Anyone here for animal rights?

[SmarterthanU]

How so?

The life of an endangered species is only valuable because we attach an imaginary significance to its race.

Hmmm. THAT's not true, is it? The lives of other beings are only significant if humans attach significance to them?

I think that's the philosophical dividing line. If you don't think other primates have intrinsically valuable lives, or you think that any reason to kill an animal is essentially as good as any other reason, then we have gone as far as we can go in our discussion, for this topic.

I believe that my life has value on a lot of different levels, not the least of which is that it has some intrinsic value. There are many intervening considerations, I'll agree, but I definitely do not believe that an animal's life has only the value that some other group of beings decide it does. That's scary.

 

[maniactickler]

Nothing pleases me more than sinking my teeth into a delicious steak! that being said, i like animals as much as the next guy. im not for killing animals just for the sake of killing them, or for their fur. bottom line for me, i respect the animal world, but i also understand that they should not be treated as equals to humans. they are below us in the importance scale of life.

 

[SmarterthanU]

Nothing pleases me more than sinking my teeth into a delicious steak! that being said, i like animals as much as the next guy. im not for killing animals just for the sake of killing them, or for their fur. bottom line for me, i respect the animal world, but i also understand that they should not be treated as equals to humans.

Why do you think they "should not" be treated as equals to humans?

they are below us in the importance scale of life.

According to ...? Us?

 

[*~Game Girl~*]

Yuor wrong! Animals are living creatures, just like us! They deserve to be treated equally. Deny it all you want, but us humans are animals too. Or have you forgotten that?

 

[Goodieluver]

Yuor wrong! Animals are living creatures, just like us! They deserve to be treated equally. Deny it all you want, but us humans are animals too. Or have you forgotten that?

Right, we are animals, and we are top of the food chain

A shark or lion wont stop from eating you if its hungry because "oh, im gonna have some kelp or grass"

Its nature and man is tops

To equate it to animals
You are blaming the lion for being a lion

 

[maniactickler]

You people are comparing a brainless animal to an intelligent human being? i must be seeing things. 😱

 

[Goodieluver]

You people are comparing a brainless animal to an intelligent human being? i must be seeing things. 😱

Animals have brains\instincts\memory\etc

But its simple, humans have higher thought processes

 

[SmarterthanU]

You people are comparing a brainless animal to an intelligent human being? i must be seeing things. 😱

You do realize how genetically close chimpanzees are to humans, right? If you've ever spent any time watching higher non-human primates interact, you'll agree that characterizing them as "brainless animals" is pretty unfair.

 

[Capnmad]

Loop-de-loop.

1.) One argues that despite our apparent differences, we are animals, too, and so we should have sympathy for our fellow animals.

2.) One counter-argues that dog-eat-dog (or in this instance, lion-eat-antelope) is natural law for animals, and a shark would never give a second thought to eating us.

3.) The other responds that our awareness as human beings gives us an edge over animals, allows us to be moral, and to make a choice not to kill.

4.) The other responds that this very awareness is indicative and part of a set of qualitative differences that sets us above and apart from animals, entitling us to use them as a natural resource.

5.) Return to #1. to continue chasing your vestigial tail.


No right answer, here, folks. Only belief. Do what you believe is right for you, and within your values. For myself, I'm not keen on furriers, but Bourbon Chicken is still pretty darned tasty.

Peace.

 

[SmarterthanU]

Animals have brains\instincts\memory\etc

But its simple, humans have higher thought processes

Not always.

 

[SmarterthanU]

1.) One argues that despite our apparent differences, we are animals, too, and so we should have sympathy for our fellow animals.

2.) One counter-argues that dog-eat-dog (or in this instance, lion-eat-antelope) is natural law for animals, and a shark would never give a second thought to eating us.

3.) The other responds that our awareness as human beings gives us an edge over animals, allows us to be moral, and to make a choice not to kill.

4.) The other responds that this very awareness is indicative and part of a set of qualitative differences that sets us above and apart from animals, entitling us to use them as a natural resource.

5.) Return to #1. to continue chasing your vestigial tail.


No right answer, here, folks. Only belief. Do what you believe is right for you, and within your values. For myself, I'm not keen on furriers, but Bourbon Chicken is still pretty darned tasty.

Peace.

I think you're mixing various people's arguments together.

 

[*~Game Girl~*]

Sorry...It's just I am sick and tired of hearing about animals being degraded and seen as un-important. Animals have rights, and it's about time people saw that.

So stop hunting them....Stop testing on them....Stop wearing them....Stop degrading them...Because they are beautiful, living, breathing creatures..

Let me show you some pics that are from labs where animals are tested on.

Look at them...Their just animals...Defenceless animals...Many animalls at this very moment are being hurt in labs...Their scared...Their alone...Their abused...How can you all let this happen to them?

 

[ViperGTS]

Oh how my heart weeps. And yet we can't teach our own children how to spell words like 'defenseless' and 'they're.' What a cruel society we are.

Honey, no one is saying it's right. Upon whom or what should we test these products on, though?

 

[*~Game Girl~*]

But I don't understand...How come humans are letting this happen? These animals have to suffer for us? Do you honestly think that these innocent creatures should go through so much pain and trauma just to supply for us? No. I don't think they should. and I hope the scientists who do these things suffer for it. How would you all feel? To be torn away from your family, locked into tiny cages and have multiple tests done on you. To be abused and put through constant agony. Animals have feelings. They feel pain. They feel suffering. They are terrified that they are going to die. and don't you DARE say animals have no feelings.

 

[ViperGTS]

But I don't understand...How come humans are letting this happen? These animals have to suffer for us? Do you honestly think that these innocent creatures should go through so much pain and trauma just to supply for us? No. I don't think they should. and I hope the scientists who do these things suffer for it. How would you all feel? To be torn away from your family, locked into tiny cages and have multiple tests done on you. To be abused and put through constant agony. Animals have feelings. They feel pain. They feel suffering. They are terrified that they are going to die. and don't you DARE say animals have no feelings.

And, as every single animal rights activist does, you avoided the question.

Question one: Do you feel as though products should be released into the consumer market without being tested in any fashion?

If you answered yes, you're a moron.

If you answered now, then question two is: Who or what should we test these products on, if not animals?

Keep in mind, I love animals...I have two cats of my own and I don't deny that they have feelings and emotions as well, and I'm not saying they are less valid.

 

[*~Game Girl~*]

http://www.stopanimaltests.com/animalTesting101.asp?c=sat0113g&gclid=CKWR0-W_uo8CFQXOQwod23vvdA

Look at the clip on this site. and you'll see the suffering they have to go through. Alot of these animals are only babies..

 

[Capnmad]

I think you're mixing various people's arguments together.

Yeah. I'm presenting several people's arguments. That was kind of my point.

These are the stances that things effectively boil down to in the bulk of animal rights arguments, they've been seen here, and each seeks to disprove the argument before it, but they all seem to have about the same weight, and so the argument mostly just goes in circles, or back and forth, 'til folks get tired.

Do you think it is otherwise?

 

[Comfort Eagle]

What about medicine for animals? That's tested on animals, is that ok? Would a few furry martyrs be an acceptable price to keep my and many other peoples dogs from having heart-worms and dying?

 

[maniactickler]

But I don't understand...How come humans are letting this happen? These animals have to suffer for us? Do you honestly think that these innocent creatures should go through so much pain and trauma just to supply for us? No. I don't think they should. and I hope the scientists who do these things suffer for it. How would you all feel? To be torn away from your family, locked into tiny cages and have multiple tests done on you. To be abused and put through constant agony. Animals have feelings. They feel pain. They feel suffering. They are terrified that they are going to die. and don't you DARE say animals have no feelings.

Hey, by no means do i relish in the thought of these animals going through the suffering that they do, but if it means helping the human race, i support it.

 

[*~Game Girl~*]

No. I'd rather die than watch another animal be murdered for us.

 

[Comfort Eagle]

No. I'd rather die than watch another animal be murdered for us.

Damn...that's some hardcore animal rights...

 

[chicago]

No. I'd rather die than watch another animal be murdered for us.

Without an extent of animal testing, you probably would.

 

[ViperGTS]

No. I'd rather die than watch another animal be murdered for us.

And so you likely shall.

There are so many things I want to say, but I will sum it all up in only three small groupings of letters...

Darwin Theory FTW.

By the way, why is it that the biggest arguing point that animal rights activists seem to have is "omg their so cyoote and cuddly wuddly, why would u wanna hurt dem?" Ummm because if we don't, we may not be around much longer to adore them, perhaps?

 

[Capnmad]

No. I'd rather die than watch another animal be murdered for us.

I think that's where you and your opponents differ, Game. Most would rather an animal die in research than have a friend, family member or other loved one suffer or die because there is no drug to treat them, and no one tried to make one that would be safe.

I admire your conviction Game, but remember that of your opponents. Ignore the arguing for a moment, and consider this:

Their compassion and conviction is the same as yours, but it is stronger for their own species than for others. Maybe your conviction is the other way around, but I don't think you lack compassion for humans any more than I think your opponents lack compassion for animals.

I understand that the idea of seeing an animal suffer and die disturbs you. I've seen a human being do the same because we don't yet have the treatments to reliably send sarcoma into remission.

There is compassion all around, Game. Your opponents have it, too. Can you blame them for wanting to protect their own from suffering with as much ferocity as you want to protect animals?

I recognize and appreciate your strength of conviction. I think everyone here sees it. We can't argue you out of compassion for animals, and I appreciate that. Please, appreciate the fact that you can't argue people out of compassion for their friends and their families.

We are sides of the same coin, friend.

 

[SmarterthanU]

And, as every single animal rights activist does, you avoided the question.

As if you have the questions

Question one: Do you feel as though products should be released into the consumer market without being tested in any fashion?

If you answered yes, you're a moron.

What kinds of products are you talking about? Cosmetics? Cancer drugs? The truth is that much animal testing is done even though it is not necessary for anyone's saftey;*there are alternatives to much animal testing, etc. Many animals typically tested are chosen because they have the most similar characteristics. For example, rabbit eyes to human eyes. But rabbit eyes are still a relatively poor model.

If you answered now, then question two is: Who or what should we test these products on, if not animals?

Computer models do it best in the beginning phases. I suppose you're forgetting that the last animals any product is tested on is humans. You've heard of clinical trials, I know you have. That may always be the case, but clinical trials would be even safer if computer models were used and perfected.

Keep in mind, I love animals...I have two cats of my own and I don't deny that they have feelings and emotions as well, and I'm not saying they are less valid.

Interesting. Would you give your cats to a lab to be used as test animals for, say, hairspray or deodorant? If not, why not?