Turn on thread page Beta

Animal liberation front watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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'?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Homegrownkitten)
    The survival of man or the comfort of man?
    thats for each to draw his own conclusions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    i'll try and find that source on pesticides by tomorrow
    i'll wait with baited breath
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    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!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.