Animal Rights

[starcock]

True but I was just suggesting that we don't always know everything, at a given point in time, like how people did research on Interphase (in animal cells)and stated as fact that the cell was resting and was doing nothing then later on with new technology, they were able to dig in deeper and find new discoveries. So I wonder, if years from now they discover that plants feel pain, not from nerves which they lack but from a new alternate way that they couldn't see before because of technology at the time. Would your views change at all?

 

[Caturdayz]

I would become a fruitatarian, one who only eats fallen fruits after they naturally fall from a their source. Or a breathatarian, one who trains their body to get their nutrients from the air.

 

[Mr.Lombardi34]

Well, on an episode of Mythbusters, they tested the possibility that plants feel pain/emotion by hooking one up to a polygraph (And then an EEG Machine). Then, they hit the plant, said mean things to the plant (Lol), and did other stuff - In the end, the plant didn't show any signs of pain.

Also, just to tell you my general opinion on animal rights:

I think that there is a fine line between hurting and killing animals to survive, and doing it for unnecessary things such as entertainment is ridiculous.

I read an article once about animal testing and how they test NAIL POLISH on bunnies by dripping it in its eyes, then giving it no medical treatment. That's not even a good test, because if that happened to a person, they wouldn't just leave it there! And nail polish, of all things, is not worth giving an animal a life of cruelty, plus, who drips nail polish directly in their eyes?

Now, on the other hand, testing, say, a pacemaker on a few animals. That's worth it, since the pacemaker will save many, many lives, however, the animal should be cared for - Let's say you test it on a dog. If the dog dies in the test, it dies. If the dog lives, it should be treated for any sickness or problem that it got from the test until it's healthy. Then, it should be set free - Given a home or something - NOT put back in a cage and tested again. If you are going to test an animal in any way, you should only do it once.

Yeah, that's just for animal testing...I'll get to my opinion on eating animals later.

 

[ComradeSAL]

The number one killer in America is the infamous Heart Attack.

Risk for average "carnivore": 15 percent
Risk for average Vegan: 4 percent

There are multiple reasons that I take issue with the use of this statistic.

1. You don't cite your source. A statistic is all but worthless if you don't say where it came from.

2. Even if the statistic is true, there is a HUGE confounding variable here: money. Vegans are almost exclusively upper/middle class, and as such can afford much more health care, are better educated, and have less stress than the single mom who takes her 4 children out to McDonald's every Friday. I could probably come up with a similar statistic that linked drinking cognac to lower risk of heart disease.

3. Even if meat increases your risk of heart disease (I doubt that moderate consumption of meat does this), this is not a moral reason against it; merely a practical one. I'm pretty sure you are trying to say that eating meat is morally wrong, and this statistic does nothing to prove that.

 

[Knight-errant]

I know you stated before that your agnostic, but I thought that you (and others) might still find this interesting. Here's the argument from a biblical viewpoint. Let's start with Genesis 1:26, 28

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

Basically, were men created with a higher status than animals? Yes. They were to be given dominion over them. People and animals are not equal. However, if you went on to read verse 30 you would see that the animals weren't for food, but rather the plants were given for food.

But for some reason God decides to change things after the Flood. He says to Noah:

Gen 9:2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.
Gen 9:3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

So God not only put men above animals, he also said that men could eat them. But now let's address the most important point:

Proverbs 12:10 Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.

Yes, God has given us authority over animals, and yes, we can eat them; however, along with that we have been given a responsibility: to treat them with respect.

 

[Caturdayz]

Thank you Knight-Errant. I was aware of these verses for I have had to have this debate more than once throughout my life. Thanks for putting it up for others to read though.

 

[ComradeSAL]

The main philosophical issue that I can see with vegetarianism is that it is essentially impossible for a human to live without harming animals in some way. Is your house made of wood? Most likely, there were animals that were living in the trees that were cut down to make it. Where does your trash go? Most likely, a natural habitat was cleared to make a landfill. Do you use indoor heating, automobiles or any sort of electricity? Most likely, the CO2 released from generating all that energy is contributing to greenhouse gases, which in turn are drastically reducing polar bear habitat.

If you insist on the ideal of not harming animals in any way for your own benefit, the only logical solution is to kill yourself.

With that said, I am against any egregiously unnecessary cruelty to animals. I would be willing to pay an extra couple of dollars for my steak if I knew that the cattle it came from was treated with dignity until its death. Moreover, I think reform for animal testing is probably in order.

 

[Caturdayz]

Wrong, the lumber for my house was gotten from a tree farm and was not pulled directly from the environment. And even if animals were living in the trees at the tree farm that wouldn't be a case for cruelty to animals because the trees would have never been there if not for man. I recycle. And while I am against Global warming and I do try to make some attempts to reduce the usage of my fossil fuels the polar bear argument is a little mundane.

If I killed myself I would be killing another animal, namely, myself.

But removing Cruelty to animals would cost the meat farmers (OH NO) Money! They can't do that! And animal testing has been calling for abolition for awhile now. There are very few things we need to test on animals. And among those is not shampoos, candy bars, and cosmetics its ridiculous.

 

[snex]

Wrong, the lumber for my house was gotten from a tree farm and was not pulled directly from the environment.

lol, was it on the moon or something?

But removing Cruelty to animals would cost the meat farmers (OH NO) Money! They can't do that!

youre right, they cant. because if they do, theyll starve to death, and that would be cruelty to animals (they and their families), dont you agree? comradeSAL might be willing and able to pay a few extra bucks for free range meat, but the vast amount of people living in the world cant afford to do so. neither can they afford to live on vegetarian diets. so requiring ranchers to have higher standards for animal treatment will end up in a lot of HUMAN deaths.

There are very few things we need to test on animals. And among those is not shampoos, candy bars, and cosmetics its ridiculous.

what a load of dreck. who do you propose we do the testing on then, YOU? are YOU gonna sign up for it, and do it for free? i doubt it. or maybe we should just release these products out into the market and if people die from using them, caveat emptor?

 

[ComradeSAL]

@Caturdayz:

"And even if animals were living in the trees at the tree farm that wouldn't be a case for cruelty to animals because the trees would have never been there if not for man."

This is an invalid argument because it can so easily be translated to a justification for eating meat. By that I mean, the cows that we breed solely for meat would not exist if not for man, and so killing them is not cruelty to animals (obviously untrue).

At any rate, I believe you are missing the point of my post. Those were just a few examples to illustrate that it is impossible to live without harming other animals in some way. In fact, with careful accounting, I would bet that you are killing at least one animal a year by staying alive. This might be an insect you accidentally step on when walking to school, it might be some animal that dies from the pollution your car gives off, or it might be from the animals that lost their habitat from building the recycling plant that you apparently send ALL of your trash to.

If you accept the premise that you are killing at least one animal a year just by existing (and I hope you are rational enough to accept this extremely conservative figure), and you believe that all animals are equal, then you must kill yourself. You are one animal, and you are killing one each year, so simple math dictates that a world without you would be for the greater good.

 

[Caturdayz]

@Caturdayz:

"And even if animals were living in the trees at the tree farm that wouldn't be a case for cruelty to animals because the trees would have never been there if not for man."

This is an invalid argument because it can so easily be translated to a justification for eating meat. By that I mean, the cows that we breed solely for meat would not exist if not for man, and so killing them is not cruelty to animals (obviously untrue).

At any rate, I believe you are missing the point of my post. Those were just a few examples to illustrate that it is impossible to live without harming other animals in some way. In fact, with careful accounting, I would bet that you are killing at least one animal a year by staying alive. This might be an insect you accidentally step on when walking to school, it might be some animal that dies from the pollution your car gives off, or it might be from the animals that lost their habitat from building the recycling plant that you apparently send ALL of your trash to.

If you accept the premise that you are killing at least one animal a year just by existing (and I hope you are rational enough to accept this extremely conservative figure), and you believe that all animals are equal, then you must kill yourself. You are one animal, and you are killing one each year, so simple math dictates that a world without you would be for the greater good.

Haha while some of your argument makes sense... its a bit irrational. Firstly, I have never ever said I did not harm the world I live on. No matter how hard I try i will never be able to go through life with out causing suffering to some kind of life. My goal is to minimize that suffering not eliminate it.

If the average person eats about 100 animals a year (thats pretty conservative as well) I am not helping 100 animals. Yes, I understand that my not existing would have the same effect but bear with me. I am helping the vegan industry and spreading the word of veganism, I have already converted 4 people that I know of. So by my calculation that is 500 animals... Kinda beats your 1 right? So from my being alive I have aided 500 animals and I am rather young and have a long life ahead of me.

Now to your Anti-Tree farm argument. You made a decent point here but it was slightly straying from the point. Animals = Trees and as the post was referring to habitat not food matter it is of little relevance.

 

[Caturdayz]

lol, was it on the moon or something?



youre right, they cant. because if they do, theyll starve to death, and that would be cruelty to animals (they and their families), dont you agree? comradeSAL might be willing and able to pay a few extra bucks for free range meat, but the vast amount of people living in the world cant afford to do so. neither can they afford to live on vegetarian diets. so requiring ranchers to have higher standards for animal treatment will end up in a lot of HUMAN deaths.



what a load of dreck. who do you propose we do the testing on then, YOU? are YOU gonna sign up for it, and do it for free? i doubt it. or maybe we should just release these products out into the market and if people die from using them, caveat emptor?

Honestly, I am unsympathetic to the poor. If they can get off their ***** and work then they don't deserve the sacrifice of the animal on their plate. I mean honestly, I am already carrying their burden on society via welfare, if they don't want to work forget them.

To the Testing point:

personal care and household products are not required to be tested on animals. And there are alternatives to thing that need testing. Like in-vitro, computer software simulation, and there are databases full of tests already completed... so you don't have to keep doing the same one. And lastly there is always Human Clinical trials.

 

[ComradeSAL]

Haha while some of your argument makes sense... its a bit irrational. Firstly, I have never ever said I did not harm the world I live on. No matter how hard I try i will never be able to go through life with out causing suffering to some kind of life. My goal is to minimize that suffering not eliminate it.

The reason my argument is irrational is because it is based on an untrue premise: namely, that the lives of all animals are equal. This is what I am trying to point out. I don't actually want you to kill yourself. However, to truly minimize the suffering, you have to kill yourself.

If the average person eats about 100 animals a year (thats pretty conservative as well) I am not helping 100 animals. Yes, I understand that my not existing would have the same effect but bear with me. I am helping the vegan industry and spreading the word of veganism, I have already converted 4 people that I know of. So by my calculation that is 500 animals... Kinda beats your 1 right? So from my being alive I have aided 500 animals and I am rather young and have a long life ahead of me.

Once again you are skirting the primary argument. Do you think that all people who are currently not trying to convert others to veganism should kill themselves? Moreover, if everyone in the world was already converted to veganism, would you kill yourself then?

Now to your Anti-Tree farm argument. You made a decent point here but it was slightly straying from the point. Animals = Trees and as the post was referring to habitat not food matter it is of little relevance.

I don't see much difference between dooming an animal to death by taking away their habitat and killing them directly.

 

[snex]

Honestly, I am unsympathetic to the poor. If they can get off their ***** and work then they don't deserve the sacrifice of the animal on their plate. I mean honestly, I am already carrying their burden on society via welfare, if they don't want to work forget them.

why dont you apply the same standard to stupid animals who stand there and let us torture and kill them for food? if a cow cant get off its *** and attack a rancher in self-defense, it doesnt deserve to live.

personal care and household products are not required to be tested on animals. And there are alternatives to thing that need testing. Like in-vitro, computer software simulation, and there are databases full of tests already completed... so you don't have to keep doing the same one. And lastly there is always Human Clinical trials.

actually yes these products ARE required to be proven safe by the FDA (unless you label them "herbal" or some crap, which is what all the scam artists do). and your alternatives, other than human trials, simply dont suffice. but human trials do not meet ethical standards, and cant be conducted until the product is ruled safe.

 

[Surri-Sama]

why dont you apply the same standard to stupid animals who stand there and let us torture and kill them for food? if a cow cant get off its *** and attack a rancher in self-defense, it doesnt deserve to live.
QFT~

For a Vegan yoru being very judgemental, i say this not as a steriotype, but because Vegans are Vegans because they are accepting the fact (suppsably) that animals are equial (im pretty sure this is one of the main points of Vegiterians and Vegans,) to humans, but your veiws on humanity are very bias, and truthfully, reading what you write, and how you write it, i can allmost percive you as very Arogent and I hope thats not the Root of your Veganism or yoru a sad sad man, (this is all profiling not saying any of its true its just how i procive it)

point being, if you going to treat man and beast as =, at least work on treating Man and man equial first :\


P.S.: im saying this mainly because i live in a Poorer, family (when it comes to standards on living in Canada) and you targeted us, very unfairly

 

[Caturdayz]

why dont you apply the same standard to stupid animals who stand there and let us torture and kill them for food? if a cow cant get off its *** and attack a rancher in self-defense, it doesnt deserve to live.
QFT~

For a Vegan yoru being very judgemental, i say this not as a steriotype, but because Vegans are Vegans because they are accepting the fact (suppsably) that animals are equial (im pretty sure this is one of the main points of Vegiterians and Vegans,) to humans, but your veiws on humanity are very bias, and truthfully, reading what you write, and how you write it, i can allmost percive you as very Arogent and I hope thats not the Root of your Veganism or yoru a sad sad man, (this is all profiling not saying any of its true its just how i procive it)

point being, if you going to treat man and beast as =, at least work on treating Man and man equial first :\


P.S.: im saying this mainly because i live in a Poorer, family (when it comes to standards on living in Canada) and you targeted us, very unfairly

I too come from a rather low-income family (not really "poor") and I am unsympathetic toward them as well. I do not mean you offense but rather the family that raised you and I was not really directly attacking them either. I just call things as I see them I am not a very arrogant person in reality but we have one life get out there and make something of yourself instead of living in your poverty.

And Sirhc not to be mean or anything but please Spell Check exists for a reason.

 

[Surri-Sama]

I too come from a rather low-income family (not really "poor") and I am unsympathetic toward them as well. I do not mean you offense but rather the family that raised you and I was not really directly attacking them either. I just call things as I see them I am not a very arrogant person in reality but we have one life get out there and make something of yourself instead of living in your poverty.

And Sirhc not to be mean or anything but please Spell Check exists for a reason.

yes, yes it does, it exists so people like you can try to point out a flaw in order to divert from the topic, but what if the reason my family is low income is because of the place we live in, my dad is a computer tech and there is no work around here for him, but we don't want to move due to the rest of family and friends are here, so we settle for low family income (not a bad living IF your not an idiot) because we would rather that then to move away.

Regardless your "lack of sympathy" goes to show you don't understand circumstance which means you don't have any real argument for anything because you simply don't understand, or just don't want to, both ignorance of your own choice.

 

[Caturdayz]

yes, yes it does, it exists so people like you can try to point out a flaw in order to divert from the topic, but what if the reason my family is low income is because of the place we live in, my dad is a computer tech and there is no work around here for him, but we don't want to move due to the rest of family and friends are here, so we settle for low family income (not a bad living IF your not an idiot) because we would rather that then to move away.

Regardless your "lack of sympathy" goes to show you don't understand circumstance which means you don't have any real argument for anything because you simply don't understand, or just don't want to, both ignorance of your own choice.

Well since this is way off-topic anyhow I am not going to go into a long response. In a word, I apologize if I offended you it wasn't really pointed at the low-incomers but more or less the welfare supported homeless or near-homeless.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

I think broad statements are steering this entire debate off course.

I think animals should have some rights such as the right to freedom from pain; However, I don't view the raising of animals for food or hunting as an evil. Some animals would endure worse conditions in the wild if they wern't raised, and some need to be hunted to keep their population in check. I feel mixed on animal testing, however I do believe they should be remedied if any ailments result.

If you got your tree from a tree farm, Caturdayz, remember that a habitat was destroyed just to make way for even a 'tree' farm.

 

[Caturdayz]

I think broad statements are steering this entire debate off course.

I think animals should have some rights such as the right to freedom from pain; However, I don't view the raising of animals for food or hunting as an evil. Some animals would endure worse conditions in the wild if they wern't raised, and some need to be hunted to keep their population in check. I feel mixed on animal testing, however I do believe they should be remedied if any ailments result.

If you got your tree from a tree farm, Caturdayz, remember that a habitat was destroyed just to make way for even a 'tree' farm.

To me the slaughter of any innocent being is evil, excuse me if I am incorrect in that assumption. And as far as animals enduring worse conditions in the wild... thats a moot point. The animals we eat have been the same animals we have been eating for over 2000 years, who even remembers how they function in the wild... they never really had the chance. Maybe the population of man needs to be kept in check, who are we to decide?

I understand that a habitat was destroyed, but my point is that they destroyed ONE habitat and continued to cultivate from that habitat, instead of going on a chopping spree.

Animal testing is dead wrong, there is literally no rational reason for animal testing. Cosmetics and household products no longer need to be tested, and most things that do can be done alternatively. There are a FEW things that animal testing is rational and even in those situations the animals are abused.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Alright, since it has been proven this debate is being juggled, let's make it more interesting:

What about animal testing for the sake of animals, like pain relievers or prostetics? Etc.

 

[snex]

caturdayz you are simply in denial. the only other option to animal testing is HUMAN TESTING. and according to you, that would be just as bad. so in other words, your answer is to simply stop all medical research and let people die of diseases.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

caturdayz you are simply in denial. the only other option to animal testing is HUMAN TESTING. and according to you, that would be just as bad. so in other words, your answer is to simply stop all medical research and let people die of diseases.

Uh oh! Looks like snex broke the Smash Ball!

I agree, but if anyone is in denial, they aren't going to listen, and just about everything has been said on this topic... I guess.

 

[Caturdayz]

Listen, I know that some forms of animal testing are necessary okay I get that. But listen. The FDA does not require testing on cosmetics, household products, candy et cetera. Look at Mars they brutalize mice for no **** reason. Then look at Hershey's they don't test on mice, I would say because they were compassionate but really it was only because we pressured them into it... but at least they are not as bullheaded as Mars.

 

[snex]

http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-205.html

 

[Caturdayz]

"The FD&C Act does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, nor does the Act subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval"

From your own source.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

I see how the link could go either way. I'll admit snex was a bit ambiguous with posting the link; However, the safety of the animals and alternative to using animals is endorsed, although I'm too sleepy at this point to acknowedge it as 'enforced' as well...

 

[Caturdayz]

Since we are posting links: http://youtube.com/watch?v=48QRQLao4LQ

Its wrong. You can not accurately apply the results to humans, there are alternatives to most things that are required for testing. The few things that do needed to be tested on animals should not be done in such a horrendous fashion. I have seen the looks on these animals faces when they are in those despicable "testing facilities" it is wrong, it is "unscientific".

This kind of **** really pisses me off.

 

[snex]

the FDA doesnt require animal testing, but it does require SCIENTIFIC testing, and we already know what that means... it means animal testing! there is simply nothing else that is scientific enough except for human testing.

and the faces animals make is hardly an argument.. i can build a robot that makes the same kinds of faces when you kick it.

 

[Caturdayz]

the FDA doesnt require animal testing, but it does require SCIENTIFIC testing, and we already know what that means... it means animal testing! there is simply nothing else that is scientific enough except for human testing.

and the faces animals make is hardly an argument.. i can build a robot that makes the same kinds of faces when you kick it.

Wrong. No testing is required

"However, the agency has consistently advised cosmetic manufacturers to employ whatever testing is appropriate and effective for substantiating the safety of their products. It remains the responsibility of the manufacturer to substantiate the safety of both ingredients and finished cosmetic products prior to marketing."

The FDA simply says its your responsibility if someone dies... But testing is not required. We have cloned human skin... I am sorry if it is a bit more expensive but get the **** over it.

EDIT: "We also believe that prior to use of animals, consideration should be given to the use of scientifically valid alternative methods to whole-animal testing"

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Whoa. A PETA video. PETA's sanity is in a league of its own.

Either way, someone or something is going to die. Would you rather it be you or a dog?

I'll admit the cosmetic testing is a bit gray.

I'd also like to throw this in: Most animals used in laboratory experiments are bred specifically for laboratory experiments, like mice.

 

[Caturdayz]

Whoa. A PETA video. PETA's sanity is in a league of its own.

Either way, someone or something is going to die. Would you rather it be you or a dog?

I'll admit the cosmetic testing is a bit gray.

I'd also like to throw this in: Most animals used in laboratory experiments are bred specifically for laboratory experiments, like mice.

I will break my response into 3 statements regarding your 4 separate statements.

Statement 1: Some of the few with any sanity in this world

Statement 2: Thats ridiculous why does anything have to die? WE HAVE ALTERNATIVE TESTS

Statement 3: I don't care what they were bred for. African Americans were bred into slavery, but I assume you are fine with that because that was what they were born to do. They were born to live a pitiful life of imprisonment until pity is taken upon their poor soul and they DIE, the happiest day of their life.

 

[ComradeSAL]

I'll agree that killing mice for a candy bar is a bit much, but that PETA propaganda video was lol. Seriously, do not link us to crap like that if you actually want to convert non-believers to your dogma.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

What has PETA done to help animals? They focus way too much on agreeably controversial issues to get anything done, while they could simply focus their efforts on animals that are easier to protect, such as domesticated animals or those on the streets. Like snex has said, the only solution to help all animals is to kill oneself. Most of PETA doesn't even trust modern science, so how can they spout scientific claims like veggies live longer and suffer fewer diseases than meat eaters?

I don't need my hairspray. But you don't need your house, either. Why destroy even one habitat for yourself? What about the habitat destroyed for your car, your computer, and what about all that electricity you're running? Do you think it magically falls from the sky? Point is, you're still killing animals, no matter how little it is you are using. Until you're willing to admit that you're better than animals and they're likely to suffer reguardless, you'd have to kill yourself to be logical.

 

[Caturdayz]

Just putting this out there... I am not going to kill myself. I know alot of you apparently want me to but... Sorry XD

Peta helps find homes for dogs in pounds... and yes sometimes euthanize them. They organize events and help change the minds of big business. (i.e. Hershey's). It has been proven ON HUMANS that veggies are more healthy than meat. Human testing is way more reliable than animal testing.

My house as found on a grassland like 110 years ago. Maybe I kicked a groundhog from his hole but I also didn't torture him for his entire life before doing so, if I did cause harm to that animal I apologize.

 

[ComradeSAL]

I've said this already, but we don't want you to kill yourself. We're merely pointing out a huge logical inconsistency in your philosophy that you have not yet addressed.

 

[Caturdayz]

Please note I was joking. Second the whole kill yourself argument is a bit pointless anyway, not a real whole in my philosophy. I never said that I haven't hurt animals, only that I hurt a lot less animals than a meat-eating animal test supporting Right-wing nut job.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I think a lot of you are just taking for granted that animals should have "rights."

Animals can't have rights because for the most part they can't enter into social contract, and more importantly they can't be held responsible for the violation of the rights of others. You can't eat your cake and have it too. If they are to be given rights, then they have to to be able to be charged with violating others' rights.

So the only way to give animals rights is by proxy through humans, i.e. if you harm my pet cat, you've essentially violated its 'rights' because you've violated mine. If you harm a stray, you're not violating anyone's rights. I'm not saying it is good to mutilate wild animals, but it's simply a law that doesn't need to be there.

 

[Mic_128]

(About PETA) Statement 1: Some of the few with any sanity in this world

You know they made pamphlets for kids about how Daddy is a mass murderer for fishing, right?

 

[snex]

You know they made pamphlets for kids about how Daddy is a mass murderer for fishing, right?

not to mention the fact that some of them have actually committed terrorist acts on other humans.