Originally posted by biggI am a hunter. I have killed my own food. It is a very serious business. "No fooling around".
Next time when you look at your dog and cat and imagine slitting there throats then putting them on a frying pan.
Graphic I know but this is what is happening.
Don't get fooled by fancy boxes and packages.
The act is simply covered up.
I guess to answer your question... If my family was starving to death, I would not bat an eye. I would miss them sure, but I know both my cat and my dog would eat me. Given the chance.😀
Originally posted by pradtfYou're right, it was a self-serving argument - I posted in a hurry. It would be better to say that having rights is something I identify with being human - with having a certain intellectual capacity, an understanding of right and wrong and the responsibilties that go witrh that. Under those criteria, animals have no rights, but neither do they have the responsibility to look after other animals, whereas we, as humans, do.
that is a curiously self-serving argument, but fairly standard in exploitive circles: we want to do this to those, therefore let's not give them any rights.
and what's this stuff about "medical research relies totally on the use of animals". that is completely false.
perhaps i need to pull out some of the posts on the animal experimention thread you ...[text shortened]... ivanhoe wants this to be a general discussion on philosophical grounds.
in friendship,
prad
My main point was that when the subject of animal rights is brought up, people nearly always rush to the condemnation of research and barely mention the abuses of the food industry.
Rich.
Originally posted by pradtfSorry, I missed a bit. It's true that not every medical research project needs to use animals, but to take a research programme through to its conclusion, from basic biology right up to clinical trials, certainly does. I would be much happier if animals did not have to be used, as I think would most scientists, but the fact is that cell lines and computer models will never be an adequate substitute.
that is a curiously self-serving argument, but fairly standard in exploitive circles: we want to do this to those, therefore let's not give them any rights.
and what's this stuff about "medical research relies totally on the use of animals". that is completely false.
perhaps i need to pull out some of the posts on the animal experimention thread you ...[text shortened]... ivanhoe wants this to be a general discussion on philosophical grounds.
in friendship,
prad
Rich.
Originally posted by pradtfOh you hear the stories every year about some old man or lady that died and their pets ate them.😛
you must have a mighty unusual and interesting relationship with them if you are constantly concerned with being eaten. what are these pets you keep? a tiger and a wolf? 😀
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by bbarrYeah OK, badly written post - I've tried to defend it (or not, really) elsewhere. I'm frankly not clued up enough on the philosophical arguments surrounding the meaning of the term 'rights' to give a coherent argument of why I don't think animals have them, although I think the lack of intellectual capacity and moral responsibility must come in there somewhere. But I don't think you have to acknowledge that animlas have rights to want to look after them properly.
Strange. Why do you think we have a right to eat and experiment on animals? Do you have any arguments in support of this view, or do you merely assume that because we eat and experiment on animals we must therefore have the right to do so? I don't see how this view of yours is consistent with your other claim that animals ought to be treated well. Do you ...[text shortened]... well under most circumstances, but that these obligations dissolve as soon as we get hungry?
Rich.
1 edit
Originally posted by richhoeythanks rich.
You're right, it was a self-serving argument - I posted in a hurry ...
My main point was that when the subject of animal rights is brought up, people nearly always rush to the condemnation of research and barely mention the abuses of the food industry.
Rich.
as for your second comment - we're doing the best we can there 🙄
so give us a hand with the condemnation 😀
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfYeah, if anyone came up with a substitute - and I know they're on the case - then that would be great. Hey, I don't think animal experiments make many people feel all warm inside.
thsnks rich.
as for your second comment - we're doing the best we can there 🙄
so give us a hand with the condemnation 😀
in friendship,
prad
Rich.
Originally posted by richhoeyno even that's not completely true. this is how it is, because this is how the model has been set up.
but to take a research programme through to its conclusion, from basic biology right up to clinical trials, certainly does. I would be much happier if animals did not have to be used, as I think would most scientists, but the fact is that cell lines and computer models will never be an adequate substitute.
Rich.
rich, i know how you feel about using animals and i know you genuinely wish there were another way - but that way will not appear if we continue to do the same thing in the same way. progress necessitates otherwise.
i would be happy to go into all this in another thread if you wish, but not here since medical research programmes are not what this thread is about.
in friendship,
prad
