Where do you stand in the animal rights argument?

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?

Reply 23

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.

Reply 24

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

Reply 25

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.

Reply 26

rrea436

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

Reply 27

paddyman4

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.

Reply 28

DaveSmith99

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.

Reply 29

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?

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.

Reply 30

blinkbelle

17

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

Reply 31

thunder_chunky

19

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.

Reply 32

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.

Reply 33

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?

Reply 34

username234673

17

Right by the burger van.

Reply 35

DaveSmith99

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.

Reply 36

thunder_chunky

19

I am for animal rights but I don't think we should stop eating meat.

Reply 37

beepbeeprichie

18

thunder_chunky

I am for animal rights but I don't think we should stop eating meat.

As I've argued before this is a perfectly compatible position. You are not violating any rights by eating meats,only the farmer/slaughterer is. Thus not eating meat is forbidden not on a deontic but utilitarian basis.

Reply 38