|
Post by Blahwolf on Jul 15, 2007 12:27:35 GMT -5
But still, there are alternatives. Laboratory tests that don't use animals, for one example. But it's all down to the money; animal testing is the cheapest (and lowest, in my opinion) means of experimentation, and if scientists can save their precious money, they will. To them, money is more important than life.
|
|
|
Post by Bluewolf on Jul 15, 2007 12:33:20 GMT -5
No offence but don't you think those scientists have feelings to? Do you think they have emotions. They have a budget to keep Blah. They get a certain amount of funding from govements. They can't go over it.
|
|
|
Post by Blahwolf on Jul 15, 2007 12:57:09 GMT -5
That's pretty much my point. Animal testing is necessary, it just boils down to the money, which I find a little sad. I think most scientists make enough money to warrant a few more 'high-tech' experiments. Some labs, one cancer association in particular, receive thousands of dollars each year from donations alone, not to mention government funding and everything else. I'm sure they have enough money to get rid of animal tests, but they refuse since its "cheap".
|
|
|
Post by Bluewolf on Jul 15, 2007 13:04:55 GMT -5
But some parts of finding a cure need live subjects. Maybe that place is wrong. But most simply can't get the money they need to have better methods. Its not their fualt.
|
|
|
Post by Iriscanine on Jul 15, 2007 19:25:14 GMT -5
I personally don't see any difference between testing a new, potentially harmful drug on a rat and testing it on a 6 month old orphan. We may say that humans are more important than animals, but this is just because we are members of the human species. This is an example of "speciesism". Just like racism, it is a term to define discrimination based solely on species. Some people used to believe that African Americans were less intelligent than others who are not. This is also the case with animals. A full-grown dog can have the same intelligence and potential for suffering as a 1 year old child. It is simply not justifiable to harm an animal if we would not do so to a human.
|
|
|
Post by thealmightyq on Jul 15, 2007 22:21:31 GMT -5
Hey after totally turning the chat with me thread into a debate with me thread over PETA, Kai thought it would be best to take this to a debate thread ^^; Anyway a few of you have your opinions of PETA, some for, some against and some well, some just love animals like many of us ^^ So have any particular views on PETA that you wish to express? I personally don't like PETA, i used to be a supporter but after learning what they were upto they rapidly fell out of my good books. If you've not seen my posts i posted a video on the happenings of PETA i'll warn you though, it contain's bad language and isn't meant to offend anyone even if they feel strongly for PETA. www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY The movement to abolish animal cruelty is something i respect but to go to extremes using violence to promote a message of peace/ anti violence to animals confuses me o.O WSPA people, they're the one's to donate to unless of course someone can shed light on me if they indeed are exploiting people's money but so far i haven't seen them use extreme violence to promote a message. Hmm. Well, considering PETA supports Peter Singer's views on the legalization of beastiality, no. I like animals though. I don't have the time to post anything more substantive (I'm against reforming the legal system so that animals are legal persons, but I do think animals should have rights to an extent. I'm not going to use the typical "Animals don't have rights, we have obligations towards animals" line that many other people in my side of the field use, because there isn't any practical difference between what I'm saying and this), so I guess I'll post something later. TheAlmightyQ
|
|
|
Post by Iriscanine on Jul 16, 2007 10:16:44 GMT -5
Hmm. Well, considering PETA supports Peter Singer's views on the legalization of beastiality, no. Can you find where on the PETA website it says that? You've said it a few times, but I don't remember reading anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by Bluewolf on Jul 16, 2007 10:21:22 GMT -5
I personally don't see any difference between testing a new, potentially harmful drug on a rat and testing it on a 6 month old orphan. We may say that humans are more important than animals, but this is just because we are members of the human species. This is an example of "speciesism". Just like racism, it is a term to define discrimination based solely on species. Some people used to believe that African Americans were less intelligent than others who are not. This is also the case with animals. A full-grown dog can have the same intelligence and potential for suffering as a 1 year old child. It is simply not justifiable to harm an animal if we would not do so to a human. Yes it is. Speciesim is not bad. It happens all the time and animals themselves do it too. If i were given the choice of 10 dogs or one human then i'd pick the human.
|
|
|
Post by Iriscanine on Jul 16, 2007 10:45:19 GMT -5
Yes it is. Speciesim is not bad. It happens all the time and animals themselves do it too. If i were given the choice of 10 dogs or one human then i'd pick the human. Saying that Speciesism is justifiable is like saying Racism and Sexism are justifiable good excuses. It's like me saying that I'd rather experiment on a man than a woman or a Hispanic rather than someone from my own race. (Which I would not by the way. This isn't meant to offend anyone.)
|
|
|
Post by Bluewolf on Jul 16, 2007 10:55:59 GMT -5
But this is animals not humans. Racism and Sexism are human things that are wrong but speciesism is by animals that don't give a damn. I mean not letting your dog eat a certain food while you do could be speciesism.
|
|
|
Post by Iriscanine on Jul 16, 2007 11:25:26 GMT -5
But this is animals not humans. Racism and Sexism are human things that are wrong but speciesism is by animals that don't give a damn. I mean not letting your dog eat a certain food while you do could be speciesism. Good point, but the thing is, speciesism is practiced by animals and humans. We should give a damn. We pride ourselves as being better than animals, but in pacticing speciesism, we are just as they are. My arguement is that we should treat animals in the same way we would people in terms of using them. How are we any different than German Nazis who experimented on Jewish people if we test on un-human animals? Some people may say that there is a difference between people and animals, but the only reason is because they are members of the human species. Speciesm is just not fair. No matter how animals prove that they are capable of suffering, it will never matter to some people. They insist upon their selfish belief that humans are superior. Animals don't need all the rights people have. They don't need free speech, freedom of religion, or the right to vote. However, they do need freedom from suffering at the hands of humans.
|
|
|
Post by Bluewolf on Jul 16, 2007 11:37:09 GMT -5
Perhaps becuase its true? I mean i doubt any other animal can cure its sick and weak. I doubt any other animal can go into space. I doubt any other animal cares what it does to other animals. That not superiorty to you?
The world is not either. Whats your point? Also, if we are just animals then why should we care? Others animals don't.
What about human suffering that could be cured. What if a major illness was cured using animal testing eh? Our suffering comes first!
|
|
|
Post by Iriscanine on Jul 16, 2007 12:12:21 GMT -5
Perhaps becuase its true? I mean i doubt any other animal can cure its sick and weak. I doubt any other animal can go into space. I doubt any other animal cares what it does to other animals. That not superiorty to you?! I apologize. I really shouldn't have used the word superiority. There is no question that humans are more intelligent than other animals. What I meant was that humans believe that their pain is the only suffering that matters. As a quote I once read goes: "The question is not can they think or can they reason, but can they suffer." I forget who said that... The world is not either. Whats your point? Also, if we are just animals then why should we care? Others animals don't. What about human suffering that could be cured. What if a major illness was cured using animal testing eh? Our suffering comes first! OK, so according to you, because the world is not fair, we can do whatever we want to. I could go down to the nearest Barnes and Noble Bookstore and take whatever I want. Who really cares? The world's not fair! As to why we should care though other animals don't, I have stated before. We pride ourselves on being superior to other animals. If we really had superior morals, we would end the use of animals. Not to mention the fact that animals simply cannot do the things we can. Rats cannot build laboratories to test on humans. Deer can't shoot people. Foxes can't build mass fur farms to wear another animal's skin. Animals do not really discrimanate against each other. They simply do what they need to to survive and pass on their genes. As for human suffering, I would sacrifice an animal as readily as I would sacrifice a human. I think experimenting on humans would create much better results and quicker cures as the results can be directly applied. If you had to sacrifice an orphan to save a thousand lives, would you?
|
|
|
Post by Bluewolf on Jul 16, 2007 12:26:22 GMT -5
Some do. Most don't. You get patterns like that all the time.
No i did not mean it like that. You can make the world fairer but it won't be perfectly fair.
We are still morally superior whether or not we use animals.
We are simply animal testing to help people survive. Oh yes, thats moral superiorty too. We help others.(not all the time but we still help others)
"Sorry Timmy. Your father died painfully because they him as a Ginny pig"
Are you insane?! No offense but do know stupid that sounds?! Why do you think no one does it on a large scale?!
Oh and on the lives thing. I'd save the thousands but since human life>animal life your example falls flat.
|
|
|
Post by Iriscanine on Jul 16, 2007 12:49:36 GMT -5
We are still morally superior whether or not we use animals. If we are still morally superior, then wouldn't we actually have decent morals? Testing on animals is morally wrong, no matter how many lives you may save. We are simply animal testing to help people survive. Oh yes, thats moral superiorty too. We help others.(not all the time but we still help others) How is testing on animals moral superiority? Are you insane?! No offense but do know stupid that sounds?! Why do you think no one does it on a large scale?! Oh and on the lives thing. I'd save the thousands but since human life>animal life your example falls flat. No, I don't think I'm crazy. ^^ Really I think testing on animals is stupid. How can you apply the results to humans (without a risk) if you test on rats? While some medicines and cures that were tested on animals, they have to be tested on humans at some point, right? So even if you kill a thousand rats, a human volunteer has to try it. Why not just skip the rats altogether? Testing on animals may narrow cures down, but it doesn't alleviate the risk. Why do you say animal life is of less significance than human life? Intelligence is no grounds for this comparison. If it were, then we could say that all mentally retarded people could be experimented upon. Is there any explanation beyond simple speciesism?
|
|