Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddyman4)
    Animals don't have the technological, moral or physical advancements to be able to survive without meat. Were we in that position, I would have no problem with eating meat.

    With regards to free range eggs, I don't have a problem with the hens who are producing eggs. I'm realistic in that the chickens are enclosed, but I doubt they really care on a free range farm. But many male chickens (avoiding using the word '****' just in case) are killed at birth because they are of limited use.
    This may help you in your first point:

    ould be nonsensical to hold a lion morally responsible for the death of a gnu. As far as we know, lions aren’t the sort of creatures that can engage in deliberations about the morality of such behaviours. Similarly however, an infant cannot be held responsible for destroying an original sculpture, or a child held culpable for accidentally shooting her sister. Animals are not moral agents.”
    Page 344 'a companion to ethics' P. Singer.

    I'm waiting for them to refute it, but it's still not happened.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Michelin Man)
    I don't see how the vast majority of the human race can be wrong.
    Not long ago the vast majority of white people thought that slavery was OK. They could not say what the difference between black people and white people was that made it OK to enslave the blacks, but they felt that it was fine.


    Not long ago the vast majority of men thought gender inequality was OK. They could not say what the difference between men and women was that made it OK to oppress women, but they felt that it was fine.


    Not long ago the vast majority of heterosexuals thought that persecuting homosexuals was OK. They could not say what the difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals was that made it OK to persecute the gays, but they felt that it was fine.


    In summary, people who are born into a group of oppressors rarely see anything wrong, because they are raised by oppressors.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    If there is a good reason to experiemnt on them.

    I.E When there is a greater benefit to society than there is loss.

    Then im all for it.
    Offline

    17
    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.
    If that was true why are we still using animals?

    It doesn't make sense even if we assume that computer simulations are more accurate - which they aren't.

    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Also medical testing on animals isnt just giving them a pill everyday and watching what happens. It involves immense suffering.
    Animal testing is one of the most heavily legislated, monitored and controlled areas in the world.

    Yes some medical procedures and forms of testing are invasive and can cause suffering but the potential benefits have to outweigh any potential suffering - if you can't justify it, you can't get a license. Every step of the way veterinary surgeons and other professionals are consulted to reduce the use of animals and reduce any potential suffering.

    Bear in mind that such procedures don't account for all forms of animal and medical research, a lot is done to learn more about behaviour, animal welfare (to reduce suffering), etc and involves little more than monitoring said animals over a set period of time and/or making small changes to their lifestyle (ie; diet, environment, etc).

    (Original post by paddyman4)
    I also absolutely disagree with all the animals chained up in universities for students to 'learn' from.
    Think of it this way, would you ever be confident with a doctor/vet that had never operated/treated/worked with a live human/animal? Computer simulations, models, etc only go so far - you have to branch out to living subjects one day.

    Someone who is great at Halo 3 isn't necessarily a good soldier, someone who is good at Red Alert whatever isn't necessarily a good officer and someone who has read a book on law a good Police Officer.

    It was only a couple of weeks ago that I worked with some lab animals (in a non animal/medical testing capacity) and despite the fact that they'd had a pretty invasive procedure a couple of weeks previously there was no hint of suffering, they were extremely well looked after (like pets) and I'd class them as being 'happy'. Likewise it is not uncommon for some lab animals to be rehomed (often by the researchers themselves).

    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    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
    1) A couple of extreme exceptions do not prove the rule.

    2) The examples you've given are 20+ years old - a lot has changed since then to reduce animal involvement, reduce suffering and investigate other modes of investigation.

    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Then the vaccine would be tested on a small sample of volunteers, again I am no scientist.
    Would you volunteer for a vaccine which has never been tested on a living animal? If yes then you are bloody brave (or lying). There has been a shortage of human test subjects for years.

    (Original post by tomheppy)
    You cite Consumer freedom people and US government as credible sources? Seriously?
    You cite extremist animal rights groups and/or Peta as credible sources? Ha ha.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)


    You cite extremist animal rights groups and/or Peta as credible sources? Ha ha.
    I can't be arsed reading the rest but where did he do that?
    I've looked at the thread and I can't see where?

    And whilst I think PETA is made of stupid, that doesn't mean all animal rights groups are, and the issue of what counts as extremist is very subjective. Many people feel that veganism is extremist.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I'm pro animal rights, I don't think any animal should be tested on for cosmetics or any other purpose regardless if it saves a human life, yes I understand that sounds a little cold hearted.

    Animals have just as much right to live without suffering as humans.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Three words people: In vitro meat.

    Who needs cows? (we'll need some cow cells though but not the whole thing :p:)

    If PETA's "bid" is successful, in 2 years from now, we will be able to enjoy delicious lab-grown steak. I love you PETA (Francione can go to hell)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    wow, where to start with fallacy after fallacy.
    :rolleyes:

    1)
    read my posts and I won't need to repeat myself...
    ...but this time I'll let you off:

    “it would be nonsensical to hold a lion morally responsible for the death of a gnu. As far as we know, lions aren’t the sort of creatures that can engage in deliberations about the morality of such behaviours. Similarly however, an infant cannot be held responsible for destroying an original sculpture, or a child held culpable for accidentally shooting her sister. Animals are not moral agents.”
    Page 344 'a companion to ethics' P. Singer.
    It is in a lions nature to hunt, as it is in a toddlers/infants nature to knock things over. It is natural for us as humans and as the dominant species to hunt and eat meat. Why? Well we have been doing it since the dawn of time, as have other aniamls.

    3) we can live perfectly healthily without meat.
    Yes I am sure, however just because we can doesn't mean we should.

    4) tradition is not a justification, it just means it's happened before, not that it should continue.
    This tradition indicates it is in our nature, well at least to some. We as humans have been hunting for thousands of years, suddenly we should stop eating meat because of the poor animals, and their feelings?

    Don't get me wrong, I think animals should be treated humanely, during their life. However when it comes down to it, I see no harm in using animal meat for food when there are various attributes in meat that is good for the human body (in moderation of course.)


    5) you're not in a survival situation so it's not between you and them.

    6) human nature? what the hell are you talking about.
    I wasn't talking about survival literally, what I mean is that if you a veggie were in a situation would you eat meat or let yourself succumb to hunger? I would put money on you eating meat even if you have spent your life up until then being a veggie. Because it's human nature to eat meat. We hunt, we kill, we ate meat. We do it to surviive, to live. It's what our ancestors did and it's what we do, well most of us anyway.

    7) see 5)
    See above. iety that gives you the choice and chance to be a veggie and not eat meant. Were you not so lucky you would not be such an adamant lentil eater.

    8) then you would see nothing against taking a humans life for food in the same circumstances.
    Like I said, whatever floats your boat.

    9) why is it 'desperate' why does being apart of the same category mean anything? I may want to survive, why would I care if you survive? In essence why not just a '**** you, I'll eat you, I'll survive, and I don't care about other humans' attitude.
    Amongst other thigns we live to feed ourselves, and sustain ourselves and our loved ones. Whilst civilisation still exists and functions there is no reason to eat other humans.
    If you take away the obvious fact that it's illegal, yes you could live on human meat...I think (never really tried it myself) however it's not neccesary as likely.

    Sure it's in our human nature to fight and kill each other, but not really to go as far as to eat each other.
    Again it's back to human nature, our origins.



    10) :facepalm2:

    I hope, and think, you were trolling. If not please remove yourself from the internet, and the gene pool.
    Relax it was tounge in cheek/a joke.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    *Sigh*

    I am fully in support of medical research using animals and currently work in a lab which uses animals. The animals are well looked after and completely anaesthetised before any procedure. I am aware that at a base level it is morally questionable to use animals. I don't think anyone would argue for animal testing if alternatives were available.

    At the moment, animal testing is the ONLY viable method available in certain areas of research. Cellular cultures cannot mimic the actions of a specific drug on an entire body and computers are nowhere near powerful enough to accurately simulate human or animal physiology and the various effects of drugs. Moore's Law suggests that the future will almost certainly bring computers powerful enough to do so. When this happens we will be able to change the way we perform biomedical research. BUT NOT NOW. Perhaps in 20 years if we take into account the possibility of quantum computing.

    A lot of people also completely ignore the fact that animal research doesn't just help us. Numerous medical discoveries have gone towards veterinary treatments to save and improve the lives of, in the long term, many more animals than were used in the research itself. If you halt animal research, not only will we suffer, but so will countless other animals who could have benefited from said research.

    So yes. I accept animal research as a necessary tool and am glad it takes place. I will continue to support any methods to replace it in the future but am under no illusions that this is a long way away.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I can't be arsed reading the rest but where did he do that?
    I've looked at the thread and I can't see where?
    Essentially here.

    (Original post by there's too much love)
    And whilst I think PETA is made of stupid, that doesn't mean all animal rights groups are
    10+ years ago some 'undercover reporters' broke into a pig farm one night and filmed a pig in a cage, bleeding, etc. The next day it was all over the papers and almost overnight keeping pigs in stalls was banned - but what was the real story? The pig had become trapped overnight in a feeding stall which had malfunctioned - it cut itself trying to escape. That was how this all started.

    The poor reporting, the bias, the misinformation is little different now - this thread is good evidence of that.

    (Original post by there's too much love)
    and the issue of what counts as extremist is very subjective.
    Vandalism, harassment, GBH, grave robbery, etc are what I'd call extremist.

    (Original post by DanielNewton)
    I'm pro animal rights, I don't think any animal should be tested on for cosmetics or any other purpose regardless if it saves a human life, yes I understand that sounds a little cold hearted.
    Would you boycott potentially life saving treatment (or in fact any form of treatment) if it had been tested/pioneered on animals?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It never fails to astound me - the extent of selfishness in human nature! Why are we as humans any
    more important than other species? Because we've shaped the modern world and not another species? But look what we've done! Step by tiny step we are ruining our own planet and will continue to so. Global warming, forest destruction, driving other species to extinction due to our land use. All for short term gains for the human
    race. Because as humans, we convince ourselves that we are better. We did it with race too - blindly assuming the White man was superior to the Black. Until realising we were all part of the same race and deserved equal
    rights. How long will it take for us to realise that all living things share a same bond too - being alive, breathing and that, thus, should all share the same rights.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think any vegan should have to forsake all medical aid as by their theory it is immoral. Most of the basic medical advances came through animal testing so it is against their code.

    There is no alternative to animal testing for now. When computers are powerful enough they will be used but even then there will need to be some testing in real life cases. First on animals then on humans.

    PETA are terrorists at a base level. There is no way grave robbing can be justified in anyway. The billboard they put up of Baby P's killer was disgusting. They should be banned.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think any vegan should have to forsake all medical aid as by their theory it is immoral. Most of the basic medical advances came through animal testing so it is against their code.

    There is no alternative to animal testing for now. When computers are powerful enough they will be used but even then there will need to be some testing in real life cases. First on animals then on humans.

    PETA are terrorists at a base level. There is no way grave robbing can be justified in anyway. The billboard they put up of Baby P's killer was disgusting. They should be banned.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Animals shouldn't be put through any harm unnecessarily. I don't think cosmetics should be tested on animals, but I support testing medication on animals. I also don't think it is ethical to eat fish considering the way we're going - causing species to go extinct by over-fishing. I'm all for eating animals which are bred to be eaten. However, I also hate PETA and love my leather jackets.

    If the animal is going to be killed, you might as well use it all up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think that animals have any rights - however I am against deliberately sadistic practices as I don't think bullying and sadism are to be encouraged.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunOfABeach)
    Three words people: In vitro meat.

    Who needs cows? (we'll need some cow cells though but not the whole thing :p:)

    If PETA's "bid" is successful, in 2 years from now, we will be able to enjoy delicious lab-grown steak. I love you PETA (Francione can go to hell)
    **** yeah.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I can't be arsed reading the rest but where did he do that?
    I've looked at the thread and I can't see where?

    And whilst I think PETA is made of stupid, that doesn't mean all animal rights groups are, and the issue of what counts as extremist is very subjective. Many people feel that veganism is extremist.
    I don't see anything inherently wrong with extreme views. Moral theories can often require extreme positions e.g. utilitarianism,but no one thinks them wrong because of this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    On the top












    of the food chain
    :ninja:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomheppy)
    I don't see anything inherently wrong with extreme views. Moral theories can often require extreme positions e.g. utilitarianism,but no one thinks them wrong because of this.
    I'm not saying they are inherently wrong, the fact that extremism is a subjective issue goes along with that line of view.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.