Controversial debate.... Watch

Jessica_Mae
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#81
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#81
(Original post by brummie786)
let me ask you guys a question..

You say your vegetarian/vegan because "animals get slaughtered just to be put on the shelf" and other things

well..

arent plants living things too??? dont they have feelings???

i mean just take a look at the venus fly trap. its closes shut when it feels a fly on its trap thingy.

so if your against eating meat why not plants, they have feelings and senses and stuff just like animals dont they?

so i say either eat both or none
how bout you

but have to say i agree with you lot on the extreme conditions like testing etc

first post yay
The venus fly trap is nature, that is the difference! Humans going around slaughtering animals isn't nature.

A man can live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.

Slitting a animals throat or putting a bullet through its head isn't in any way natural...
0
reply
ChocoCoatedLemons
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#82
Report 6 years ago
#82
(Original post by Jessica_Mae)
92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals. Many drugs that reach the market are later withdrawn or relabelled because of serious side effects and dangerous to humans.
Interesting statistic! Where'd you get it from?

If that is true, then can you imagine how dangerous it would be to test these drugs on human beings? If some are removed from the market later due to dangerous side effects, then why should it be subjected onto a human being when they have NO idea of what will happen?

Going to reply to the rest of the comment? Instead of ignoring it, please.
0
reply
Xiomara
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#83
Report 6 years ago
#83
(Original post by Jessica_Mae)
92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals. Many drugs that reach the market are later withdrawn or relabelled because of serious side effects and dangerous to humans.
Well yeah. Just because they've been shown to be safe, doesn't mean that they actually work...what's your point?

And what percentage is 'many' (in reference to your second comment?)
0
reply
Jessica_Mae
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#84
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#84
(Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
I'm sorry, but clearly if you do not agree with animal testing - which you said - then you must want human beings to suffer instead. Those are the only two choices.



I know exactly what they go through. If medications for children were not tested on animals, then they would be tested on children. How is that any more acceptable?



No. Do humans? Some things are worth it.


You can't use human volunteers for all medications as right at the start of trials, they could easily kill someone. I don't believe in the death sentence so we won't talk about that. Also, accuracy? Provide some statistics there please?




Well, nearly every drug has been tested on animals. They work. Have you got any statistics to prove that the tests done on animals result in faulty drugs?
No i don't agree with animal testing it should be banned!!!
I just don't think any less of an animal than I do a human. Just becuase it doesn't talk, look like us or behave like humans I think just as much or even more for animals than I do humans. Humans have no repect for anything!

Why should humans have a right to live more than animals, which haven't done anything wrong? Why should animals go through torture and hell just for humans, when humans don't even respect animals?

You don't have to use humans to start the testing process, in fact they don't use animals to start testing. They use computer models adn test on human tissues in a lab before animals.
Why can't you use humans to start testing, obviously they would be volunteers. They would also have a choice unlike animals!!!!

92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals. Many drugs that reach the market are later withdrawn or relabelled because of serious side effects and dangerous to humans
0
reply
Jessica_Mae
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#85
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#85
(Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
Interesting statistic! Where'd you get it from?

If that is true, then can you imagine how dangerous it would be to test these drugs on human beings? If some are removed from the market later due to dangerous side effects, then why should it be subjected onto a human being when they have NO idea of what will happen?

Going to reply to the rest of the comment? Instead of ignoring it, please.
My point is why test it on animals if it doesn't even work on humans!!
Why not test on humans, where are animal rights???
Just becuase it is smaller and doesn't look like you, and it doesn't affect or hurt you, you think animals should go through hell?
0
reply
ChocoCoatedLemons
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#86
Report 6 years ago
#86
(Original post by Jessica_Mae)
No i don't agree with animal testing it should be banned!!!
I just don't think any less of an animal than I do a human. Just becuase it doesn't talk, look like us or behave like humans I think just as much or even more for animals than I do humans. Humans have no repect for anything!

Why should humans have a right to live more than animals, which haven't done anything wrong? Why should animals go through torture and hell just for humans, when humans don't even respect animals?

You don't have to use humans to start the testing process, in fact they don't use animals to start testing. They use computer models adn test on human tissues in a lab before animals.
Why can't you use humans to start testing, obviously they would be volunteers. They would also have a choice unlike animals!!!!

92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals. Many drugs that reach the market are later withdrawn or relabelled because of serious side effects and dangerous to humans
You've already told me the last bit, and I replied to it.

If you do not agree with animal testing, then you must agree with testing on people. That means medications for babies would be tested on babies. Is that better than testing on some mice?

Humans have more of a right to live than animals, because we are at the top of the food chain right now. That's the way nature works.

How many people do you think would volunteer to test a drug which could kill them? You're being incredibly idealistic.
0
reply
Xiomara
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#87
Report 6 years ago
#87
(Original post by Jessica_Mae)
92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals. Many drugs that reach the market are later withdrawn or relabelled because of serious side effects and dangerous to humans
Why have just repeated this point? It's still lacking any verification. How high is the % of drugs withdrawn/relabelled? And why have you just ignored my earlier point about animal safety tests having nothing to do with whether the drug actually effectively treats its intended cause?
0
reply
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#88
Report 6 years ago
#88
(Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
I think eating meat is justified by being natural. Yes. I'm pretty sure that was my original point.
In that case we come back to my point that naturalness is not any justification for anything, as the same authority that causes tsunamis, creates parasitic worms that bore through children's eye sockets and cancerous tumours is the authority that has given us teeth, stomach acids etc. While the former are not choices and so, as you said correctly, cannot be judged on a moral basis, the principle remains that drawing justification from this same Nature in scenarios where we make the decisions is not valid
0
reply
ChocoCoatedLemons
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#89
Report 6 years ago
#89
(Original post by Jessica_Mae)
My point is why test it on animals if it doesn't even work on humans!!
Why not test on humans, where are animal rights???
Just becuase it is smaller and doesn't look like you, and it doesn't affect or hurt you, you think animals should go through hell?
It should be tested on animals because they do not have the same awareness, theory of mind or reasoning that we do. We are superior because we are both at the top of the food chain and the most intelligent species in terms of development, causation etc.
I don't believe anything non-medical should be tested on animals. But for me, human rights trumps animal righst every time.

And, well. Yes. Better some mice than some people.
0
reply
ChocoCoatedLemons
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#90
Report 6 years ago
#90
(Original post by Tuerin)
In that case we come back to my point that naturalness is not any justification for anything, as the same authority that causes tsunamis, creates parasitic worms that bore through children's eye sockets and cancerous tumours is the authority that has given us teeth, stomach acids etc. While the former are not choices and so, as you said correctly, cannot be judged on a moral basis, the principle remains that drawing justification from this same Nature in scenarios where we make the decisions is not valid
Justification and morality aren't really the same thing. A war can be justified, but isn't necessarily moral. I was designed to eat meat. I've never even tried to justify it, because I don't feel the need to. Human beings are meant to be omniverous, therefore I will be. Nature isn't justified, it just is.
0
reply
Birkenhead
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#91
Report 6 years ago
#91
(Original post by ChocoCoatedLemons)
A war can be justified, but isn't necessarily moral.
I don't see how a war could be justified in any way other than morally. Britain's entry into the second world war could be justified, but only insofar as morally - Germany invaded Poland, violating diplomatic agreement and attempting to subjugate sovereign nations.

I was designed to eat meat. I've never even tried to justify it, because I don't feel the need to.
To this I can only refer you to:

I think eating meat is justified by being natural. Yes.
0
reply
ChocoCoatedLemons
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#92
Report 6 years ago
#92
(Original post by Tuerin)
I don't see how a war could be justified in any way other than morally. Britain's entry into the second world war could be justified, but only insofar as morally - Germany invaded Poland, violating diplomatic agreement and attempting to subjugate sovereign nations.



To this I can only refer you to:
I may believe that killing people is immoral. I may also believe a war for the greater good may be justified, even if it results in death for some people.

Alright, I'll rephrase. I think that, because eating meat is the natural thing to do, that is what should be done. I don't believe it needs to be justified - it doesn't hurt another human being, and doesn't prevent us from continuing our species. It doesn't have to be justified. This is, of course, only my opinion. Others may feel that eating meat is somehow wrong, or is cruel, or unnecessary. But I personally feel that eating meat is the natural and normal thing to do. Not justification necessary.
0
reply
lilyobz
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#93
Report 6 years ago
#93
(Original post by Jessica_Mae)
Just out of curiousity, doesn't it bother you that you are actually eating an animal, the suffering it has been through?
Have you ever heard or seen what goes on in a slaughter house?
Doesn't it bother you that thousands of acres of lands are being stripped of its wildlife due to deforestation, so we can produce more vegetation for you to eat?

Think about it, if we ate polar bears, there would be more of them alive, because we would "breed" them.
0
reply
deedee123
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#94
Report 6 years ago
#94
(Original post by Jessica_Mae)
Just out of curiousity, doesn't it bother you that you are actually eating an animal, the suffering it has been through?
Have you ever heard or seen what goes on in a slaughter house?
(hypothetically speaking that it had the chance to eat you) do you think that animal would care about killing and eating you and the suffering it put you through? No, it wouldn't.


(Original post by Jessica_Mae)
92% of new drugs fail in clinical trials, after they have passed all the safety tests in animals. Many drugs that reach the market are later withdrawn or relabelled because of serious side effects and dangerous to humans
care to reference that statistic?
0
reply
miser
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#95
Report 6 years ago
#95
The most concisely I can possibly state it is the following:


  1. Living ethically requires a person to avoid being responsible for causing unnecessary suffering or harm whenever this is reasonably possible
  2. Eating meat causes animals to suffer or come to harm
  3. It is not necessary for humans to eat meat

Conclusion: It is not ethical for humans to eat meat.

From these premises, so long as they are all truthful and accurate, we can induce that eating meat doesn't conform to the idea of living ethically. Unless one of these premises comes into dispute, the inference that 'living ethically' and 'wilfully holding a diet that includes the consumption meat-based products' are necessarily a contradiction in terms is unavoidable.

The only sane position for a meat eater to take on it is that they don't care. Don't take it as if I'm judging (I'm not), but I will state it how it is: It does oneself an intellectual disservice to attempt to conjure an ethical defence of it. Just admit you don't care - this is the only coherent defence of the modern meat-eater's actions.

For anyone interested in my full reasoning, see my website post on vegetarianism: http://journalofinterest.com/essays/vegetarianism/
0
reply
Xiomara
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#96
Report 6 years ago
#96
(Original post by deedee123)
care to reference that statistic?
I don't think OP is a fan of facts, to be honest. She's been asked three times to verify herself in this page alone.
0
reply
deedee123
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#97
Report 6 years ago
#97
(Original post by Xiomara)
I don't think OP is a fan of facts, to be honest. She's been asked three times to verify herself in this page alone.
i see this all the time with vegans/vegetarians, a lot of them think they're experts because they did a google search and clicked on an amateur animal rights website, because they can't lie of course.
0
reply
Xiomara
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#98
Report 6 years ago
#98
(Original post by deedee123)
i see this all the time with vegans/vegetarians, a lot of them think they're experts because they did a google search and clicked on an amateur animal rights website, because they can't lie of course.
Don't think vegans/vegetarians have a monopoly on denying the truth, unfortunately it's something all too common on TSR :P

Googling two of the issues raised by the OP (on HIV and animal testing and morphine mania) almost all the sites on the first pages discussing it had vested interest in promoting animal rights. I found a link to an article on the (ncbi) which I personally consider far more reputable, having used sources from it in essays and such in my college work, and on it there was balanced discussion stating the merits of animal tests in HIV.

I don't know if you heard about the development of a barrier cream to reduce the likelihood of HIV transmission during sex (it was some time ago now), but some of the knowledge gained from these animal models, I believe, was referenced in the ncbi article I was reading and contributed towards its development. If I can glean all of that from 10 minutes googling, OP is doing it wrong.

I think some people need to look at more than one website before assuming they're experts to be honest.
0
reply
deedee123
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#99
Report 6 years ago
#99
(Original post by miser)
The most concisely I can possibly state it is the following:


  1. Living ethically requires a person to avoid being responsible for causing unnecessary suffering or harm whenever this is reasonably possible
  2. Eating meat causes animals to suffer or come to harm
  3. It is not necessary for humans to eat meat

Conclusion: It is not ethical for humans to eat meat.

From these premises, so long as they are all truthful and accurate, we can induce that eating meat doesn't conform to the idea of living ethically. Unless one of these premises comes into dispute, the inference that 'living ethically' and 'wilfully holding a diet that includes the consumption meat-based products' are necessarily a contradiction in terms is unavoidable.

The only sane position for a meat eater to take on it is that they don't care. Don't take it as if I'm judging (I'm not), but I will state it how it is: It does oneself an intellectual disservice to attempt to conjure an ethical defence of it. Just admit you don't care - this is the only coherent defence of the modern meat-eater's actions.

For anyone interested in my full reasoning, see my website post on vegetarianism: http://journalofinterest.com/4/vegetarianism.html
You speak as if ethicality is objective by saying "Living ethically requires a person to avoid being responsible for causing unnecessary suffering or harm whenever this is reasonably possible". What's seems like an unethical lifestyle to you may not to me, and it doesn't.

You're right, i don't care. I don't mean that i don't care at all about animal rights and think they should be put through as much pain as possible but at the end of the day i don't think about it because i don't have to.

I don't have any problem with vegans/vegetarians other than ones that try to force it down your throat by saying you're an evil, disgusting person for eating meat, especially when their "facts" are absolute drivel. (I'm not including you in this btw )
0
reply
miser
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#100
Report 6 years ago
#100
(Original post by deedee123)
You're right, i don't care. I don't mean that i don't care at all about animal rights and think they should be put through as much pain as possible but at the end of the day i don't think about it because i don't have to.
If this is 'ethical', then we have a useless word on our hands and ought get rid of it. Replace the word 'animal' with 'human' and read it back to yourself and see if you still agree with that reasoning. If you do, then I find it a tremendous shame that apathy can pass for ethics.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you made up your mind on your five uni choices?

Yes I know where I'm applying (129)
64.5%
No I haven't decided yet (42)
21%
Yes but I might change my mind (29)
14.5%

Watched Threads

View All