Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Where do you stand in the animal rights argument? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomheppy)
    Do you actually have any evidence for that last statement?
    Actually he's right.

    http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_...-the-real-deal

    http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_hea...s/2animalw.pdf (official us government source)

    http://www.infowars.com/u-s-departme...rrorist-group/

    I don't think animals should be put through UNNECESSARY pain. I classify medical research as necessary but cosmetic research not necessary. I don't care much for hunting for fun although for food is fine.

    I eat meat, it tastes good and has many nutritional benefits. Vegetarian replacements aren't sufficient.

    Don't get me started on veganism. Unless you live in a vacuum you're killing organisms all the time just by moving, breathing and cleaning.

    I don't agree with killing endangered animals for their fur. Common animals I have no issue with, especially pests which happen to be particularly soft and furry. I don't get why anyone would have an issue with common domesticated pets as long as the conditions aren't cramped they are domesticated and NEED us to survive. Exploiting animals for fun though I don't agree with.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    Actually he's right.

    http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_...-the-real-deal

    http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_hea...s/2animalw.pdf (official us government source)

    http://www.infowars.com/u-s-departme...rrorist-group/

    I don't think animals should be put through UNNECESSARY pain. I classify medical research as necessary but cosmetic research not necessary. I don't care much for hunting for fun although for food is fine.

    I eat meat, it tastes good and has many nutritional benefits. Vegetarian replacements aren't sufficient.

    Don't get me started on veganism. Unless you live in a vacuum you're killing organisms all the time just by moving, breathing and cleaning.

    I don't agree with killing endangered animals for their fur. Common animals I have no issue with, especially pests which happen to be particularly soft and furry. I don't get why anyone would have an issue with common domesticated pets as long as the conditions aren't cramped they are domesticated and NEED us to survive. Exploiting animals for fun though I don't agree with.
    You cite Consumer freedom people and US government as credible sources? Seriously?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    In all cases animal testing is wrong, there are computer simulation programs that are believed to be more accurate than animal testing.

    Hunting is wrong.

    All farming of animals is wrong, regardless of the conditions they are kept in.
    HAHAHA!

    I'm sorry but that is tinpot science. No computer programme can simulate biology 100% accurately. The whole point is that biological molecules are unpredictable.

    Trust me I work with simulations all the time in engineering. Physics is the most predictable science as it is based on equations and fact yet we still can't get simulation 100%. I work in car crash testing and we always run simulations before the actual crash and it is rarely exactly the same. It just can't be done.

    Hunting for FUN is wrong but what about aboriginal hunter gatherer tribes? How do you expect them to live?

    Explain why farming is wrong. As long as the treatment is humane where is the problem?

    Are we going to feed 6.8 billion people on soy beans?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I believe that humans should not exploit animals other than for necessities that we do not have the technological or physical ability to replace with a substitute. No one needs to eat meat to survive, no one needs leather to survive, no one needs non-vegan wine/beer to survive, no one needs gelatine to survive.

    There is simply no moral argument that anyone can give as to what the distinction between animals and humans is that makes it right to give ourselves rights but to give them none.

    And no one who isn't willing to at least cut down on their meat input has any authority to preach about reducing energy consumption to tackle climate change.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Also medical testing on animals isnt just giving them a pill everyday and watching what happens. It involves immense suffering.

    Take for example the monkeys who went through medical procedures that made them view their limbs as foreign objects and bite them off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring_monkeys.

    Or how about the monkey that was bred into captivity, had its eyelids shown shut and had a sonar device put on its head for three years, after which he would be killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britches_%28monkey%29
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomheppy)
    You cite Consumer freedom people and US government as credible sources? Seriously?
    Fair enough consumer freedom is a bit of a joke but I was just making a point.

    If the government of america can't decide who is an internal terrorist threat then who does?

    PETA have ritually committed vandalism, arson and harrassment of people. If they were protesting peacefully it would be acceptable but to cause acutual physical damage isn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aaran-j)
    I agree with killing animals for meat (provided the killing is humane)
    I agree with testing life saving medicines on animals
    I agree with breeding endangered species in captivity

    I disagree with killing animals for fur
    I disagree with testing cosmetics on animals
    I disagree with keeping animals as pets
    I disagree with keeping animals in inhumane conditions
    I disagree with exploiting animals for entertainment
    this is my opinion
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    HAHAHA!

    I'm sorry but that is tinpot science. No computer programme can simulate biology 100% accurately. The whole point is that biological molecules are unpredictable.

    Trust me I work with simulations all the time in engineering. Physics is the most predictable science as it is based on equations and fact yet we still can't get simulation 100%. I work in car crash testing and we always run simulations before the actual crash and it is rarely exactly the same. It just can't be done.

    Hunting for FUN is wrong but what about aboriginal hunter gatherer tribes? How do you expect them to live?

    Explain why farming is wrong. As long as the treatment is humane where is the problem?

    Are we going to feed 6.8 billion people on soy beans?
    Firstly, we could feed more people if everyone was willing to not eat meat. Shorter food chain => less energy loss => more people can gain the same required amount of energy per unit land.

    Also, thank God animal testing is foolproof.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412#Clinical_trials

    I would rather they just tested on the worst criminals. At least they're not innocent.

    I also absolutely disagree with all the animals chained up in universities for students to 'learn' from.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    HAHAHA!

    I'm sorry but that is tinpot science. No computer programme can simulate biology 100% accurately. The whole point is that biological molecules are unpredictable.

    Trust me I work with simulations all the time in engineering. Physics is the most predictable science as it is based on equations and fact yet we still can't get simulation 100%. I work in car crash testing and we always run simulations before the actual crash and it is rarely exactly the same. It just can't be done.

    Hunting for FUN is wrong but what about aboriginal hunter gatherer tribes? How do you expect them to live?

    Explain why farming is wrong. As long as the treatment is humane where is the problem?

    Are we going to feed 6.8 billion people on soy beans?
    I am not a scientist and I have not looked into it in too much detail, but there was an episode of newsnight with a number of biologists who claimed that there were more accurate computer programs.

    Actually if you look into it the world were not to grow food to feed animals and instead grew food for human consumption then the output of totall food would be mich higher and there would be enough to feed the whole world.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Also medical testing on animals isnt just giving them a pill everyday and watching what happens. It involves immense suffering.

    Take for example the monkeys who went through medical procedures that made them view their limbs as foreign objects and bite them off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring_monkeys.

    Or how about the monkey that was bred into captivity, had its eyelids shown shut and had a sonar device put on its head for three years, after which he would be killed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britches_%28monkey%29
    I'm not advocating inhumane medical research but surely if a prevention of killer diseases can be found it's worth it. Tests on monkeys are now mostly banned but are you seriously saying you wouldn't do a test on a rat if it saved lives?

    (Original post by paddyman4)
    I believe that humans should not exploit animals other than for necessities that we do not have the technological or physical ability to replace with a substitute. No one needs to eat meat to survive, no one needs leather to survive, no one needs non-vegan wine/beer to survive, no one needs gelatine to survive.

    There is simply no moral argument that anyone can give as to what the distinction between animals and humans is that makes it right to give ourselves rights but to give them none.

    And no one who isn't willing to at least cut down on their meat input has any authority to preach about reducing energy consumption to tackle climate change.
    And how do you think we got most of these? Most would have involved some kind of animal research at some point.

    Ok say we take your point and EVERYBODY stops eating meat. What about all the carnivorous animals in the wild? Are you going to persuade them to stop eating meat? Of course not! They need meat to survive because it's healthier for them. Ask any sane dietician and they will assure you that there are some things that simply cannot be replaced.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bansheeee*)
    animals deserve the same rights as humans, in my opinion.
    :facepalm2:

    And now we can see the difference between an animal rights activist associated with PETA, and an animal rights activist who isn't.

    You honestly believe that animals should be extend rights that they show no signs of being able to take part in.
    To use Singer's example, it would be ludicrous to give animals the right to vote in the same way in which it would be ludicrous to give men the right to an abortion. Men literally don't have the ability to have an abortion, and non human animals literally don't have the ability to vote.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Humans are equal to animals. Therefore using them, eating them, wearing them etc for our own personal benefit is wrong. -IMO of course
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see why it's so hard to treat aninmals well.

    It's not hard to treat an animal right or well. Only idiots can't comprehend that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    I am not a scientist and I have not looked into it in too much detail, but there was an episode of newsnight with a number of biologists who claimed that there were more accurate computer programs.

    Actually if you look into it the world were not to grow food to feed animals and instead grew food for human consumption then the output of totall food would be mich higher and there would be enough to feed the whole world.
    Oh dear god. Even if there is a simulation you STILL need to do real testing to verify the simulation. You wouldn't give a whole nation a vaccine on the results of a simulation. We do numerous simulations which suggest the car is safe but once physically tested there can be an error. It's impossible to take into account everything because simulations are programmes wrote by people who make human error.

    There might be enough food to feed the whole world but it wouldn't get distributed evenly in the same way wealth isn't distributed evenly. The world isn't communist, it will never happen.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    Actually he's right.

    http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_...-the-real-deal

    http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_hea...s/2animalw.pdf (official us government source)

    http://www.infowars.com/u-s-departme...rrorist-group/

    I don't think animals should be put through UNNECESSARY pain. I classify medical research as necessary but cosmetic research not necessary. I don't care much for hunting for fun although for food is fine.

    I eat meat, it tastes good and has many nutritional benefits. Vegetarian replacements aren't sufficient.

    Don't get me started on veganism. Unless you live in a vacuum you're killing organisms all the time just by moving, breathing and cleaning.

    I don't agree with killing endangered animals for their fur. Common animals I have no issue with, especially pests which happen to be particularly soft and furry. I don't get why anyone would have an issue with common domesticated pets as long as the conditions aren't cramped they are domesticated and NEED us to survive. Exploiting animals for fun though I don't agree with.
    With regards to veganism, you realise that most vegans (myself included) are trying to avoid killing sentient life, or at the very least, minimise it. When you talk about killing organisms as if that automatically goes against veganism, are you in-fact talking out of your rear end?

    Secondly why is for food just fine, but hunting for fun isn't?

    If you're eating meat then you are exploiting animals for your own fun.

    Hunting for FUN is wrong but what about aboriginal hunter gatherer tribes? How do you expect them to live?

    Explain why farming is wrong. As long as the treatment is humane where is the problem?

    Are we going to feed 6.8 billion people on soy beans?
    Would you agree that if I were to go around killing humans in a quick way in which they didn't know I was coming (surreptitiously) and then ate their meat that this would be okay?

    I don't see how any intentional taking of life (note it's in the context of this thread, so please don't try to straw man me on this) other than in cases of euthanasia (and that's another topic altogether) can be "humane". If it's not in the animals benefit, it's done for exploitive reasons only, and that seems inhumane.

    If you don't then I fail to see why you feel farming is justified.
    When most people here talk about hunting it's generally in the context of the western world. Why is this? because that's where we live. Why is this different? Because we can live easily without meat. Where as those tribes may need it for survival.

    If we were to grow food on the land available and not feed our crops to animals (which is how we rear most animals) then we would be able to feed about 12 billion. As it happens we can only feed about 8 billion people in total.
    We feed a lot of our food to animals and then eat them. This is very inefficient kcal wise.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    Firstly, we could feed more people if everyone was willing to not eat meat. Shorter food chain => less energy loss => more people can gain the same required amount of energy per unit land.

    Also, thank God animal testing is foolproof.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGN1412#Clinical_trials

    I would rather they just tested on the worst criminals. At least they're not innocent.

    I also absolutely disagree with all the animals chained up in universities for students to 'learn' from.
    Erm no because just because we don't eat the animals doesn't mean they won't still be there consuming energy.

    You've just voided your entire argument by saying you'd test on criminals. However bad they are they're still living "animals". Will you be testing on a lion because it caused pain to a zebra?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    Oh dear god. Even if there is a simulation you STILL need to do real testing to verify the simulation. You wouldn't give a whole nation a vaccine on the results of a simulation. We do numerous simulations which suggest the car is safe but once physically tested there can be an error. It's impossible to take into account everything because simulations are programmes wrote by people who make human error.

    There might be enough food to feed the whole world but it wouldn't get distributed evenly in the same way wealth isn't distributed evenly. The world isn't communist, it will never happen.
    One of those issues with distribution is surely the value of food.
    However if the over all value of food were to fall for the basic essentials then the distribution would be a lot easier. As we would have more of these basics their value would fall.
    Meaning poor-er countries would be able to get more food.
    Unless capitalism is of course overthrown as the leading world economic system.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Right by the burger van.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    Oh dear god. Even if there is a simulation you STILL need to do real testing to verify the simulation. You wouldn't give a whole nation a vaccine on the results of a simulation. We do numerous simulations which suggest the car is safe but once physically tested there can be an error. It's impossible to take into account everything because simulations are programmes wrote by people who make human error.

    There might be enough food to feed the whole world but it wouldn't get distributed evenly in the same way wealth isn't distributed evenly. The world isn't communist, it will never happen.
    Then the vaccine would be tested on a small sample of volunteers, again I am no scientist.

    You are the one who bought up the argument about feeding the world, the food would most likely be distributed no more evenly or unevenly than it is at the moment so whats your point?:confused: Also I am fully aware that the world is not communist and have no desire for it to be.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I am for animal rights but I don't think we should stop eating meat.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.