Evil Goblin Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Ooops! They do perform experiments on humans. Fancy you not knowing that either. So I do understand the arguments that you are putting forth - from your position of ignorance that is. You really should take the trouble to read that which people have posted before shooting your mouth off. I suggest that if you do so you will see that I have previously stated that experiments are indeed conducted on humans. I ought to fess up here that someone I have known very well for many, many years has spent their entire working life as a research micro-biochemist. So, what has that got to do with it? I was privileged to know the late Dr Robert Wilson, one of the people who developed the smallpox vaccine, but that has nothing to do with it either. I have to admit that I was torn between treating your position as either facile or trolling. Glad we've cleared that up. We have certainly cleared up the fact that you are rude, ignorant and incapable of understanding anything not capable of being expressed in more than monosyllabic words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Why do you believe it is acceptable to cause suffering and/or use animals for the sake of prolonging our lives? If God had wanted us to be vegetarians He wouldn't have made barbecued fillet steak taste so good.... The fact of the matter is that nature is red in tooth and claw and I don't make the rules - I just play the game. I would love to see someone like Evil Goblin trying to lecture a very hungry Ursus Arctos Horribilis on the moral question of killing other animals so that your own species can carry on living and breeding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I think you are bypassing the issue by assuming that we are the SAME as other animals. But we have moral principles that govern our behaviour. It is the consistent application of these morals that is being discussed. You are subject to rules that you are happy to abide by. Animals do not share those same morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I think you are bypassing the issue by assuming that we are the SAME as other animals. But we have moral principles that govern our behaviour. It is the consistent application of these morals that is being discussed. You are subject to rules that you are happy to abide by. Animals do not share those same morals. We are the same as other animals in that we kill to live. Animals do it instinctively so unlike some of humankind they have no existential issues. I understand this so I have no existential issues either. It always amuses me when others sound off about this moral issue because, and unfortunately I can't remember who said it, apparently it can only be debated by those who have never been faced with starvation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 PK, you started the discussion late. I don't think you have read my posts bearing in my mind your last comment. And I addressed the matter of the moral issue in my last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I would love to see someone like Evil Goblin trying to lecture a very hungry Ursus Arctos Horribilis on the moral question of killing other animals so that your own species can carry on living and breeding. LDV was right when he said you have come late to this discussion. If you had read back you would have known not to say this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endovelicus Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Research such as this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16788809 tends to suggest that experiments on animals are so beneficial that any attempt to end them would be almost equally cruel to sufferers from the problems that such research might ultimately alleviate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I don't think you've read my arguments. If you were suffering to whatever degree, would allow something else to suffer to make you better? What if making you better in the quickest manner required talking another person (who could not communicate and thus consent), placing them in an uncomfortable and alien environment, subject them various tests ranging from ones that would be very uncomfortable to causing strong amounts of pain or debiliatation, and then killing them early? I object to that because (1) the person is used as a means to an end to sort out your suffering; you disregard their automony; (2) and because you are willing to cause discomfort, distress, or suffering on the back of your problems. I would presume you would agree that this is wrong. Now you need to establish why it is all right for animals to be treated in such a manner. Why is the situation different for animals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Why is the situation different for animals? Nobody seems have much of an answer to this question, LDV, or if they have they're not posting it. I suspect all we are going to get is "it's obvious" when,of course, it isn't obvious at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruger Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 I would presume you would agree that this is wrong. Now you need to establish why it is all right for animals to be treated in such a manner. Why is the situation different for animals? Ok this little subject doesn’t particularly interest me, and someone else could put this a million times better than me but after giving this just a few seconds thought my answer might be... perhaps these rodents etc that we test on, cause to suffer, kill early, whatever, perhaps your a little odd to compare them to humans because, A) I don’t believe these animals have the mental capacity to suffer as much as a human, or have the ability to understand/anticipate their death (prove I'm wrong if you disagree), B) they also don’t have loving family and friends who give a shit about their suffering or death. So I cant see how you can argue that these animals lives are worth as much as ours, or the same thing the other way, that our lives and well being aren’t worth any more than theirs. I hazard a guess that if you stumbled into the road for whatever reason, in front of a fast moving car, that you would expect the driver of said car to swerve into a rabbit sat on the other side of the road rather than plough through you?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Good for you to at least try and bother to present an argument which deals with justification by evaluating the worth of the animals, rather than just re-state that these animals are very useful. Now, in respect of 'A)', what can be determined and is known is that animals can suffer. We know that they can be happy, be sad, be angry, be scared, and feel pain etc. It is quite easy to recognise this. We see this more so with the animals of higher intelligence, such as dogs, cats, sheep, and horses. On the basis of this, we can recognise that they can suffer. Circumstances we can place them in lead to a reaction that no longer presents as happy and relaxed, for example. And we can recognise when they are in emotional/physical states of pain, discomfort, boredom, frustration, etc. Whether they suffer to the SAME degree isn't important to the argument as it is not purely an utilitarian argument to stop testing but also one of how we use these animals, i.e. means to an end - essentially devaluing the worth of their life and the worth of the enjoyment of that life. Although any determination to see whether an animal can feel the same amount of pain or discomfort, etc. is really anyone's guess. I don't think you are wrong about anticipating death or understanding death, but what bearing does that have on the moral argument. You seem to be arguing from the point of view that people who potentially or do suffer more are entitled to make others suffer if it helps them. The second point, (B) has no bearing on the matter. If the animal has the capacity to suffer, then it makes no difference what the emotions are that surround the human sufferers plight and the emotional connection with other humans. If there are hundreds of people who deeply love someone and they have a terminal disease, it would not be moral to breed another human for the people of ending the other's suffering. subject them to testing which involved pain or discomfort and then dispose of them. If you want a pointer to where you need to make the argument it lies with the issues you pose in part A), what makes the animal different and do these differences mean that they can or should be treated differently. Are we superior to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
credente Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 If the fundamentalist animal rights campaigners are so concerned, perhaps they should volunteer to take the places of the creatures who are suffering through such research? Seems like a win-win situation to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Please look up the meaning of large words if you wish to use them. You clearly don't know what fundamentalist means. Animal rights campaigners are not fundamentalists. I think you are tying them in with religious fundamentalist extremist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
credente Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Try: 'Someone who applies a strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs' or, better still, stop trying to make out that you have any significant intellectual capacity other than the ability to consult Google or Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 You must be either stupid or have lied. You misapplied the word, as there are no fundamental principles of belief for animal rights campaigners. If you are simply referring to the desire to protect animals from needless suffering or death then that would apply to all, in which case the use of fundamentalist is redundant. And if you think a significant intellectual capacity is one of consulting Google or Wikipedia, then I doubt you have the intelligence to know what qualifies as intellectual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.