animal experimention - mistreating animals

spuriousmonkey,

Are you trying to make my point clearer or are you being sarcastic?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Neither...

I thought I was suggesting that the possibility exists that slavery actually caused extra deaths than that it caused extra lives. Hence your analogy might not have been the best one. Which doesn't mean that your point is not valid of course!

But I guess I shouldn't have replied because we are straying off topic.


and let me reiterate my view on animal testing:
As unchanged, my opinion remains that I don't really need a higher moral excuse to use animals, because I have low moral standards and don't see anything wrong in it. Hence I don't have to invent fancy reasons to validate my use of animals for science

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If that was true then fine. However I don't believe that it is true.

I'm sure you don't go around kicking dogs or people - why not? Because being kicked is painful and you know that. To do it 'for science' is to justify the means with the end - in other words to admit that the means need justifying.

I can believe that you have low moral standards (so do I IMO) but I really can't believe that you don't know that abusing animals in the name of science is wrong.

At least WCF really doesn't seem to know. As if slavery could be justified by its later consequences for goodness sake. On that basis we could re-introduce it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

While I would say that the possibility exsists, based on the hunter-gatherer nature of most African Tribs at the time of Us slavery, then I would say it is doubtful. Given that more slaves=more money, many human beings were made to have sex for the purposes of procreation in order to create more slaves. This was especially important for the slave trade after the import of new slaves was made illegal, and any new slave had to come from "Domestic Stock". The deaths incurred by the slave trade and the lack of live caused by the removeal of individuals from their homelands were most likely more than off-set by forced breeding, close quarters, and the stressful exsistance that are inherent to slavery.

The whole thing was horrendous.


back on topic.
We made the mice freaks, for the sake of testing. They cannot live without our assistance, now. IMO, we then have the responsibility to either keep them alive and healthy, or to put them out of their misery. We then must take on the guilt of the deaths we brought about.

And a bunch of cosmetic testing does not involve just shaving a rabbit and smearing goop on it, but putting goop in it's eyes to see if it goes blind, in it's ears to see if they become infected, force feeding the animal the goop to see if it has a more profound alergic reaction than through topical application, etc... while these are examples of the extreme cases, there were and are far to many extreme testing methodologies for items which are largely used for non-nessesary reasons in practice, IMO.

And in my hypocritical way, I still occationally use Prell, Colgate and products from other companies known for their overly extreme testing practices. I am no better than those funding the testing.

 

that was my point I was just being sarcastic about it being a good thing. so enough about the slaves ok people, jess!

I do not need anymore reason to have lab animals then I do to eat meat. Both have similar living conditions and because of breeding they could not live in the wild even if we want them to. As for how some lab animals are treated and curl experiments, that I disagree with.

 

To create these animals in the first place, animals that couldn't survive in their natural habitat, for the sole purpose of testing and experimenting and our own selfish gains itself is what I am trying to place under scrutiny.

Sure, these animals couldn't survive in the wild, but that is the fault of the scientists and an incredibly thin false excuse.
If you FOUND this animal in the wild with limited chance of survival, and took it home to care for you you would have a point.

If you go around shooting people in the head just to see what would happen, could you justify your actions by saying, "But after I shoot them they don't have the ability to function in society, so by keeping them in my basement and giving them food I am actually helping them. See how benevolent I am?"?
bullshit.

 

Most domestic animals could not survive in the wild, most dogs would die in under a week in a forest left alone! Its just like saying how could we allow people to breed that are of inferior stalk! :bugeye:

 

You are right.
Breeding wild animals for domestic use is selfish, and generally I am against it.

However, it is not the same as breeding animals for the sole purpose of scientific experimentation and genetic mutation.

I just think people should apply whatever moral values they hold for humans to animals as well.
If not be even more stringent for the reasons Dr Lou pointed out.

Ability does not imply right.

 

Canute/ One Raven

I don't understand. Do you believe that every organism is equal? I surely don't. I vaule insects over plants, animals over insects and people over animals. Of course my system of putting value on living animals is biased (as would anything that is not perfect would be). But how can you manage to live without assigning value to things?

Canute, do you only walk on pavement as not to damage grass or smash insects. Because if you don't, every bug you smash on the windshield of your car might as well be someone's six year kid.

Withous assigning value to things every meal truly is cannabalistic because you might as well be eating your neighbor.

You need to place value on things to make important decisions, who would you save if a dog was drowing and an old woman? without value it wouldn't matter because both are equal.

I would choose the woman because i would experience the grief of her love ones more acutely than any saddness assoicated with the dogs death. What about you?

 

Re: Canute/ One Raven

Not necessarily.
I value the laws of nature above all and try to live by that ideal.

I would kiil a dog if I was under attack.
I would kill a human if I was under attack.

I would feel more grief and loss for the dead dog than the dead human.
Why?
Because humans ARE smarter.
Humans CAN reason abstractly.
Humans can place themselves in other's shoes and experience compassion and empathy.

It DOESN'T matter.
I would save whichever one I had a better chance of saving unless I placed personal value on one over the other.
It it was my mother, for example, I would swim past the dog to save her.
If it was a stranger and a dog I cared about, I would try and save the dog.
If it was a bitch of an old woman and a dog I cared about I would swim past the old bitch and save the dog.

I don't give preference to one species of animal over another inherently.
I take things on an individual basis, generally speaking.

I would rather not have a cure for cancer if it requires the torture and death of countless animals.

Let nature take its course and interefere as little as possible.
("as little as possible", of course, is an entriely subjective concept and varies, even within myself, greatly)

 

Okay, so what's so special about Nature's laws?

I don't see why you put so much value in Nature's laws. Doesn't Nature approve of the strongest species surviving while the weakers ones die. Would you raise your children with such values?

You said you would grieve the death of the dog more than the human because the human can reason and was smart etc. Well, by that statement you placed a lower value on reason and intelligence than on natural instinct.

By natures law, i would guess, which ever one was less capable of killing you should be the one to die. Surivial of the fittest. That has nothing to do with reason or natural instinct.

You also say you would KILL the person/dog attacking you. Why not let the person/dog kill you? Because you put a higer value on your life than on your attacker.

Value/Standards....thats why people do experiments on animals without guilt, they've place lower values on the animals which allows them to treat them like whatever. They may value money enough to justify smearing goop in a rabbits eyes or they may value the potential knowledge gained from a mouse's death more than the mouse life..nothing wrong with that. Just a difference of values.

 

Canute, you contradict yourself

Just as you would rather kill the human because humans can reason, you should rather save a human because they can express love, empathy etc.

 

Re: Canute, you contradict yourself

I think you meant me.

I have emotions and emotional attachment to things I care for.
It is entirely selfish, I admit it.
I never claimed to be perfect.

Not necessarily.
The most adaptable survive.

However that is not the ONLY aspect of the natural flow of nature.
I (perhaps hypocritically) seperate man from nature due to his uncanny ability to change and affect the world and nature around him to an immense degree at a rapid pace.

I beleieve in the Buddhist ideal that man should be as a ghost in this world.
He should alter and effect the natural flow of things as little as possible.
The more technologically advanced and technologically dependent we become the harder it is to do this.
I understand that.
(I have a hard time accepting it, but I DO understand it)

However, we CAN (and I try to) uphold this ideal to the best of our abilities.

I try and use nature as an example for my life and values.
I try and witness the way nature works and assign my morals accordingly.
I try and be as selfless as possible and aim to work towards the good of nature rather than mankind.

 

Let us all admit that we victims of selfish genetics and that we all care about are selfs over all other things, and that hurting animals to find a cure to our disease is justified in that in we live better as a result. Come on there is no shame in it we are animals too, as such we live with the same emotions and evils. We should admit that with our cognitive abilities and are opposable thumbs we can and our crushing this planet for our own needs and we can make up what every reasons we want to feel at peace with it, but in the end its all just to satisfy are own greed. Even though there are people that can over come there genetic greed and see the truth, they can never do anything about it because of nature royal law, making it only the greedy that come first.

 

Sadly I see more and more every year that this is the truth.

I am almost ready to just say, "Fuck IT!", give up and live off in the woods somewhere alone.

Anyone know of any good uninhabited islands I can move to?

 

Raven, sorry that was for you

Fair enough, but again, what's gives the laws of nature regin over the laws of reason?

I would surmerse that Nature would call for me eating only "natural foods". But by doing that i would be passing up many processed foods i find quite enjoyable and for what? To live longer? I'm not especially enamored of being really old. My Great grand moter is 103 and still going but i would never want to live that long. I wouldn't be able to see well enough to play video games or read very much eventually. I wouldn't be able to hear well enough to hold a decent conversation. I don't VALUE old age so much that i would pass up on present pleasures.

Again, why do you value nature so much? I believe it's because people have this idea of "natural is best or right" ingrained in them from birth so people always consciously or unconsciousness live and make decisions according to this philosophy.

 

Galapagos WOULD have been ideal, but it was "discovered" by man and has, of course, been raped.

They actually do tours of the Galapagos now!!
My ex-girfriend and I were going to Equador for vacation.
She suggested a boat trip down the Amazon and a picnic on Galapagos.
You can get a ticket on a chartered boat, picnic on the beach and leave your soda cans behind.

I was disgusted.

 

I put reason over nature.

 

I guess that depends on what you consider sound reasoning.

 

Re: Re: Canute, you contradict yourself

Ditto
Whats so great about mankind anyway? I don't get it.
I really don't understand people like mrhero, I can understand spurious because I get the feeling that if he could he would just as soon test on human beings. And I know he knows a fair bit about animals which makes it all the less frustrating. He knows the animals have their own lifestyles and for some reason that makes it less annoying than when people hurt and kill animals ignorantly thinking they are simple objects or playthings for the human race.

I went to the local public aquarium with my friend a while ago and he couldn't believe how big one of the crabs were, he was like "that wouldn't fit in any pot that has ever been made!! OMG!!", he couldn't understand why such a useless thing would exist. You can't cook it so whats the point of it? A surprisingly large amount of people think like this. Even though they might believe in evolution they still haven't put it all together yet.

We know every species is equally struggling to survive and has developed its own way of life to do this. Everything wants to live, so why do we make a ranking system for what deserves to live? Everything deserves to live, except us, we aren't struggling anymore, we aren't doing anything positive for the biosphere, we are damaging it and taking from it and giving as little back as possible, we even bury and burn our corpses, seemingly hiding them from the world that owns them. So just like my friend can't understand why that giant crab exists, I can't understand why homo-sapiens exist.

I honestly wish they didn't. Because I like the planet earth for what it is, or was. It deserves to "survive" more than anything just for its own sake, not "our enjoyment", I would hate to see the hundreds of millions of years of "work" that have gone down here be wasted by something as stupid as us.
I don't feel like my life or anyones life is worth that.