|
Post by Bluewolf on Jul 16, 2007 12:59:13 GMT -5
So if 10,000 dogs died so that 4 million humans would live it would still be wrong? Oh and our morals are still better than animal despite that fact that we are do testing.
The reason that we do it is so that fellow humans can survive. This includes people we have never seen before as animals would not.
Beacuse all the dead rats helps work out what would bits of the cure would do more harm then good to the human body.
But they are still humans and Human Life> Animal Life.
No really. But thats not a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Iriscanine on Jul 16, 2007 13:08:42 GMT -5
You keep using the same excuse. It really isn't even a valid one. You can't even give me any solid proof or justification.
I see that this isn't really going anywhere on either side. You believe it's OK. I believe it's wrong. Obviously neither of us is going to give in. I've made my point. You've made yours. I'm really getting sick of arguing. I never really did like debates. ^^ I respect your opinion and can sort of see your point of view (though I still believe it's wrong).
|
|
|
Post by Bluewolf on Jul 16, 2007 13:27:09 GMT -5
You keep using the same excuse. It really isn't even a valid one. You can't even give me any solid proof or justification. I see that this isn't really going anywhere on either side. You believe it's OK. I believe it's wrong. Obviously neither of us is going to give in. I've made my point. You've made yours. I'm really getting sick of arguing. I never really did like debates. ^^ I respect your opinion and can sort of see your point of view (though I still believe it's wrong). To be fair neither have you. Has anyone got anything to add to this?
|
|
|
Post by Blahwolf on Jul 16, 2007 15:11:47 GMT -5
I think we're starting to wander into the 'bashing' areas of debate there.
I still have my opions as well, but I won't state them for fear of starting this whole thing up again. This is another reason I hate sticking my neck into stuff like this.
|
|
Fuzzy
Pup
MILK MIIIILK
Posts: 97
|
Post by Fuzzy on Jul 16, 2007 19:00:20 GMT -5
As for the whole superiosity i doubt any organism is superior over the other, we're just using our skills in order to survive, thats how i basically see it. The wolf will use his sense of smell, his teeth, his hearing, his endurance to claim his prize, we use the tools we have been given to ensure our survival and we also help other specie's survival too. I'm not saying that makes us better it just means unlike other animals we need not worry about finding food/shelter/mating we can move onto doing other things like preventing illnesses, animals don't have that luxuary but given the chance perhaps they would seek out cures too? If not to help the individuals survive but perhaps their pack etc? Really though we're all animals living on the earth using our own special abilities in order to survive. Sure some tests seem unnessisary and pointless, a lot of things people do seem that way too but it happens and sadly i doubt the world will change to become a 'better place' where everyone gets along, no matter how many people sit infront of a building and protest or catch the active rapists, terorists, manicaics etc. there will always be those that slip through the cracks. I've kind of lost my point in amongst that waffle so in short we're just doing what we do to survive like any othe ranimal. Hope that makes sense ^^
|
|
|
Post by thealmightyq on Jul 17, 2007 18:02:30 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 that 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.) Don't worry, Robyn. I can totally understand where you're coming from. I used to view things the exact same way, but my views have changed somewhat. Still though, the things that I've read because of you have definitely changed my view of animals quite a bit. I think animals are definitely a beautiful, wonderful addition to our world. Your insights have led me to places intellectually where I never thought I would be. I never thought I would be a vegetarian! (Yeah, I eat fish, but I'm going to stop when I turn eighteen. Until then, I'm eating them...parental orders.) At the same time though, there are specific reasons why I do not believe animals can be considered equal with human beings. When I say considered equal, I do not mean ontologically (that means equal in essence, kind of. Like when the Bible says God made "man, male and female He created him," it does not affirm that there is no difference between men and women, just that men and women are ontologically equivalent.), I mean that animals and humans can not be considered in action to be equal, for practical reasons. From a Christian perspective, I do not believe animals and humam beings are equal under any circumstances. I hope to explain my secular argument and then my Christian argument, in that order, so you can see what I believe and why I believe it. At the same time, I hope I can get a better glimpse into what you believe and why you believe it. That sounds fun, no? Many of the arguments that anti-animal rights people simply do not hold up on their own. The "animals are not conscious" dance is one of those. The "animals are amoral" thing doesn't work either. (The fact that animals have codes of conduct has been proven scientifically again and again, as almost everyone here would know, since wolves are a prime example). Now, there are two main views of morality that exist in our world. There is the view or moral absolutism, and there is the view of moral relativism. There are also other "splits" in moral views, to be specific, individual-oriented morality and group-oriented morality. I plan to address the situation that we have with animals in all of these worldviews and see (well, so you can see what I believe and why I believe it why I don't think animals can, under practical circumstances, be equal with human beings. First up: Moral relativism. This is the view of morality that morals are relative; they differ from individual to individual and are imaginary behavior codes projected by our minds. In this view, no action or situation can be considered objectively wrong, since the moral scale used to judge every action or situation is itself relative. The implications of this view should be considered obvious. Obviously, animal cruelty as a moral evil is not something that objectively exists. There is no such thing as a "right" view and a "wrong" view of the situation here. There is, though, one objection raised by moral relativists to what I just stated. It is that if morals are relative, then there is no practical difference than if morals are absolute, and because there is no evidence for moral absolutes, one should logically choose moral absolutism, and you do have the right to be an animal rights activist, if you choose. There is a flaw in this argument though. Basically, it requires us to treat morals that are relative like they are absolute even though they are relative. If I try to impose my view of morality on someone else, I am treating it like it is something that exists outside of my brain that can be logically "forced onto" other beings. It makes us assume that our views are "right" even though there is nothing objective to point to here. There is another objection raised by moral relativists, and the main problem with this objection is that it is a case of hurling elephants. (What it means to hurl an elephant is that the arguing subject assumes an entire set of presuppositions to be true, and then throws out an argument based on those presuppositions, even though those presuppositions are themselves also under debate.) Basically, it goes like this: Many things that exist in this world which we treat as absolutes are things that themselves do not exist. For example: The equator. We treat it as if it really is a line that splits the Earth into northern and southern hemispheres and wraps itself around the planet. These are decided by moral contract (two parties agreeing on something and then promising to behave according to the stated terms), so moral contract for deciding what morals are right and wrong is not logical. This argument falls for a very specific reason: It ignores the fact that we make these contracts based on an absolute morality. Whenever we make an agreement, we hold that it is morally incorrect to violate the agreement except under specific circumstances. These are typically enforced by an agreement that the violating party will be punished. To assume, however, that morality is relative, means that the contracts we make are only enforced by the threat of getting hurt. It is hoped that these will make us follow the contract, but even then, our imaginary mindsets will still alter how we react to these contracts. Christians wanted to become martyrs in the face of persecution in Roman times, so the Roman moral contract that every citizen of the Roman empire must worship the emperor did not work, nor was it objectively moral either. In other words, the fear of getting hurt is the only thing enforcing our contracts, and even then, there is no guarantee that we will keep them for that reason. Everything we do and decide is inherently empty of force, and therefore, there is no specific reason that we must treat animals like we treat human beings. Of course, you may be thinking, "the moral relativist position still makes it so that nothing about our world is changed if this view is held." Actually, that's wrong, too. Why? Well, then it means that it isn't illogical to say "I'm not going to do this because it's wrong." In moral relativism, that is an empty statement with no meaning that can easily be changed simply by believing that the action isn't wrong. In moral absolutism, though, that can be an accurate, objective statement about our world. Trust me: Many people see this, and it will affect how these people act, behave, and think in real life. Conclusion: In the moral relativist worldview, there is no specific reason why we should give animal rights except what we as individuals arbitrarily decide to view as being right, wrong, or optimally "functional" in our interaction with the world. Since this is arbitrary, any decision to be an animal rights activist is also arbitrary, and PETA's views are also arbitrary. I'll write my analysis of the absolute situation later.
|
|
|
Post by thealmightyq on Jul 17, 2007 19:28:13 GMT -5
Well, I tried to go to sleep (I have a pretty high fever), but I couldn't. I'm far too tired to think enough to continue with my analysis of animal rights, so I'll just answer a question someone posed here to me earlier. Iriscanine, I'll be honest, I read the thing about PETA supporting Peter Singer's legalization of bestiality from a second-hand source. It may not be true. I apologize for gullibly accepting information without questioning its validity. However, Peter Singer most definitely supports the legalization of many forms of bestiality. He is only against forms that harm animals or people physically. You can read Peter Singer's highly disgusting article (it has some graphic descriptions of human/animal sexual interaction) supporting his views here: www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.aspWarning to those here: This article supports a very liberal view of human sexual interaction with animals and contains some overly graphic material about this topic. If you get queasy when you read about this sort of thing, do not read this article.
|
|
|
Post by thealmightyq on Jul 17, 2007 19:36:18 GMT -5
As for human suffering, I would sacrifice an animal as readily as I would sacrifice a human. If you don't mind me asking, why exactly is this? Animals are extremely limited in what they can offer to society or to the world. They can help the animals and humans they are in immediate contact with have better lives, but only if they are in immediate contact with them. Most human beings, however, have a level of potential regarding the "goodness" they can offer to the world that is much, much higher than almost any animal. It is, after all, human beings (animal rights activists) who are trying to make life better for animals and are capable of having success to this end. The average human infant has a lot more potential than the average chimpanzee infant. So, why not choose the human over the chimpanzee? Ok, I'm done for the night, folks. You all are enjoyable to talk to! See you later! TheAlmightyQ
|
|
|
Post by Kai on Jul 17, 2007 21:13:36 GMT -5
Wow it seems you guys have really taken to this dicussion.
Here is my opinion. There is no arguing the fact that humanity is more powerful than any other species at the moment. But as a die-hard Spiderman fan I have to go with Uncle Ben here. With great power comes great responisblity. It is our duty to protect animals. Yet is seems most of humanity would rather not. What are we waiting for? For all animals to die out? Would that get the lesson kicked into our minds?
|
|
|
Post by thealmightyq on Jul 17, 2007 21:41:23 GMT -5
Wow it seems you guys have really taken to this dicussion. Here is my opinion. There is no arguing the fact that humanity is more powerful than any other species at the moment. But as a die-hard Spiderman fan I have to go with Uncle Ben here. With great power comes great responisblity. It is our duty to protect animals. Yet is seems most of humanity would rather not. What are we waiting for? For all animals to die out? Would that get the lesson kicked into our minds? Hi Zoe! Nice to see you here. Woops, gotta go. Can't write anything more substantive. Adios! TheAlmightyQ
|
|
|
Post by Blahwolf on Jul 17, 2007 21:56:00 GMT -5
However, Peter Singer most definitely supports the legalization of many forms of bestiality. He is only against forms that harm animals or people physically. You can read Peter Singer's highly disgusting article (it has some graphic descriptions of human/animal sexual interaction) supporting his views here: www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.aspWarning to those here: This article supports a very liberal view of human sexual interaction with animals and contains some overly graphic material about this topic. If you get queasy when you read about this sort of thing, do not read this article. Oh, you have got to be kidding me. I think I'm officially sick of the human race. Yes, sick! I don't really want to get into this subject too much because I know I'll end up breaking rules if I do, but how could people even think of wasting and abusing their sexual power on an animal? To me, it's just wrong, sick, disgusting, disturbing, and any other similar adjective that I can't think of off the top of my head. Now if you'll all excuse me, I'm going to go cleanse myself. Anywho... I agree with Kai as well. Humans can be lazy, there's no doubt about that. Then again, we've already screwed up the earth enough as it is, so letting an entire species die out really wouldn't surprise me all that much. OK, I think I've bashed enough humans for one day ^^
|
|
|
Post by Iriscanine on Jul 18, 2007 21:06:32 GMT -5
The article is blocked on my computer, so I can't read it. I think Peter Singer is a great man with outstanding morals. Except for this. Thealmightyq, you have told me about this and I find it abhorrent. I have no idea what Mr. Singer was thinking when he condoned this or fought to make it legal. I am ashamed of him. I've read his book Animal Liberation, and it is eloquent and thought-provoking. But this is just crazy and sick...
I wouldn't think PETA would support it, though. Their motto is something like: animals are not ours to wear, experiment on, eat, or use for entertainment. Wouldn't Peter Singer's legalization of bestiality be under one of those categories? Plus, Peter Singer is not an official PETA spokesperson. They can't control what he did with the morals he used to have.
Thealmightyq, to answer your question. I do not think living things should be judged on what they can offer to the world or their potential to do good. I think they should have the right to not suffer, no matter what they could do for humanity or animal-kind. To bring up an argument I used before, people with severe mental retardation really cannot contribute to society, so why not experiment on them? (No offense meant to anyone.)
I would not rather the human to experiment on than the chimpanzee. I don't think any feeling, sentient creature (humans, dog, or rat) should have to go through pain for a chance that they might be helping humanity.
|
|
|
Post by Kai on Jul 18, 2007 21:47:59 GMT -5
I think I'm officially sick of the human race. Yes, sick! I think most of us here are. I mean when you are a child, you are taught the world is a nice, happy place and that you will do wonderful things for it. But then you realize or are told that infact the world sucks and that you will mostly likely be nothing more than another average worker. If your spirts are crushed by this, you get laughed at when you try to keep it up and reach high. For such an 'advanced' species we seriously are fucked up. (Please pardon the language, but it is true.) Sometimes I just want to scream and shout, 'I'm not like you! I want to be different, I want to be sane! I don't want to be human!' I rebel and push against anything I can, trying to create some control. And the more I fight the harder it gets to get peace. True, I get some control, but it comes at a heavy price. I wish the world didn;t suck so much. It just seems that every step we go forward, we realize that we are two steps farther back than we thought. It's a never end process.
|
|
|
Post by thealmightyq on Jul 19, 2007 0:57:02 GMT -5
The article is blocked on my computer, so I can't read it. I think Peter Singer is a great man with outstanding morals Except for this. Thealmightyq, you have told me about this and I find it abhorrent. I have no idea what Mr. Singer was thinking when he condoned this or fought to make it legal. I am ashamed of him. I've read his book Animal Liberation, and it is eloquent and thought-provoking. But this is just crazy and sick... The ironic thing is, without a theistic (theism is the belief in god or gods) viewpoint, there is literally no reason for believing that Peter Singer is wrong, except for arguments that assume the premise from the starting point. Why not? When a murderer or Hitler offers evil to the world, why can't we judge them for that? You are thinking with an individualist-centered morality that, in my opinion, can not be applied to most of the animal world. I'll get to that later though. (my analysis will be pretty long, as you can tell by my previous part of that, so I'll post that part tomorrow or so). Under all circumstances? I think animal experimentation is, for the most part, absolutely wrong. I still don't think animals, for the most part, deserve the same amount of rights as humans. I'll explain my position more fully tomorrow. Hmmm. I agree that most forms of animal experimentation are unnecessary, cruel, and generally require heartless people given to obeying authority without question to perform such abhorrent procedures. If, however, I had to choose between experimenting on a human or experimenting on an animal (let's just say the world would blow up if I chose neither ), I would choose the animal. Although I will admit that right now I'm kind of blowing bubbles if I haven't fully articulated what my position is and why I believe it (I would hope that my position would be more logical than those who say that "I support factory farming because it makes tasty meat" sort of people, but who knows; I don't always think things out. ) Nice talking with you. TheAlmightyQ
|
|
|
Post by thealmightyq on Jul 19, 2007 1:05:50 GMT -5
I think I'm officially sick of the human race. Yes, sick! I think most of us here are. I mean when you are a child, you are taught the world is a nice, happy place and that you will do wonderful things for it. But then you realize or are told that infact the world sucks and that you will mostly likely be nothing more than another average worker. If your spirts are crushed by this, you get laughed at when you try to keep it up and reach high. For such an 'advanced' species we seriously are fucked up. (Please pardon the language, but it is true.) Sometimes I just want to scream and shout, 'I'm not like you! I want to be different, I want to be sane! I don't want to be human!' I rebel and push against anything I can, trying to create some control. And the more I fight the harder it gets to get peace. True, I get some control, but it comes at a heavy price. I wish the world didn;t suck so much. It just seems that every step we go forward, we realize that we are two steps farther back than we thought. It's a never end process. No offense, but its attitudes like this that serve to create the view that we are separate from our fellow human beings, which just creates more of the conflict, bitterness, and resentment that we are sitting here complaining about. We need to be loving to others and lovingly point out the errors in other people's behaviors and actions. Oftentimes doing this is absolute heck for the person trying to be loving (trust me, I'm proof of this, because oftentimes I was the one creating the "heck"! ), but we have to remember that we have oftentimes been guilty of the same pitfalls we despise so much in others. To quote the Bible:
Ecclesiastes 7:20-22
20 There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.
21 Do not pay attention to every word people say, or you may hear your servant cursing you-
22 for you know in your heart that many times you yourself have cursed others.
The first step to solving the problem of evil in the world is solving it as best as we can in our hearts.
just my two cents
TheAlmightyQ
|
|