I thought you would going for more of an end justifies the means thing than a morality is subjective thing. I haven't got time to read all of everyone's replies there just now, I should be asleep,, but i'll just make one comment. How I see morality is all I have to judge what is good or bad, so thats what I will use to judge people's actions, but i would try to keep an open mind about what actually is good or bad and try to bear in mind that my opinion may change when I judge someon'es actions.

I also agree with you completely over wether a person is good or bad depends on their intent, but I would judge an action as good or bad depending on the result.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

My only divergences from the last two posts are that I do believe that there is a common core of values all human society shares, that we can generalize a basic set of positive characteristics that all cultures strive for, and that it problable serves these values to be highly idealistic and to act as if things matter.
I do believe people like Hitler are more than just a little misguided. I do believe that some people are evil, and that regardless of their end motives, they have accepted the evil that they are doing. It is not a case of good ends justifying bad means, but of evil means and evil ends. When people accept that it is okay to inflict suffering on others or to gain pleasure in the suffering of others...I believe they are evil.
I also think that we can make some generalities about peace and violence, right and wrong, love, hate and truth that are universals. That golden rule thing: do unto others... I believe is one of those universals.

I agree in general with that .

The mistake among the animal rights people is that I believe they are attempting to extend these values to include not just humanity, but every living creature on the planet. I don't think this is a good idea at all.

I think the mistake that many or some animal rights activists do is acting out of violence or hatred. Animal rights activists that go around setting fire to scientists property or vandilising it, or sending threats to those who are involved in animal testing in a negative way, do nothing positive to their own cause in the long run. It just creates and sows the seeds for more difficulties and more problems. I've heard of some animal rights activists burning down peoples homes for the sake of animal rights, but surely they are just taking away the rights of their own kind? Wouldn't that be like trashing a sparrows nest? I don't think hatred should be a motivational factor for action, as all human actions are done by motivation, and if our motivation is hatred and anger then i personally don't think anything good can come of it in the long run.
Applying human rights to animals though? Its a tricky and complicated subject/issue. Where do you start and where do you stop? Many animal right activists do not for example, apply the rights they fight for to say, fish or insects, because they themselves do not believe they are as worthy or important life forms as say mammals- but isn't a one-inch fish still an animal? Isn't a worm still animal? Would it suddenly seem insane to start applying animal rights to creatures like worms, or would it suddenly make sense and appear civilised?

 

[No-name]

In the trade offs and hard economics of real life we have to make compromises and set priorities in allocating resources and time. Decisions that are life or death-- how to allocate food, water, who gets what, how many, how much, when, where and how... We build cars a bit safer to save a life and it raises the cost of the car. We build a factory and lose the field for agriculture. Collectively the six billion people living on the planet have collective decisions that effect our resources, the environment, and each other.

The reason that I mention all that is that it isn't just a question of means and motives. It is not just that the motives Animal rights people may have are wrong or that their methods are ineffective or bad. The trade off in animal testing is that we all collectively benefit from the exploitation and suffering of other species. We could end testing collectively if we change what the majority of the people in the world think and feel about this, but we would have additional costs and losses of benefits. When we begin to consider all life equally- every individual organism worthy of equal protection and consideration, the trade offs are impractical to implement and prohibitively enormous. I doubt this will happen. Any methods used in this cause that are violent or that potentially harm people or their property is unjustifiable. Equating human rights with animal rights is an illogical, impractical, and untenable position.

You cannot equate human suffering with the suffering of animals. I believe that most humans are like myself and value human life more than that of animals. Although it is common to consider the suffering and humane treatment of animals, the exploitation and use of animals for research, medical testing, food and consumer products is widely accepted throughout the world. I believe this to be not only the popular perspective, but also the valid perspective.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

In the trade offs and hard economics of real life we have to make compromises and set priorities in allocating resources and time. Decisions that are life or death-- how to allocate food, water, who gets what, how many, how much, when, where and how... We build cars a bit safer to save a life and it raises the cost of the car. We build a factory and lose the field for agriculture. Collectively the six billion people living on the planet have collective decisions that effect our resources, the environment, and each other.
The reason that I mention all that is that it isn't just a question of means and motives. It is not just that the motives Animal rights people may have are wrong or that their methods are ineffective or bad. The trade off in animal testing is that we all collectively benefit from the exploitation and suffering of other species. We could end testing collectively if we change what the majority of the people in the world think and feel about this, but we would have additional costs and losses of benefits. When we begin to consider all life equally- every individual organism worthy of equal protection and consideration, the trade offs are impractical to implement and prohibitively enormous. I doubt this will happen. Any methods used in this cause that are violent or that potentially harm people or their property is unjustifiable. Equating human rights with animal rights is an illogical, impractical, and untenable position.
You cannot equate human suffering with the suffering of animals. I believe that most humans are like myself and value human life more than that of animals. Although it is common to consider the suffering and humane treatment of animals, the exploitation and use of animals for research, medical testing, food and consumer products is widely accepted throughout the world. I believe this to be not only the popular perspective, but also the valid perspective.

Some scientists are now saying that some animal tested drug tests are 'insufficient', not because they were gone about incorrectly or without enough caution and care, but because the bodies of certain animals are too different to people to compare things like the human imune system;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4821732.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4817178.stm

Our goals i think should be to improve animal testing and make it more efficient so less animals are wasted(partly because i doubt the need for it will disapear within the next 50yrs, so we might as well try and perfect it and make it better while its still around), but i think we should play more emphasis on human testing. It says in the first article;

"Animals are the best models we have for humans, but we all know they aren't absolutely perfect.

True, animals, particually mammals, are very similar to us(particually genetically), but humans are still the best models for humans- animals are simply the most disposable for humans. Where would we get people willing to have chemicals injected on them and the such like? Hmm, maybe people on death row in places like america should be given this option? Heh, but then i guess you'd get "human rights" activists.