Animal Rights page 7

246 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by RedWar31:

And I thought I was good at not claiming stuff about the discussion at hand.

 
Flag Post

Ms. Vika, I posted at the end of Page 6 in case you missed my reply.

Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by RedWar31:

And I thought I was good at not claiming stuff about the discussion at hand.

Read my new post on the last page please. I wasn’t claiming anything my good man.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RedWar31:

Read my new post on the last page please. I wasn’t claiming anything my good man.

I know, I was saying that you were claiming nothing, and that I usually claim nothing, you’re just doing it a lot more than me.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by RedWar31:

Read my new post on the last page please. I wasn’t claiming anything my good man.

I know, I was saying that you were claiming nothing, and that I usually claim nothing, you’re just doing it a lot more than me.

Yeah, sorry for the mistake of not giving any citations. If you relook, I gave them this time around. But I doubt you care lol.

 
Flag Post

i have to assume that it costs more to test on humans than anything else…
which leads to my conslucion that as long as humans have more “rights”, it ok to test on others….
of course there as those unneccessary tests thats simply… unjustified according to particular sets of morals….

 
Flag Post

What was I feeding my chickens and turkeys?

Uh, food?

Why were we eating the chickens and turkeys you might have meant to ask.

We were poor, lower class people living in rural upstate NY. We sold our eggs, butchered our own animals (pigs, chickens, turkeys) and farmed the land. They were our food, bud. Think everything is just like the city life? We used to go out in the woods when I got home from school, shoot the first deer we saw, drag it back on a sled, and cut it apart. That was my childhood life for years.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by rwbstripes:

What was I feeding my chickens and turkeys?

Uh, food?

Why were we eating the chickens and turkeys you might have meant to ask.

We were poor, lower class people living in rural upstate NY. We sold our eggs, butchered our own animals (pigs, chickens, turkeys) and farmed the land. They were our food, bud. Think everything is just like the city life? We used to go out in the woods when I got home from school, shoot the first deer we saw, drag it back on a sled, and cut it apart. That was my childhood life for years.

No no, I meant what I asked.

So, let me get this straightened out if I may- you opted to spend your little money on food for the chickens and turkeys and pigs, which you then ate and in turn had to spend more money buying more chickens and turkeys and pigs. Or, you opted to spend your little money on bullets to shoot deer and spend money again on the tools to skin the body (the tools may very well have been lasting, but I know the bullets weren’t).

Did you balance your checkbook as well?

 
Flag Post

Redwar, I had to laugh a little as many city folk don’t understand farm life. The food he fed his livestock is miniscule compared to the return from the animals. You don’t just go out and butcher everything in sight. You keep some animals back for breeding, thus giving you more animals. In other words, you raise your own food with them. When you farm, you grow some of the food for yourself and some for the animals. It is a win-win situation.

Uhm, bullets…let me just say bullets aren’t always used when dispatching some animals. Deer cartridges are not that expensive, in fact I reload and that makes them even cheaper. A deer can feed a family quite a few months. Knives, maybe a hatchet and a saw (the tools you speak of) last for many years. I have “tools” I have had all of my life and recently I come into possession of two meat carving knives that are over a hundred years old and still in excellent condition.

I haven’t read this whole thread yet but I felt I should explain these things to you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Redwar, I had to laugh a little as many city folk don’t understand farm life. The food he fed his livestock is miniscule compared to the return from the animals. You don’t just go out and butcher everything in sight. You keep some animals back for breeding, thus giving you more animals. In other words, you raise your own food with them. When you farm, you grow some of the food for yourself and some for the animals. It is a win-win situation.

Uhm, bullets…let me just say bullets aren’t always used when dispatching some animals. Deer cartridges are not that expensive, in fact I reload and that makes them even cheaper. A deer can feed a family quite a few months. Knives, maybe a hatchet and a saw (the tools you speak of) last for many years. I have “tools” I have had all of my life and recently I come into possession of two meat carving knives that are over a hundred years old and still in excellent condition.

I haven’t read this whole thread yet but I felt I should explain these things to you.

You’ll have to forgive me for being in the 99 percentile of Americans not involved in agriculture (yeah, I know 99% seems like a favorite statistic of mine, but it’s true in both cases).

I knew you’d pull up the breeding argument, which is why I continue with the fact that you’ll have to feed all the babies/hatchlings now. Pigs give about 8-12 per a litter, and I assure you they won’t be tasty until they’re at least 3-4 months of age. Long time to be waiting.

It’s not a win-win situation b/c you gotta sell a portion of your produce for cash and in turn expend that cash on things such as gasoline for automobiles, insurance, food (both for you and livestock), equipment, etc….Now granted, if you have a good harvest or an extra job on hand outside your own field or some other stroke of luck/skill, you can manage yourself very well. But from what I gather about this deer hunting, ends were apparently hard to meet for Mr. Rwbstripes. So, my case rests.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RedWar31:
Originally posted by jhco50:

Redwar, I had to laugh a little as many city folk don’t understand farm life. The food he fed his livestock is miniscule compared to the return from the animals. You don’t just go out and butcher everything in sight. You keep some animals back for breeding, thus giving you more animals. In other words, you raise your own food with them. When you farm, you grow some of the food for yourself and some for the animals. It is a win-win situation.

Uhm, bullets…let me just say bullets aren’t always used when dispatching some animals. Deer cartridges are not that expensive, in fact I reload and that makes them even cheaper. A deer can feed a family quite a few months. Knives, maybe a hatchet and a saw (the tools you speak of) last for many years. I have “tools” I have had all of my life and recently I come into possession of two meat carving knives that are over a hundred years old and still in excellent condition.

I haven’t read this whole thread yet but I felt I should explain these things to you.

You’ll have to forgive me for being in the 99 percentile of Americans not involved in agriculture (yeah, I know 99% seems like a favorite statistic of mine, but it’s true in both cases).

I knew you’d pull up the breeding argument, which is why I continue with the fact that you’ll have to feed all the babies/hatchlings now. Pigs give about 8-12 per a litter, and I assure you they won’t be tasty until they’re at least 3-4 months of age. Long time to be waiting.

It’s not a win-win situation b/c you gotta sell a portion of your produce for cash and in turn expend that cash on things such as gasoline for automobiles, insurance, food (both for you and livestock), equipment, etc….Now granted, if you have a good harvest or an extra job on hand outside your own field or some other stroke of luck/skill, you can manage yourself very well. But from what I gather about this deer hunting, ends were apparently hard to make for Mr. Rwbstripes. So, my case rests.

Personally I’m not a farmer. I come from farm country though and I’m familiar with their operations. The chickens eat cracked corn and the hogs eat slop and corn. One ear of corn has 600 seeds on the cob, that is 600 new plants and 600 more ears of corn. If a farmer has his fields in corn, he can feed the animals, himself (and family) and still sell a cash crop. Sounds unbelievable, but it is how it works. Our farmers feed the world and still maintain their animals. Although, our small farms are starting to be absorbed by multinational corporations. It is sad as farming is a really good way of life.

I would bet you would love that kind of life if you had a chance to experience it. My father was a farmer and my grandfather was a mix of farming and ranching. He had a ranch that was 16 sections and 80 acres.

 
Flag Post

I would post a link, but it would be very time-consuming to post a link to every serial killer’s info. Look it up- every serial killer abused/tortured/killed animals when they were a kid. If you insist on more professional results, look up Dr. Arnold Aluke’s sociopath study or Dr. James Alan and Dr. Jack Levin’s published study, “The Will to Kill: Making Sense of Senseless Murder”.

It certainly would, I also couldn’t dig up free access to the book. So, why don’t you quote exactly where they make such an absurd claim, and exactly where they field data to it. I am not asking for full biographies, just a simple citation. It certainly is not currently the position of the FBI whose psychological work on serial killers remains the most relevant and practically sourced.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RedWar31:

I knew you’d pull up the breeding argument, which is why I continue with the fact that you’ll have to feed all the babies/hatchlings now. Pigs give about 8-12 per a litter, and I assure you they won’t be tasty until they’re at least 3-4 months of age. Long time to be waiting.

Why not just cut the crappy rhetorical approach and get to the point. Harvesting Food from Animals(excluding fishing) is compared to harvesting it from plants inefficient, if the goal is to produce as much food as possible. Since the Animals have to eat more food than they provides.

Thats a nice trivia and a common argument when it comes to the discussion if animals should or should not be used as a food source. Problem is most of humanity gives a damn about producing as much food as possible/or just as much as is necessary and more about producing food they might like to eat and having it available and affordable when they might like to eat it.

You claimed that the whole animal welfare people don´t get anything done because when they make compromises they are easily out voiced by the food industry. I would point out that they get more done than your type.
Since they are actually able to form and influence Majorities their way when it comes to political discussions and decisions. While the more radical “animals should have comparable rights to humans” proponents generally get nothing done because they are radical minorities who can´t form and influence Majorities their way when it comes to political discussions and decisions.

Most Humans just don´t believe that animals should have the same or comparable rights to that of humans. So the true argument should be about. (Why) Should or should not animals have rights. Instead of dancing around the edge of the issue.

 
Flag Post

This time I want a citation that says that only 1% of all Americans are farmers. And I Want you to post the citation saying that 99% of all serial killers and psychopaths killed animals in their past.

As for you to say whether or not we made ends meet? My mother was a hard worker who was more often than not working 6 days out of the week, my stepfather was driving trucks for Morabito well into the evening, my grandfather repaired fire trucks, and my grandmother was an accountant. You’ve no right to judge the way m family made an income. We used our animals for food, rathe than going to a grocery store. Bullets didn’t cost jack shit for a box of 30-30 in the 90’s and early 2000’s. You think the price of tools really matter? My grandfather had more than enough. We’d just use bolt cutters, an old buck knife, and a saw. We hung our own meat up to age, we butchered our own, and we slaughtered our own animals. We ate from our vegetable garden and traded meat for food from our neighbor when needed.

 
Flag Post

Dang, something happened to my long reply. Pisses me off, but give me some time to retype it later.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RedWar31:

Dang, something happened to my long reply. Pisses me off, but give me some time to retype it later.

Don’t use quotation marks (") in long posts. They seem to be responsible for this bug. I don’t know how exactly, but I am almost 100% sure that they are the culprits.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

It certainly would, I also couldn’t dig up free access to the book. So, why don’t you quote exactly where they make such an absurd claim, and exactly where they field data to it. I am not asking for full biographies, just a simple citation. It certainly is not currently the position of the FBI whose psychological work on serial killers remains the most relevant and practically sourced.

Absurd claim? Do you really think someone just up and decides to kill humans? No, it all begins in their childhood with abuse from their parents or caretakers. They either store it in their subconscious to surface later in other problems or take out their weakness on animals they can get ahold of. Not only is this simple psychology but also common sense….

Nonetheless, I’ll ignore your laziness and type out the quote from Fox and Levin’s study, which incorporated Aluke’s into theirs. I won’t put it in quotation marks cause of Mr. EPR89’s warning, but it is a passage from The Will to Kill.

-Sociologist Arnold Arluke compared the criminal records of one hundred and fifty three animal abusers with one hundred and fifty three non animal abusers and what he found in his study is that those who were animal abusers were five times more likely to commit acts of violence such as assault, rape, and murder against others. What was understood from this study is that serial killers in their childhood would resort to killing animals because they felt powerless against their parents who had control over them. Since these children did not have control in the household, they resorted to killing small animals in which they could exert their dominance and power over to do anything that pleased them

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

Why not just cut the crappy rhetorical approach and get to the point.

Cause then I’d be making a statement, not an argument.

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

Harvesting Food from Animals(excluding fishing) is compared to harvesting it from plants inefficient, if the goal is to produce as much food as possible. Since the Animals have to eat more food than they provides.

Well said.

Mr. Rwbstripes (and any other arguers) this is simple biology called the 90% rule. Each eating level in a food chain wastes 90% of the energy they intake, hence you technically only use 10%. By intaking plants, you’re getting more energy since 90% of it isn’t lost in the first trophic level (i.e. the pig or chicken or turkey).

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

Thats a nice trivia and a common argument when it comes to the discussion if animals should or should not be used as a food source. Problem is most of humanity gives a damn about producing as much food as possible/or just as much as is necessary and more about producing food they might like to eat and having it available and affordable when they might like to eat it.

The sad truth unfortunately.

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

You claimed that the whole animal welfare people don´t get anything done because when they make compromises they are easily out voiced by the food industry. I would point out that they get more done than your type. Since they are actually able to form and influence Majorities their way when it comes to political discussions and decisions. While the more radical “animals should have comparable rights to humans” proponents generally get nothing done because they are radical minorities who can´t form and influence Majorities their way when it comes to political discussions and decisions.

Influence the majorities? McDonald’s, KFC, and all those other fast food corporations have only increased their meat production since they began. What is McDonald’s selling now? 75 hamburgers a second? It used to be far lower, like 10 (don’t quote me on that).

Animal Welfare Activists (I’ll abbreviate it as AWA) have only been promoting the status quo. Here’s the problem with AWA- You’re answering that we should be kinder to animals to the question of why should we be kind to an animal if it’s just an animal. It’s like someone asking me if they can break this vase and me telling them they shouldn’t b/c it’s a vase.

AWA like Temple Grandin have in fact only worsened the situation for animals by providing new means for more animals to be slaughtered (such as that Cow Conveyor Belt BS) whilst crying that we should be kinder. It’s honestly embarassing.

Have Animal Rights Activists (ARA) been doing anything themselves? Under the banner of PETA, I’ll say no, namely b/c PETA is both hypocritical and targeting the wrong audience- older people. Education works the best for reform when it is done in one stage of a Human’s life- their childhood. Specieism, racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, etc… are all products of a child’s education through their parents and social peers. Both our groups have failed to realize this, but, by adopting this platform, AR will easily overtake AW. No one’s winning right now.

And ARA are radicals? You are sadly misinformed to label us as radicals. Are there radical ARA? Of course, the ALF and SPEAK are perhaps the more famous ones. But in every social movement, there will be radicals such as the Black Panthers with Dr. King’s civil rights or the KKK for the white supremacists. Just don’t put a blank label on every member of a group.

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

Most Humans just don´t believe that animals should have the same or comparable rights to that of humans. So the true argument should be about. (Why) Should or should not animals have rights. Instead of dancing around the edge of the issue.

That’s very wrong. Most humans do believe animals should have equal rights. In fact, every human did at one point in their lives. Society on the other hand doesn’t, and because most of us feel obligated to support this society, it appears that humans are the main problem. Note that only when the majority grow the balls to challenge and beat society does any significant change occur.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Personally I’m not a farmer. I come from farm country though and I’m familiar with their operations. The chickens eat cracked corn and the hogs eat slop and corn. One ear of corn has 600 seeds on the cob, that is 600 new plants and 600 more ears of corn. If a farmer has his fields in corn, he can feed the animals, himself (and family) and still sell a cash crop. Sounds unbelievable, but it is how it works.

That’s very interesting to know. As you put it, I’m a “City Boy” so I do not know the details regarding agriculture and an agrarian society. You dominate this field Mr. Rwbstripes, I can’t argue with that.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Our farmers feed the world and still maintain their animals. Although, our small farms are starting to be absorbed by multinational corporations.

Believe me when I say I would rather have every farm operate like yours with all the cats and deer you want to shoot rather than all these corporate farms that replace Rainforests and mass produce cows at an unhealthy rate with their hormone injections.

Originally posted by jhco50:

It is sad as farming is a really good way of life. I would bet you would love that kind of life if you had a chance to experience it. My father was a farmer and my grandfather was a mix of farming and ranching. He had a ranch that was 16 sections and 80 acres.

Mr. Rwbstripes, every city kid has romanticized fantasies of life on the other side and I am no different. Farm life sounds like it can be more frequently tough than city life, but the rewards are much better than anything working in a claustrophobic city environment could provide. I actually worked on a horse farm for a week and aside from having to clear the rocks from the fields, it was a good, healthy experience.

Originally posted by rwbstripes:

This time I want a citation that says that only 1% of all Americans are farmers. And I Want you to post the citation saying that 99% of all serial killers and psychopaths killed animals in their past.

It’s simple math to find the first # Mr.Rwbstripes. Add up all Americans involved in agriculture jobs (not including corporate agriculture) and divide it by the American population. Using the BRS’s numbers, we get:

757,900/311,591,917 = .0024 or .24%

So, it looks like I was wrong. It’s less than 1%.

I want to point out a mistake in the wording of my second statistic. It’s not that 99% of serial killers killed animals, but 99% of serial killers took pleasure in killing animals due to an internal want rather than an external need.

I doubt you’re worried Mr.Rwb, but so long as you didn’t take pleasure in killing all those cats (I’m not saying you had to feel remorse or any other emotion), you’re on the safe side.

Originally posted by rwbstripes:

As for you to say whether or not we made ends meet? My mother was a hard worker who was more often than not working 6 days out of the week, my stepfather was driving trucks for Morabito well into the evening, my grandfather repaired fire trucks, and my grandmother was an accountant. You’ve no right to judge the way m family made an income. We used our animals for food, rathe than going to a grocery store. Bullets didn’t cost jack shit for a box of 30-30 in the 90’s and early 2000’s. You think the price of tools really matter? My grandfather had more than enough. We’d just use bolt cutters, an old buck knife, and a saw. We hung our own meat up to age, we butchered our own, and we slaughtered our own animals. We ate from our vegetable garden and traded meat for food from our neighbor when needed.

I wasn’t judging Mr.Rwb, but you’re making out your situation to be one of surviving in the wilderness rather than living on the outskirts of civilization. Life seems to have turned out much better for you if you can afford shelter over your head, a computer and internet, and time to browse Kongregate forums whilst paying electricity and taxes.

P.S. To any forum manager or someone expert in this field, is it all right for me to double post if my post is gonna be really long?

 
Flag Post

My life turned out fine because I joined the army as soon as I could. I’m living with my mother in a rented house right now, working the night shift at a yogurt factory.

Living in Middleburgh in the 90’s and early 2000’s is beyond living on the outskirts. We experienced some of the harshest winters that sometimes stranded us. I’ve had helicopters bring me supplies because there was literally no way into town. Everybody out there is a farming hick to be honest.

 
Flag Post

Do you get free yogurt lol?

Well, I’m sure there some upsides to the entire prospect. Perhaps family bonding?

But Mr.Rwbstripes, I have to ask why you decided to comment on this thread. Are you asking whether or not you were justified in killing those cats or did you just want to make a statement?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RedWar31:

That is very well true, but unfortunately not a widespread idea. Perhaps you’re aware of the Tuskegee Experiments, Unit 731, or Dr. Mengele.

I would have thought you would be a supporter of such things, because they were testing on humans – unaware humans, but humans nevertheless. Your whole arguments seems to be based around the concept that treatments intended for one species should be solely tested on members of that species.

There are major problems with such an approach, not the least of which being the risk of widespread genetic damage to that particular species, but hey, you’ve been advocating it strongly all throughout your posts.

The difference between Animal experimentation and Human experimentation was that with humans, you had to have their consent. With animals, you didn’t have to have their consent (by that I mean that they could bypass any consenting requirements b/c of the language barrier, an excuse that disgusts me).

I’m glad it discusts you, because anyone who believes the sole difference between experimenting on humans versus experimenting on other animals is a language barrier, then they are severely under-educated. If that idea were true, then we could experiment freely on English speaking humans kept in cages, by Spanish-speaking workers. The language barrier would surely allow for freedom to experiment without consent, right?

But it doesn’t work that way. Thr Spanish speakers and English speakers would be able to communicate regardless of the language barrier, because their brains would both be advanced enough to allow concepts to be shared in other ways.

With other mammals, and lower orders of animal that is simply not the case. Each species has a different degree of neural development. They literally think in different ways, and most are not able to comprehend in many cases, purely abstract concepts such as consent. Literally no idea what you are talking about.

That’s not a language barrier; that’s a literal lack of ability to understand such concepts, however you try to explain them. They lack the equipment to think in the ways you are trying to make them think.

You will never get past that without experimenting on them; trying to increase their mental capability towards something that possesses the ability for abstract thought.

When we experiment on monkeys for the purpose of helping monkeys, I support that 100%.

How can you, when we cannot say for certain the monkey species is able to give informed consent, without both live experimentation and dead dissection on its brain in the first place? If it is unable to understand what consent is, how can you support experimentation on it 100% unless you are stating we don’t need consent to experiment?

I should have been more specific when I was arguing against animal experimentation, so I’m sorry for not being clearer. The only animal experimentation I am against is the ones that require any other species for the sake of humans. I hope that makes sense.

Which means you are against the experimentation on white mice and drosophila, surely? Both are animal species, one mammal one insect. Both are experimented on heavily for the sake of sentients, because one all-but lacks sentience, the other completely lacks sentience. Such experiments are almost never for the sake of the species themselves.

I should warn you that your ideas may run into conflict with the opposition that one cannot play God,

Yea, already do, regularly. Tough shit on them really. The work will continue even if we have to steamroller over such people. Too many benefits inherent insuch work, to abandon it all, and run to the mountains to hide in a cave, shivering in fear of the awesome power of the god of fire, or the god of the bright orb in the sky.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RedWar31:

Do you get free yogurt lol?

Well, I’m sure there some upsides to the entire prospect. Perhaps family bonding?

But Mr.Rwbstripes, I have to ask why you decided to comment on this thread. Are you asking whether or not you were justified in killing those cats or did you just want to make a statement?

I get free boxes of yogurt. They give us the fuck-ups.

There’s really nothing you can do with an attitude like you started off with. You trotted all over the place claiming that you were going to dominate the thread, and here we have people arguing you while you come up with 99% statistics. Am I justified in shooting those cats? Sure I am, they were nobody’s property, they were strays going around causing grief to local farmers and my family, and they were only nuisances to the environment. Especially when they gave birth.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

I would have thought you would be a supporter of such things, because they were testing on humans – unaware humans, but humans nevertheless. Your whole arguments seems to be based around the concept that treatments intended for one species should be solely tested on members of that species.

I am against them for different reasons then that- Tuskegee and Unit 731 were racially-driven and no one should have to undergo what Dr. Mengele did, especially since it involved children.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

There are major problems with such an approach, not the least of which being the risk of widespread genetic damage to that particular species, but hey, you’ve been advocating it strongly all throughout your posts.

Could you define this idea of widespread genetic damage? I am unaware of any such thing.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

I’m glad it discusts you, because anyone who believes the sole difference between experimenting on humans versus experimenting on other animals is a language barrier, then they are severely under-educated. If that idea were true, then we could experiment freely on English speaking humans kept in cages, by Spanish-speaking workers. The language barrier would surely allow for freedom to experiment without consent, right?

100%.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

But it doesn’t work that way. Thr Spanish speakers and English speakers would be able to communicate regardless of the language barrier, because their brains would both be advanced enough to allow concepts to be shared in other ways.

With other mammals, and lower orders of animal that is simply not the case. Each species has a different degree of neural development. They literally think in different ways, and most are not able to comprehend in many cases, purely abstract concepts such as consent. Literally no idea what you are talking about.

I wouldn’t go that far. Most species are capable of abstract thoughts, but the catch is only within their own species.

The thing is though, regardless of whether or not there is a language/mental barrier, a true human should be able to overcome this with empathy. To most empathy is an emotion, but to me, if you can adopt empathy as a sense, then you’re already above everyone else.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

That’s not a language barrier; that’s a literal lack of ability to understand such concepts, however you try to explain them. They lack the equipment to think in the ways you are trying to make them think.

You will never get past that without experimenting on them; trying to increase their mental capability towards something that possesses the ability for abstract thought.

Lol, understanding how the brain works is still a great mystery to humans. But hey, if you think you can do it, go for it. May I ask what company you work for?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

How can you, when we cannot say for certain the monkey species is able to give informed consent, without both live experimentation and dead dissection on its brain in the first place? If it is unable to understand what consent is, how can you support experimentation on it 100% unless you are stating we don’t need consent to experiment?

Out of all 5 topics, Animal experimentation is always the hardest for me to discuss.

I am against humans playing God, that is, by creating vaccines against diseases and such. However, I acknowledge that such practices are not gonna stop, therefore, I say that if you are gonna do it for your own species you have an obligation to do it for others.

If we are gonna extend the lifespan and immunity then we have to do it for other species, regardless of their consent, simply for the reason that they don’t get wiped out by something caused by man.

With the consent issue, I am against using an animal at all for experimentation when you are using it to help humans. With regards to its own species, I’m afraid the consent issue is void in my opinion.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Which means you are against the experimentation on white mice and drosophila, surely? Both are animal species, one mammal one insect. Both are experimented on heavily for the sake of sentients, because one all-but lacks sentience, the other completely lacks sentience. Such experiments are almost never for the sake of the species themselves.

100% against.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Yea, already do, regularly. Tough shit on them really. The work will continue even if we have to steamroller over such people. Too many benefits inherent insuch work, to abandon it all, and run to the mountains to hide in a cave, shivering in fear of the awesome power of the god of fire, or the god of the bright orb in the sky.

As you wish Miss. So long as you can find an alternate solution to overpopulation by humans, you have my support.

Originally posted by rwbstripes:

I get free boxes of yogurt. They give us the fuck-ups.

There’s really nothing you can do with an attitude like you started off with. You trotted all over the place claiming that you were going to dominate the thread, and here we have people arguing you while you come up with 99% statistics. Am I justified in shooting those cats? Sure I am, they were nobody’s property, they were strays going around causing grief to local farmers and my family, and they were only nuisances to the environment. Especially when they gave birth.

I seem to be doing pretty well IMO, regardless of my initial mistake. I cited both of my 99% statistics if you opted to read my posts.

If you just came here to make a statement rather than debate, I assure you you’re wasting your time posting on this thread.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post

Absurd claim? Do you really think someone just up and decides to kill humans? No, it all begins in their childhood with abuse from their parents or caretakers. They either store it in their subconscious to surface later in other problems or take out their weakness on animals they can get ahold of. Not only is this simple psychology but also common sense….

Yes, absurd. No, I do not think someone “just up and decides to kill humans”, but that is not the definition of either a psychopath or serial killer. The childhood abuse angle although prevalent is, not universal. You are presenting a simple psychology, yes, but one I would have to suggest is over simple. Common sense is a rather poor citation for exact figures.

Nonetheless, I’ll ignore your laziness and type out the quote from Fox and Levin’s study, which incorporated Aluke’s into theirs. I won’t put it in quotation marks cause of Mr. EPR89’s warning, but it is a passage from The Will to Kill.
-Sociologist Arnold Arluke compared the criminal records of one hundred and fifty three animal abusers with one hundred and fifty three non animal abusers and what he found in his study is that those who were animal abusers were five times more likely to commit acts of violence such as assault, rape, and murder against others. What was understood from this study is that serial killers in their childhood would resort to killing animals because they felt powerless against their parents who had control over them. Since these children did not have control in the household, they resorted to killing small animals in which they could exert their dominance and power over to do anything that pleased them

Can’t say I consider pointing out my ‘laziness’ is ignoring it, but look a citation. And upon closer review, it does not justify your statistic, awesome. I am glad we could do this. Beyond that this citation does not support your claim, I also question that size of the data sample and the method of selection – but that would be quibbling. Further I would point out the psychological basis of the treatment of animals in your example as pretty text book cause and effect. As opposed to the muddled, factually unsound correlation is causation claim you made before.

Mr. Rwbstripes (and any other arguers) this is simple biology called the 90% rule. Each eating level in a food chain wastes 90% of the energy they intake, hence you technically only use 10%. By intaking plants, you’re getting more energy since 90% of it isn’t lost in the first trophic level (i.e. the pig or chicken or turkey).

I’m skeptical again of your figures, but it does not really matter. But, worth considering that not all energy sources are accessible by us. A field of grass cannot be directly consumed, an animal grazing on said grass can.

That’s very wrong. Most humans do believe animals should have equal rights. In fact, every human did at one point in their lives. Society on the other hand doesn’t, and because most of us feel obligated to support this society, it appears that humans are the main problem. Note that only when the majority grow the balls to challenge and beat society does any significant change occur.

Crimeny. You are dictating directly what every human used to feel now? Also this is a simple logical fallacy. You suggest society teaches people to do X, without considering how X became part of that society in the first place.

I cited both of my 99% statistics if you opted to read my posts.

Nope, no you didn’t. Is this a Math obstacle, or are you just too obstinate to even acknowledge that your own sources in no way back your pie in the sky numbers?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RedWar31:

The thing is though, regardless of whether or not there is a language/mental barrier, a true human should be able to overcome this with empathy. To most empathy is an emotion, but to me, if you can adopt empathy as a sense, then you’re already above everyone else.

What is this ‘empathy as a sense’ you speak of?

Is it a belief you know what something else is feeling because you just push your mindset onto it and think how you would feel/act in that situation? That doesn’t work with women let alone other species!

Originally posted by RedWar31:

Lol, understanding how the brain works is still a great mystery to humans. But hey, if you think you can do it, go for it. May I ask what company you work for?

(This isn’t my area of expertise so sure Vika can provide a better answer but:)
Not really. Yes there are still areas we are rather stretching our knowledge in but for the most part neurology has reached a point where we understand most physical and chemical workings of the mind. Some of the more ‘abstract’ workings are still more a matter of opinion than fact but we can now see relations between emotions, sensations even (I think) moods all by just looking at areas of brain activity and chemical balances.

Originally posted by RedWar31:

Out of all 5 topics, Animal experimentation is always the hardest for me to discuss.

I am against humans playing God, that is, by creating vaccines against diseases and such. However, I acknowledge that such practices are not gonna stop, therefore, I say that if you are gonna do it for your own species you have an obligation to do it for others.

We do…
Don’t know about you but I take my dog for his booster once a year to protect him from some of the nastier canine infectious diseases out there, but I pay the bill.
Pets are vaccinated because owners pay for it, some livestock will be vaccinated if the owner believes it is worth the cost to protect them from disease, we even vaccinate wild animals where funds exist and it is feasible
The main problem is not that we don’t care to vaccinate animals, it is that all the money is in human vaccination research, development and implementation.

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:[…]worth considering that not all energy sources are accessible by us. A field of grass cannot be directly consumed, an animal grazing on said grass can.

Agreed. This should be everyone’s answer when ever people say that giving animal feed to animals just to eat them in turn is a waste. That way of thinking is an oversimplified and downright ignorant concept of what ‘food’ is. Feeding grass to a human would likely be an even bigger waste than the energy loss in growing the cow simply because grasses and plants very high in cellulose have a very low nutritional value to humans as we lack the cellulosic bacteria to break down all that cellulose, livestock we feed them to however can break the cellulose down so gain more from it.

In terms of raw energy then yes there is a loss between trophic levels, but in terms of usable energy then there is a much smaller loss, if not a gain due to different digestive physiology of the animals in question.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by RedWar31:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

I would have thought you would be a supporter of such things, because they were testing on humans – unaware humans, but humans nevertheless. Your whole arguments seems to be based around the concept that treatments intended for one species should be solely tested on members of that species.

I am against them for different reasons then that- Tuskegee and Unit 731 were racially-driven and no one should have to undergo what Dr. Mengele did, especially since it involved children.

With the consent issue, I am against using an animal at all for experimentation when you are using it to help humans. With regards to its own species, I’m afraid the consent issue is void in my opinion.

It is nice to know where you stand. Your dislike for the Tuskegee experiments was purely racism based. You have no problem using members of your own species as unwilling guineapigs in general, despite the fact that they are capable of informed consent

It is so nice to know where we stand, and also worth knowing that individuals with your code of ethics would be utterly unemployable by any reputable scientific institute today – your research would be widely condemned, and you would face criminal charges, precisely because you are denying the option of consent to lifeforms capable of making informed consent decisions.

Could you define this idea of widespread genetic damage? I am unaware of any such thing.

The genes are not codified and absolute. They respond to environmental changes. There is a slowly building pile of evidence to suggest such expression changes are indeed hereditary in nature.

One more reason to end the ‘family tree’ of any creature exposed to a process that radically alters its gene expression, unless we fully understand the nature of the changes we have wrought.

I wouldn’t go that far. Most species are capable of abstract thoughts, but the catch is only within their own species.

This sentence is pure bullshit. You are saying here:

The individuals of any species are capable of imagination and codifying abstract thoughts internally, but only in regards to members of their own species – which even linguistically, makes absolutely no sense; it does not parse.

The thing is though, regardless of whether or not there is a language/mental barrier, a true human should be able to overcome this with empathy. To most empathy is an emotion, but to me, if you can adopt empathy as a sense, then you’re already above everyone else.

As dd has already pointed out, you are projecting and anthromorphising your own internal desires onto others. You’re making shit up to conform the world to how you imagine it should operate, nothing more. Mirror neurons do not function across great differences in cognition, so you cannot even associate it with that. They only function when both sides have a similar mental architecture.

You are assuming the mental achitecture will always be similar when this flies in the face of all the solid evidence we have collected thus far. You’re using emotions instead of reason, in other words.

I am against humans playing God, that is, by creating vaccines against diseases and such. However, I acknowledge that such practices are not gonna stop, therefore, I say that if you are gonna do it for your own species you have an obligation to do it for others.

If you are that against it, may I suggest you start blowing up hospitals? You can stop the ‘ungodly’ practice of curing the sick if you kill the sick in large numbers before they can be treated. You would however, have to give up this pretense of your acting in everyone’s best interest if you do so.

As dd has already explained quite well, we don’t limit treatment to any one species, but try to innoculate and cure wherever possible. Have you heard of something called a vetenarian? It is a doctor who treats non-human sick creatures. Such a concept would not exist if we only cared about our own species.

Lol, understanding how the brain works is still a great mystery to humans. But hey, if you think you can do it, go for it. May I ask what company you work for?

Well, understanding how the brain works, is clearly a great mystery to you. However, to the rest of us, it is anything but. Whilst we have far to go yet, much of the brain’s function is already codified, and we are interfacing with it directly. Two-way communication between the brain’s direct thoughts and subconscious impulses, and our machines, with both understanding one another. Such would simply not be possible if the brain really was ‘a complete mystery’.

Specifically, we are aware that higher thoughts – abstract thoughts, imagination, sense of self, et al, only exists in the cortex of the brain. As the cortex grows larger and more complicated, with a greater number of specialised divisions, so the quality of such thought increases. Conversely, as the cortex simplifies and specialised processing regions disappear, so the abilities of the mind as a whole diminish greatly. Below the cortex, the mid-brain is mostly about memory storage, the encoding of the brain, syntax parsing and ‘compilation’ for lack of a better term, housekeeping and the like, whilst the hind-brain controls the body itself.

Whilst we cannot say what any given neuron does, yes we can tell exactly what the purpose of a given area is, and study it in real-time via fMRI, ECoG or EEG, as the neurons light up in sequence, processing a given task. We can monitor the existence (or lack thereof) of dreams and abstractions in real-time. We are fully aware of which brains are capable of such things, which are not, and why.

As to my employers, I cannot see why that is of any relevance whatsoever, but I will humor you. Touch Bionics, specialists in connecting smart prosthetic limbs to the body, which engage in two-way communication with the brain.

As you wish Miss. So long as you can find an alternate solution to overpopulation by humans, you have my support.

Why should I need to find ‘solutions’ for that? It will solve itself. Too many humans, means not enough food and drinkable water to go around, resulting in a natural cull. Don’t try to fix what is not broken.