Hunting Ban Free Vote In The Commons

[credente]

The fundamental beliefs are, for example, that animals experience similar emotions to human beings - there is no way to substantiate it, therefore it is as purely a matter of faith as any belief in a deity is.

Your suggestion that animals 'of higher intelligence, such as dogs, cats, sheep, and horses' makes no sense whatsoever - they may look 'cute,' but the less attractive ones - such as pigs and rats - show far greater signs of 'intelligence' than any of your examples.

I would also suggest that they probably display more signs of intelligence than you do - but that would be inaccurate... well, slightly inaccurate, anyway.

[Ruger]

Animals of higher inteligence?, sheep?, dude... ha. Hey I might respond to that some other time if we havnt gone off on some other subject, but cant be arsed tonight.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The fundamental beliefs are, for example, that animals experience similar emotions to human beings - there is no way to substantiate it, therefore it is as purely a matter of faith as any belief in a deity is.

And all animal rights supporters would share that belief, which means the term funadamentalist is redundant. And it makes no sense in comparison to its almost exclusive use as a term to denote the forms of religious belief. I understand why you use the word, however, as it is the product of lazy analysis to see extreme positions from difference groups and automatically cast them negatively, regardless of what they are, and funadamentalism is a negative term.

 

Firstly, believe in ANY deity is not purely a matter of faith. Many Christians, for example, have belief because of personal experience and would therefore claim to have evidence. (Although, I stress, I only think those with personal experience are slightly less silly than those with just faith).

 

There is no way (as yet) to be absolutely sure that other people share the same emotions as we do. I can only feel what I feel and cannot feel the emotions of others. We can communicate with it each about what it feels like and recognise great similarity in that, but we cannot be certain. Yet with language and others tools we are able to empathise and recognise similarities that seem convincing enough for us to conclude that we do feel something very much or the same. Someone can also tell us if we have been successful at understanding them.

 

Now we have more difficulty in understanding animals, because they cannot speak and express themselves in the same manner. But we can get a reasonably good idea of what animals experience by assessing their physical health, physiological signs and behaviour. And more intelligent animals appear to have similar responses to stimuli that we do, such as with food, predators, overcrowding, pain-inflicting objects, etc.

 

Of course, it is even more difficult to assess with less intelligent animals, but we need not dwell on similarities with us for the sake of discussion on animal testing and all sort of matters relating to treatment of animals, as we can purely look at whether the animal is suffering in their conditions. And again, using the same criteria as that given above we can get a good idea of what it takes for an animal to suffer.

 

Your suggestion that animals 'of higher intelligence, such as dogs, cats, sheep, and horses' makes no sense whatsoever - they may look 'cute,' but the less attractive ones - such as pigs and rats - show far greater signs of 'intelligence' than any of your examples.

Well I certainly didn't leave those two out due to their looks. I would agree with, they DO appear to be very intelligent.

 

I would also suggest that they probably display more signs of intelligence than you do - but that would be inaccurate... well, slightly inaccurate, anyway.

Oh, well aren't you cheeky.

[Evil Goblin]

Credente/Ruger - can you answer the basic question - why should we not apply the same moral views to the lives of animals as we do tot he lives of human beings? After all, we are but another type of animal.

[Endovelicus]

Credente/Ruger - can you answer the basic question - why should we not apply the same moral views to the lives of animals as we do tot he lives of human beings? After all, we are but another type of animal.

I'm not big on moral questions, but I'd suggest the answer lies in the 'bolded' word. After all, its not that long ago that black people were regarded, and treated, as an inferior species and, more recently, Jewish people were used for medical research because they were claimed to be a sub species. Arrogance, I'd suggest, is one of the major characteristics of humanity and it is often a very unpleasant one.

Having said all that, however, I stick to my belief that, if medical progress is to be made, then experiments on anaimals are necessary. The idea of inflicting such tortuous processes for the development of a new mascara or lip gloss is, IMO, horrific.

[Ruger]

Credente/Ruger - can you answer the basic question - why should we not apply the same moral views to the lives of animals as we do tot he lives of human beings? After all, we are but another type of animal.

 

If you cant see why there would be any point in that then I cant argue with you. If you don’t see the difference between a human and say a shrew then again how can one begin to reason with you. Don’t get me wrong, I know a few people who aren’t worth as much as a rat but I'm talking in general.

 

So what if we are but another type of animal, Tetrodotoxin is but another type of liquid but if your prepared to put it in the same bracket as water then good luck. Arguing were just another species is a crap excuse. If this^ is the sole argument then as has been said earlier I can only be glad your views appear to be in a minority.

 

I don’t think anyone reasonable would argue with the last sentence in the post above. I certainly don’t condone that & hope to hell it doesn’t happen.

[Ruger]

Ok I don’t really have time for this now either so this may seem a little half arsed so I apologies for not being more thorough.

 

 

 

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 have put the line through what I believe is irrelevant to my point, I was only referring to the capacity difference which I strongly believe in. I've seen sheep run flat out into very solid objects and not appear to be in any discomfort or pain after, that's one example of many that I could provide if I had the time. So I stand by my argument that we have a far greater ability to suffer and feel pain than animals which much less neurological capacity. You know what they say, no sense no pain and there’s much truth in it.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Absolutely, within reason, if a small amount of suffering has the potential to bring about the relief of a large ammount then yes. But as I say, within reason.

 

 

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.

 

Well I belive it does but only if its worth it, but I'm not talking about breeding or testing on other people as unlike you I dont make such irrational comparisons between people and other animals.

 

 

 

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?

 

Yes and no to that.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

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 have put the line through what I believe is irrelevant to my point, I was only referring to the capacity difference which I strongly believe in. I've seen sheep run flat out into very solid objects and not appear to be in any discomfort or pain after, that's one example of many that I could provide if I had the time. So I stand by my argument that we have a far greater ability to suffer and feel pain than animals which much less neurological capacity. You know what they say, no sense no pain and there’s much truth in it.

Ok, well you have mentioned one specific example (a blow from a solid object where the animals appears to have had no pain or discomfort) that you believe supports that your belief in animals having a lesser ability to suffer.

However, the animal could very well be in pain but does feel discomfort from this. Or they may feel discomfort afterwards. But we find it hard to recognise either. It is a very difficult thing to tell. But then this example and many similar ones would still not be able to provide a reasonably good idea as to the extent to which animal can suffer. And that is because different circumstances and different stimuli produce differenct reactions.

As far as I am aware, these is no evidence to attest to the neurological capacity of an animals to respond to pain. Although, suffering is not solely in respect of pain.

A person or an animal can suffer from being kept in confined spaces or being in close proximity of other members of its species.

 

 

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.

Absolutely, within reason, if a small amount of suffering has the potential to bring about the relief of a large ammount then yes. But as I say, within reason.

Why do you think this? And what is 'within reason'?

 

Do you think it is already to do testing on those with brain damage. Or what about those who 'have' Down's Syndrome? Some do have marked impairment of cognitive abilities that occurs have, some very severely. Maybe if we could take them and expose them to testing that doesn't cause any obvious signs of pain (ie they don't wail much) then that would be fine if it was to help someone else? What about someone who has just had a severe stroke? We really wouldn't know what they can feel.

 

 

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.

 

Well I belive it does but only if its worth it, but I'm not talking about breeding or testing on other people as unlike you I dont make such irrational comparisons between people and other animals.

I am a little unsure why the 'worth it' matters after you have built up your argument on the basis that other animals suffer less so it is therefore ok to test where they won't suffer.

 

Unless you think that those who suffer less to help those who suffer more is acceptable, in which case why do you think inflicting ANY suffering on ANYONE or ANYTHING is acceptable for the sake of helping others? This would be an area where you have to justify an authority overriding the freedom/autonomy of someone/thing else regardless of their consent.

 

Actually, the comparisons are very important. You haven't explained your opinions in enough detail (although I find them very interesting so far) but in order to respond to my argument you should establishing why people are more important and why the freedom and integrity of people is crucial and why this is definitely not the case for animals.

 

What is so different about other beings that makes it acceptable to use them for our own means AND to cause them any amount of suffering? If it is about the degree of suffering, then please explain why those with mental impairment and those people with whom we cannot know their suffering cannot be used.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I do appreciate how sheep aren't the brightest of creatures. Have anyone seen this yet: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video--sheep-cyclone-captures-the-web.html

[Ruger]

They are stupid buggers.

 

No offense but I'm kind of occupied with more important issues (to me) elsewhere so am dropping out of this one if you dont mind!. Also any vague interest I did have in arguing with you went when I read your third question. I was to disapointed with that to bother reading any further.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Third question? I don't mind at all if you drop out. I do detect that your 'style' of posting is more to be dismissive in every respect about a point you wish to argue against, as opposed to getting stuck into it. You're more interested in saying that something is wrong rather than explaining why.

If that is best the best you can do in the time you have, then there is no point continuing.

[Ruger]

Interesting observation... perhaps I'm just not obsessed enough as you are to "get stuck into" every incorrect and twisted detail you present me with about any point I dare to make. 99% of your posts are composed of this so is it any wonder you feel I'm dismissive towards them?. I refuse to hold conversations either online or in person with anyone that cant stop talking shit. I've got far better things to do. I certainly draw the line at sick accusations or assumptions as to what you feel I think is "alright". I presume that’s the word you intended to use instead of "already".

[La_Dolce_Vita]

The details always matter, as does the reasoning behind our points of view. Without that, any discussion on this topic and many, many others is just reduced to pointless remarks of what you think is right or wrong without explanation.

 

You're doing the same in the above post. All this talk of me being incorrect and talking shit is just an attempt to have the parting shot and seal the matter without any hard work on your part. You have to do better to show that you are right. But I don't want to take up anymore of your time.

 

Besides, I wonder if I detect a little dishonesty on your post in your comments of 'accusations' and 'assumptions', I am clearly making neither. I am asking you what you would find acceptable or not based on the moral thinking that you have so far provided.

[Ruger]

You missed out the 'in my opinion', its not a requirement for us to explain ourselves for every point or opinion we share. Why should we, we wouldn’t have either if we didn’t have our reasons. There are occasions, if for example you feel a point is unreasonable then fair enough but next time leave out all the irrelevant crap and you might find people more obliging. Except I don’t think you want anyone to, this is clearly your "style", of, in your mind, 'winning' and getting the last word.

 

Please explain how the fuck what I said there brought cause for such 'questions'?. If they were not rhetorical!. Thank you for providing me with another example of your sick and twisted style.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I would presume that on any issue you would agree that it is necessary to explain one's position as opposed to stating 'I agree' or 'I disagree' or do as you do - 'You're just wrong'. We might as well just set up a poll if that was all that matters.

 

As to what is irrelevant or not, that would be down to our own opinions, which would be backed up by an argument as to why it is irrelevant. You think mention of humans is irrelevant, I think not and have argued my case.

 

Though I would want you to explain your position more, as it would be a waste of time discussing it otherwise. I wouldn't know why you think you are right or wrong, all I would know if that you disagree.

 

You mean mention of severe Downs and people with serious mental incapacity? It is not an accusation or an assumption. It follows from your comment on observance of pain and distress and an inability to sometimes tell or assumptions that a being is not feeling such things. That's where you seem to draw the line between us and animals. But if we create that line on such matters of observance then there are cases with such people when we cannot tell whether they are distressed. They cannot communicate effectively in some cases.

I actually have the assumption that you don't simply use the criteria of observed distress, but that you create a special exception for people. It follows to ask why you have that opinion.