This discussion is closed.
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#61
Report 15 years ago
#61
(Original post by BloodyValentine)
yes but he killed animals mainly for their fur and their meat to eat it not for pleasure (fox hunting) or to test face cream etc... .
Oh and according to the new scientist from a couple of weeks back early humans had a diet low on meat
its still our resource. these are ethical considerations as to where you draw the line, you consider "for the survival of man", to be acceptable.
0
Homegrownkitten
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#62
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#62
(Original post by vienna)
human minds invented our definition of, and linguistic orientation of the concept. a caveman with no form of communication still had the basic 'right', according to the animal kingdom, to kill another animal simply because he could.
Just because you can do something it doesnt give you the right to do it. What about killing another human? Even prehostoric humans knew that. Also 'cavemen' did have the ability to communicate, most animals do...
0
Homegrownkitten
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#63
Report Thread starter 15 years ago
#63
(Original post by vienna)
its still our resource. these are ethical considerations as to where you draw the line, you consider "for the survival of man", to be acceptable.
The survival of man or the comfort of man?
0
BloodyValentine
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#64
Report 15 years ago
#64
(Original post by vienna)
its still our resource. these are ethical considerations as to where you draw the line, you consider "for the survival of man", to be acceptable.
no i don't consider for the survival of man acceptable i consider nutrition to be acceptable. There is a difference if i said survival of man you could argue that testing drugs on animals furthers the survival of man
0
Muse
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#65
Report 15 years ago
#65
(Original post by vienna)
still had the basic 'right', according to the animal kingdom, to kill another animal simply because he could
why is that a right? who defined the 'rights of the animal kingdom'?
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#66
Report 15 years ago
#66
(Original post by Homegrownkitten)
Just because you can do something it doesnt give you the right to do it.
in the jungle it does.

What about killing another human? Even prehostoric humans knew that.
killing another human is a basic moral wrong, i have the right to kill you, but ill probably suffer some horrific consequences.

Also 'cavemen' did have the ability to communicate, most animals do...
i was aiming to demonstrate the point.
0
BloodyValentine
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#67
Report 15 years ago
#67
actually not killing members of your own species is some form of deep genetic response (or that's what i remember) which only us intelligent humans and one species of monkey don't seem to follow
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#68
Report 15 years ago
#68
(Original post by timeofyourlife)
why is that a right? who defined the 'rights of the animal kingdom'?
the same person who put us all here. we are tied up with our definitions, constrained by our own language. the essence of a right exists though, even if 99% of the earth isnt aware of it.
0
BloodyValentine
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#69
Report 15 years ago
#69
(Original post by vienna)
the same person who put us all here. we are tied up with our definitions, constrained by our own language. the essence of a right exists though, even if 99% of the earth isnt aware of it.
person that put us here? evolution?
0
Muse
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#70
Report 15 years ago
#70
(Original post by vienna)
the same person who put us all here. we are tied up with our definitions, constrained by our own language. the essence of a right exists though, even if 99% of the earth isnt aware of it.
that reads a bit too 'professor robert winston' for my liking.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#71
Report 15 years ago
#71
(Original post by Homegrownkitten)
The survival of man or the comfort of man?
thats for each to draw his own conclusions.
0
Dajo123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#72
Report 15 years ago
#72
(Original post by vienna)
by the fact that we can kill them gives us the very basic and only right, in my book.
Strange, but a bear or black widow spider can kill us, just as we can kill them, doesnt mean either has the right.

What exactly does it mean to be human anyway? when certain animals share alot of our basic traits that we claim set us apart......... read the link below.

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/20609.html
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#73
Report 15 years ago
#73
(Original post by BloodyValentine)
person that put us here? evolution?
that is another topic, one that as far as I know, we dont have conclusive answers for.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#74
Report 15 years ago
#74
(Original post by Dajo123)
Strange, but a bear or black widow spider can kill us, just as we can kill them, doesnt mean either has the right.
why? which right does it not have? that it perceives us a threat and kills us for fun, food, security?
0
BloodyValentine
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#75
Report 15 years ago
#75
(Original post by vienna)
that is another topic, one that as far as I know, we dont have conclusive answers for.
fair enough your beliefs are another one of those rights you're entitled to. I'm off to bed i'll try and find that source on pesticides by tomorrow
0
Muse
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#76
Report 15 years ago
#76
(Original post by BloodyValentine)
i'll try and find that source on pesticides by tomorrow
i'll wait with baited breath
0
Muse
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#77
Report 15 years ago
#77
(Original post by vienna)
why? which right does it not have? that it perceives us a threat and kills us for fun, food, security?
'right' is a such a subjective, loosely defined term, it has little meaning in this context.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#78
Report 15 years ago
#78
(Original post by timeofyourlife)
'right' is a such a subjective, loosely defined term, it has little meaning in this context.
i would agree that it has different contextual understandings yes.
0
Muse
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#79
Report 15 years ago
#79
(Original post by vienna)
i would agree that it has different contextual understandings yes.
you're not meant to be agreeing with things in here.
0
tomcoolinguk
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#80
Report 15 years ago
#80
I just think that opponents of animal testing really need to grow up. I know several people whose parents have very high profile jobs in animal testing laboratories and their lives have been absolute hell with all the violent protest. Don't kind yourself, the protesting is organised and not just by known violent groups such as people against Huntingdon, but also the RSPCA and PETA etc.

The fact is some people refuse to see beyond the cute fluffy animal and evil sadistic scientist stereotypes, and this subjective and naive viewpoint stifles any chance of real progress. Personally, I think we have been conned. Over 99% of the ingredients used by the body shop have been tested on animals at some point, so there was no need for them to be tested on animals again, as this hurdle is satisfied.

Furthermore, if people realised how stringent inspection standards are (13 inspections a year) in animal testing centres, and how meticulously the research is conducted and the fact that animals are never killed purposefully and always limited to one experiment, they might start to appreciate the care and consideration the scientific community does pay towards animals. And the most absurd argument is that animal testing should be completely banned, as it will always be necessary if we want to further veterinary medicine!
0
X
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

Had lockdown impacted your relationships?

Yes, my partner and I are struggling (30)
7.75%
Yes, my partner and I broke up (33)
8.53%
Yes, it's hard being around my family so much (86)
22.22%
Yes, I'm feeling lonely isolating alone (51)
13.18%
No, nothing has changed (117)
30.23%
No, it's helped improve my relationships (70)
18.09%

Watched Threads

View All