hey!!! don't get all defencive there buddy!!!!! kg- i never questioned your compassion, because you at least look at both sides before arguing. it wasn't an insult but a question that i pose to all people.
JUST to clarify the issue of animal rights, it doesn't apply ONLY to animal testing for diseases and cures. I think it's beside the point; my point is that most people in this society choose to take the easy argument (it's me over them!!!!) with out looking wholistically. most people carry the attitude that they are superior to animals; devaluing the overall respect of all living creatures.
So fine; for once i'll try to see it from itln's and marines point of view: Man has the right to exist before all living creatures and anything we deem to do to them or for ourselves can be justified because of this evolved postition.
I'd like to agree but while ecosystems are being destroyed to comidate the exponentially expanding population of humans we hold so "valuable", and as long as this view is not confronted and a symbiotic (mutually beneficial) relationship with nature is valued, we will consume everything.
MAN IS RULER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!!! survival of the fittest and all that; when all wildlife is desimated because of what we've "accomplished", YOU can sit back and say "the ends justify the means" (smiling to yourself because medical leaps have allowed Uncle harry to get it up and aunt bessy to remove her mostache); i feel it's a moral imperative to confront this issue before it's to late, and i refuse to believe that it's mans destiny to destroy the planet....maybe we'll evolve to something better than this primitive deduction that most seem to agree with....... or not.
Lets see, what have animal accomplished? Breeding. What hase mankind accomplished? Everything we see. Animal life is not as valuable as our life and should be treated as such.
I havn't given them credit or human characteristics. It was just a thought, which interested me. Anyhow, back to the subject. I value (most)human life over that of animals, and I do not object to humane as possibe animal testing for cures to lethal diseases, ect. Do I think animals should be killed so that Olay can have a better face cream? No. That sort of thing is BS, to put it lightly. Crap, getting off topic again. My point with the comparasin is that living beings operate on different levels. In comparisin to the below mentioned aliens, they would see us as mice. We'd be killed in labs and expirimented on, and I'm sure that various animal rights groups on the planet would protest using humans in tests, complete with pickit signs, outside the labs. Since we are mice to them, they would see us as unintelligent creatures, and not care to much about how much pain we suffered, ect. Since literal mice are like that to us, who is to say that they are only mice to us? What is their "mouse"?
quote:how can you have compassion for mankind, if you don't have it for all living entities?
if my sister and a total stranger were trapped in a fire and i could only save one, i would save my sister. my "compassion" that you call into question is stronger towards that which i relate to more, towards that which i have stronger feelings for, and towards that which i respect more. does this mean that i take some perverse pleasure in killing animals? no, i don't. however, i am not ready to elevate an animal's status to my own. i do not equate animals with humans, however i do now equate them with rocks either. i do not agree with unnecssary, inhumane treatment of animals; however, i believe that sacrificing rats to advance our knowledge does not conflict with my values of compassion.
i hate getting into arguments based upon "nature" because it's all subjective anyways. the argument that animals only kill for food and therefore mankind should adhere to those same "natural" rules is absurd. mankind's domination over the animal kingdom is not based upon anything physical, it's based upon the evolution of the mind. as someone wrote before, although i'm not sure what their point was, dogs can smell better than us, cheetahs can run faster than us, etc. - nature's "rules" are all about utilizing your advantages over others (in my mind, as well as darwin's and italian's). hence, using animals to expand knowledge is as "natural" as using animals to eat. if you're going to complain that humans shouldn't test on animals, say that it goes against your belief of what's right, say that it is an unneccessary waste of life, but when you say that it's "unnatural" it just means that you have a completely different understanding of the word.
quote:as for a sickness or disease that i probably will catch... prolonging death is not the same thing as stopping it, and i see no reason not to let nature take its course.
do you disagree with the use of antibiotics? how about the use of aspirin for alleviating "natural" pain? are you telling me that if your parents had parkinson's disease and you could regrow their neurons using rat nerve cells as templates that you would refuse? wow, and you call my compassion into question?
Italian,do you have a pet animal.Would you agree with human test subjects bieng bred and tested on while still alive and under no anestetic and the subject bieng murderd,if no then you still arent seeing things from an animals point of view.Survival shouldant be the main goal of the human race.Breeding animals to test on doesant make making them suffer any more right does it.
super computers.......advanced communication systems?!?!?!?! the brain is a supercomputer, and the billions of nuerons that connect to your bodies nerves are so sophisticated that man can hardly explain it. THis is what nature has accomplished/ even the first unicellular life form is miraclulous and awesome, accomplishing unbelievable feats. A dog is superior to us in smelling; A bat and dolphin are superior to us in commuicating; it's all relative man.
and i'm sorry if you interpreted the tree moss thing as an insult;i'm just saying that a tree moss is alive, and has a right to live.... just like you, your mother, the 5 million rats, every Mcdonald cow and chicken, every amoeba and alien life form outside our solar system; it seems to be the law of nature.
Pie has made the best case scenerio for people of your mentallity (not an insult). Superiority complexes seem to stem from the thinking that we own the universe when in actuallity your just as much apart of it as everything else.
as for a sickness or disease that i probably will catch; OH NOOOOOOOO. you mean, you mean to tell me that one day......................... i'm going to die!?!?!?!??!??!??!? AND MY PARENTS TOO?!?!??! prolonging death is not the same thing as stopping it, and i see no reason not to let nature take its course. (yes, even you will die one day my friend). I've gotton over myself.
Let me also pose this question to kg and itln; how can you have compassion for mankind, if you don't have it for all living entities? Maybe thats why the world is the way it is today....man is at war with himself and the world.
Pie: Your comparison is flawed. We humans breed animals to be tested. It's not like we are damaging the animal population at all. If an alien race took over the planet and did not breed humans for destruction, then they would eventually exhaust all of their resources with no recourse. And if this alien race did breed humans for destruction, then I would of course be upset. However, I would also be biased. We must remember that we are not animals, yet we have found a balance to live with them. You give these animals too much credit. They are not human therefore you should stop giving them human charateristics.
Are you saying that you would reject animals testing and sacrifice humans to die horrible deaths? Many cancer patients and AIDS patients die slow painful deaths. If testing animals could help cure these diseases, then we should test. I can't understand why you would put the lives of animals above your own.
Brucelee: Why don't you find me a real defination for hick. Wait a minute, I already did that. My definitions of a hick are the true ones. The one that you gave is not a hick, but merely is your own interpretation. And I will continue to take offense to that for I am intellegent and calling me a hick ultimately insults my intellegence. Now, if you could understand what you write before you write it, then you would save us all from your incompetency, and make you look less like a fool. As for Pie's comment, just go ahead and read what I posted to Pie.
way2foxy: Again, I thank you for your rational discussion on the issue at hand. However, you have proven my point. Humans have been able to advance to a highly sophisticated and advanced state, while animals are, for all practical purposes, still in the primative when it comes to defensive and whatnot. Although they have their instincts, they can not possibly defend against any human attack. They lack the capability to unite an army for example to fend back us human oppresors. So while among themselves, they do not require anything advanced, they do while in the presense of humans.
ok. maybe ur right about the buffalo and the bomb. but on the same note, animals have no need for anything of that sort. we as humans have had to much time on our hands and we invented things. but animals are perfectly content not using a toliet, or not having a shelter 24-7. animals like to be outside, they adapted with sensitive hearing, and instinct to be warned when danger is coming. and humans have adapted by long range radar and missiles.
Italian,if you find me calling you a hick offensive you are obviously not as intelligent as you make out,I was reffering to another meaning for hick,in old farming communities a hick was a person who used to buy animals for medical testing,I have nothing against animals bieng killed for proper testing,what i have a problem with is the way humans make them suffer,and humans killing animals for pointless experiments and vivisection(the disection of animals while they are alive and under no anestetic) you have no empathy towards these animals,please read pie's scenario.
Just on a side note, assuming that we were taken over by an alien race and we are to them what mice are to us, would any of the Italion Stallion types out there support their actions if they were to expiriment on us in labs, and kill us and the such? All in order to find a cure to one of their diseases? Just a thought.
Well, well, well. It seems that the majority of people in here need to personally attack me when I disagree with their views. How sad. Unfortunately, I can back up my claims, and defend myself against your attacks using reason instead of insults, so here I go.
Brucelee: So, I'm a "hick" am I? And what exactly classifies me as a "hick?" Well, the dictionary defines a hick as someone who is regarded as gullible or provincial, meaning unsophisticated. Do I really fit that description to you from the few paragraphs, which I have written? In may opinion, I reflect my views in a more intelligent manner than yourself, however, you do not see me calling you a hick, but let's get back to your response. Well, I never said that hamsters were going to take over the world and I don't know how you came to that conclusion. What I am saying is that we need to maintain our dominance over this planet. By exploiting animals to testing for cures, we insure our dominance by killing diseases in our society. We need not fear the takeover by any being of this planet for the humans are the most intelligent beings on this planet. However, with diseases widespread in our world, we must find ways to eliminate them, before they eliminate us. For all we know, an outbreak of any virus could be on the way, so we must develop ways to protect ourselves from that threat. I do not believe that I am a paranoid person, but I congratulate you on your ability to assume things, which you do not know.
VEGanqueen: Please read my response to Brucelee as it applies to your post as well. In addition, comparing my views to that of the white supremacists during the civil rights movement is absurd. First of all, we are talking about two separate things. My view pertains to dominance and perseverance of our species, while your comparison deals with dominance among our species. Two very different things. You seem to classify humans and animals as one in the same with this comparison. And if this is true, then that's truly sad. But if I am incorrect, please correct my faults. As I have said before, our treatment of these test animals should not matter. The end justifies the means.
sinope: Do you really think that as a 19 year old, my brain has not advanced past the point of a third grader? I find that disturbing, and at the same time, I must tell you that you are mistaken. I do understand that all life is interconnected, but that is not relevant at all to what we are discussing. As I have said, these test animals are bred for destruction. Therefore there is no altering of the life web or circle of life. To the outside world, these creatures do not even exist. Life goes on outside of the test labs just as normal, for there is no disturbance. Also, the development of the human race throughout history is extraordinary. Much more so than my own DNA. Look at what we have accomplished. What animal species on our planet can say that they built a super computer or an advanced communications system, which can access all across the world? Humans are the only species that I know of that have accomplished these feats. I find it amusing that you base your knowledge of the world on a 1996 Disney movie entitled, the Lion King. Furthermore, I find it sad that your best insult is that I am no more advanced than tree moss. And yes, I would gladly sacrifice 5 million rats to save one human life. What if your mother or father was terminally ill, and a cure was just around the corner with more animal tests. Would you so willingly throw your parents lives away to save a few rats? If this is the case, than that is very sad and very disturbing. This will show that you have more compassion for animals than you do for your fellow man. Hey, if the sacrifice of 5 million rats could save your life, wouldn't it be worth it? I don't even know you and I can tell you the obvious answer. Yes. And I have read Darwin's theories and that's what I base my conclusions upon. Have you?
way2foxy: You are right. We shouldn't have to kill animals inhumanely. However, if there ever was a need to do so, don't you think it would be worth it to save lives? That's all I'm saying. If inhumane treatment can be avoided, than it should be by any means possible. However, if there ever was a need for inhumane treatment to develop a cure, than we should use it. Also, as for the most intelligent race, we are just that, at least on this planet. That was the reference I was trying to make. We don't know if there is other life out there in the galaxy, but for our small world, the human race claims superiority. Yes, animals can think for themselves, to a degree. But look at the human race and compare it to the animal kingdom. If we were to drop a nuclear weapon upon a herd of buffalo, they would all die. Word of the destruction would spread to the other herds. Then, 50 years later we drop another nuclear weapon on another herd, they would again all perish. However, we drop a bomb on Hiroshima. Now, we have highly advanced computer systems to detect launches so that the public can be warned so that what would be great disaster only claims the lives of a few. Humans have the unique ability to use technology to adapt to their environment where as the animal kingdom lacks that ability and technology. A slightly twisted analogy, however, it conveys my point. I thank you and kg for refraining from attacking my intelligence and myself. Kudos to you!
Simple argument; sickness is natural; death is natural; industrial farms and genetic corporations to preserv3 A SINGLE LIFE is not.
Murder is not. (hunting? sure\ killing for protection? surelly\ destruction of ecosystems for financial status... not so sure). help me feel bad for dying people again? screw it, lets make another species extinct so i can eat McDonalds.
itallion, I was reading further what you wrote to brucelee. And I must beg to differ on a few things. First, whos to say that we (as humans) are the smartest? we have yet to find out if there is life “out-there?” and if so, they must be more advanced. But thats drifting from the topic.
quote:Also, would you say that when a falcon grabs a praire dog and mulitates it for the sake of food or otherwise is humane? Yes, becauseits the way of nature. Sure it is grotesque, but at the same time it serves a purpose. In this same way, animal testing serves a purpose to advance our race.
Its not in the same way. Testing animals is not natures way. I'm not saying its wrong, because of the millions upon millions that have been saved. But killing it in the same way the falcon killed the praire dog, or even close to it, is wrong. Animals can think for themselves, how do you think they survive? And besides that, most animals are willing to please their master. As well as the fact that they are penned up in a testing lab; domesticated.
I can see you point about killing many animals to help atleast one person. But inhumanely, no. They are going to give their lives for us, and (as I said before) animals have given us so much, its the least we can do to treat, more or less kill, them humanely.
This message is in regards to Kalashini's post. Students really aren't aware of the way that these animals are acquired. I know more about the dogs and cats that find their way on the biology room table, than rats, mice, and pigs. There is atrocity that is occurring all around America, especially in suburban US. Pets that are left outside, without supervision, often fall victim to pet theft. These thieves usually work for companies that sell and distribute experimental animal specimens. These animals are literally stolen from their neighborhoods, taken to warehouses and killed: usually by carbon monoxide poisoning, and other cruel methods. One community in Michigan was swept clean of all of their cats (approx. 200) in a week! This was the work of a type of company previously mentioned. So, the main point I'm trying to make is: watch and protect your pets. Their are people out there that want to take them away, and make them suffer an immeasurable amount of pain.
Most schools offer alternatives to dissection. If your school doesn't, contact the American Anti-Vivisection Society. They have a plethora of animal dissection alternatives.
2dai we had 2 do a rat dissection in Biology. i didn't want 2 do it so i didn't but it made me think about how cruel people can be...i mean is it really necessary to kill all those rats just so our year10 bio class can see what a real digestive system looks like? i mean do we REALLY need to know what a F*** rat intestine looks like? its pretty disgusting...the way people can be so selfish. apparently, they died "humanely" but what for?
quote:WE ARE NOT THAT SPECIAL, so stop telling me that we're a biological miracle better than any other LIVING ORGANISMS
i believe that italian's point is that the human race is special, as evidenced by their domination over virtually all other multicellular species. if you equate domination w/ greatness, as italian does, then i believe that he has a strong argument for mankind's superiority. however, if you define greatness as ability to possess a sentient identity, then i believe that animals and humans are much closer in terms of being "special."
i personally find is difficult to believe that people will treat animals humanely when they are already willing to abuse other people. but if you believe in the cause, keep fighting - it's a refreshing display of activism.
itln stln- i think you need to go back to 3rd grade and study life webs and maps. All things are dependent on ALL other forms of life, in some way shape and form. All interconnected and delicate. It's a balance of nature at work, a teeter totter that efficiantly and delicately works itself out......from phytoplankton, to zooplankton, to whales and apes and plants, all life coexists together; and destroying even a thread will LOGICALLY affect all other threads.
i think that the superiority complex that plagues mankind is just alleviating ourselves from responsibility of the damage we've done.
WE ARE NOT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE. i wish you wouldn't put so much accomplishment in human progress....... the progress of mitochondria or DNA in your cells is more progress than the human race can even fathom. WE ARE NOT THAT SPECIAL, so stop telling me that we're a biological miracle better than any other LIVING ORGANISMS, just because we breathe, eat, procreate, communicate(how can you convince yourself that social animals don't communicate w\another), and even feel (you lack compassion if you think that animals don't feel).
ON competetion- i never said we have competetion; we are the competition, and eventually when theres nothing left we will be our own competetion leading to a drastic decline of our specicies. I site "Extinction caused by Natural Selection" in Darwins ORIGIN OF SPECIES for further insight on competition and its effect on variety and population; if you care to inquire.
Mostly i feel sorry for people like you, more than the phytoplankton, because of your lack of empathy and compassion toward life (come on- thousands of animals to save one human!!!!!!). you are no better than a tree moss, and are not entitled to some special treatment; especially when it is totally counter-productive to ALL life forms on this planet. go watch the lion king.
This letter is in regards to ITALIAN's message. It seems to me as if you justify maiming nonhuman animals for the sake of humans being able to defend their dominance. I find it unrealistic that humans need to violently and cruelly protect our dominance for rats, mice and other animals that we needlessly test on. I don't think they're a huge threat. In regards to your statement of, "we need to exploit anything in order to preserve our dominance in this world." That sounds astonishingly similar the the white supremacists view, that blacks, and other people of color, need to be oppressed so that the white race can prosper. Humans' disregard of any living, sentient(meaning capable of feeling: pain, stress, happiness) thing for the sake of benefiting a certain person or species, is simply outrageous. Due to the glorious process of evolution, humans have humane alternatives to protecting ourselves. Evolution has also given us the gift of obligation to others. Meaning that along with our smarts, we've also have been give responsibility to protect, our earth and all of the inhabitants there. I'd like to point out that animals DO think for themselves. Unfortunately, most of the time we write off that fact. We do this mainly because we are the 'reigning' beings, and because of that, we believe our thoughts are more profound important. You seem to fail to understand that our treatment of others shouldn't be based on their capability or effectivenes of thought; but rather their capability of feeling. For that reason we need to be as humane as we can to all living, sentient, things.
Italian,my point is animals only useually kill when they need to eat,humans dont,humans also kill to put dead animals on their walls,read my topic again you hick.And what do you mean we need to stay on top by any means possible,when we werent killing the planet and testing on animals we were at the top of the food chain,so what,are hamsters going to take over the world all of a sudden.You seem to be a very paranoid person.
Topics 
-
