I hate Peta, the way they treat animals and people is wrong.

monkey0506 · Mon 31/07/2006 12:47:43

Most of what I said I meant in a satirical fashion. I personally don't feel that animals have the same rights as humans and I think it's silly the way some people get so worked up over it. That's all really. I'm not like the animal Hitler or anything.

Helm · Mon 31/07/2006 14:14:32

Quotesatirical

because what this thread needed was your wit.

Ali · Mon 31/07/2006 14:21:43

Quote from: MrColossal on Sun 30/07/2006 23:17:37
Do lions eat lions?

Quote from: Helm on Sun 30/07/2006 23:50:58
Sometimes. Seriously, the cannibalism line of thinking is faulty either way.

As you say, lions will eat lions. Other animals eat their own kind, and not only in extreme circumstances. I'm not sure why it's a faulty line of thought, please elaborate.

I am not saying that we shouldn't eat animals and we shouldn't be cannibals. I'm saying that whether we eat animals or humans is arbitrary, because humans are animals. We need to base our judgements upon something other than species.

monkey0506 · Mon 31/07/2006 14:31:52

Quote from: Helm on Mon 31/07/2006 14:14:32
Quotesatirical

because what this thread needed was your wit.

Precisely my point.

SSH · Mon 31/07/2006 15:53:46

Quote from: Ali on Mon 31/07/2006 14:21:43
As you say, lions will eat lions. Other animals eat their own kind, and not only in extreme circumstances. I'm not sure why it's a faulty line of thought, please elaborate.

Can you provide some kind of reference for this?

Helm · Mon 31/07/2006 16:33:16

Quote from: Ali link=topic=27616.msg351569#msg351569
As you say, lions will eat lions. Other animals eat their own kind, and not only in extreme circumstances. I'm not sure why it's a faulty line of thought, please elaborate.

Whether animals eat their kind is really irrelevant to the ethical issue at hand is my point.

Definitions make sense in context. The human is an animal, if you look at him in the context of biology. However in the ethical context this takes an entirely different charge, one that cannot be compared to animalistic behaviour simply because animals do not have ethics. We are also made by the same particles as a rock, does this mean that in matters of masonry the one that behaves most as a wall wins the argument?

Cannibalism and if it's ethically sound or not is a different discussion than the current one.

People that think eating animals is wrong need to be brave enough to admit that they think so entirely out of their own arbiterate volition, without any sort of rational backing. They might be logically consistent in their ethical world, but the foundations are manufactured. Just like people who think eating animals is right do the same thing. WRONG. RIGHT. ETHICS. INVENTED. The 'look what animals do!' line of thinking doesn't lead anywhere in my opinion.

For this conversation to go anywhere people need to say 'okay, I realize I have an arbiterate opinion, we all have arbiterate opinions, but for us all to get anywhere we need to come to realistic and applicable compromises between our disparate ethical viewpoints. Because we want to get along.' Trying to rationalize and 'win' this argument by backing one's ethical choices by comparing ourselves to the animal kingdom is silly. So what if we do what other animals do? Does that make it right? So what if we don't do what other animals do? Does that make it wrong?

Ali · Tue 01/08/2006 17:09:47

I agree with almost everything you've said in that post Helm. Beyond your objection to the canbibal question, I don't think it contradicts anything I've posted in this thread. I agree that ideas of right and wrong are arbitrary.

I avoid meat because I feel I cause marginally less sufferring over-all in doing so. I think many people could agree to a similar compromise- not necessarily giving up meat, but diminishing sufferring by supporting alternate methods of farming, perhaps.

This wouldn't hang on universal rights and wrongs, just the idea of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you (obviously not my idea, but a good one nonetheless).

Quote from: SSH on Mon 31/07/2006 15:53:46
Quote from: Ali on Mon 31/07/2006 14:21:43
As you say, lions will eat lions. Other animals eat their own kind, and not only in extreme circumstances.
Can you provide some kind of reference for this?

This article indicates that cannibalism occurs in non-extreme circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism
And for a not-from-wikipedia-example, pigs will eat their own meat if the animal is dead. As the mad-cow business revealed, so will cattle.

Krysis · Tue 01/08/2006 18:47:52

We are people.... We make the rules. Sorry, mr. Cow, but we people are smarter, stronger and we do as we like - even if we get too far. People come first you know... harsh but true. So live with it... or not. Sorry, I eat dead animals and I enjoy it. And I like milk too.

passer-by · Tue 01/08/2006 19:27:51

I 'd define cruelty to animals as "torturing them for no good reason". This includes abandonning your pets when you leave for holidays, overexlpoiting animals for dairy products you are not going to sell because of the market rules, overfishing, overhunting etc etc.
As you can see, I only dislike the exaggeration. Why fish 5 tons for a small village market? Why transport huge amounts of meat in the capital, when everybody does the same and you end up with unsold rotten mountains of stinky stuff? And then you go on a strike and close the streets for other workers...

About experiments. I don't like it. I don't like people using animals in cases they can avoid it. But as far as I know, they can and they will test the chemics on something alive, so I prefer them to do it on animals instead of third world's (or even developped world's) children.

ManicMatt · Tue 01/08/2006 22:24:06

Have you seen Asda's (the supermarket, overseas folk) message on some of their products?

"Asda is against animal testing and is funding research into alternatives"

Hmmmm if they were truly against it why would they do it? I suggest a rephasing:

"Asda gets some dissing for it's animal testing so it will research slowly for alternatives to win over more customers"

Yeah! Thats' better!

SSH · Wed 02/08/2006 10:09:44

Because much as people hate animals discovering that a certain product makes you impotent/bald/dead/whatever, they hate humans discovering the same thing MORE

ManicMatt · Wed 02/08/2006 17:59:28

That's not what I'm getting at. I was annoyed at the usage of the word "against"

Nikolas · Wed 02/08/2006 18:13:51

HA!

Matt, is slowly turning into me!

. Picky with words! YAY! Against the system! Fuck ASDA, Fuck TESCOs, Fuck everybody!

ASDA, is really good, exactly because they are against animal testing! And they are doing the best they can in order to find new ways to test on animals! Isn't that what alternatives mean?

Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens · Thu 03/08/2006 03:58:20

Animal testing has most likely kept you or a loved one alive at some point, and may yet be doing so. Asking for an end to animal testing is akin to saying 'let's just get rid of drugs altogether' and have people fend for themselves like the Dark Ages. Survival of the fittest!

Recognize and accept that enough people will never consent to possibly lethal tests for medicines to develop at any kind of rate. This is why animal testing exists and will continue to do so.