

lovejunkie02
-
Posts
28 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by lovejunkie02
-
-
what aggression towards other animals? i've heard that pit bulls are even more aggressive when it comes to other dogs, etc.
http://www.ksat.com/news/14413827/detail.html
to me this is just as much an issue as human attacks.
0 -
That's not a misquote. You mean "out of context" quote, and ordinarily I would agree with you however it stands on its own - in or out of context in this case. Here's the context:
What you're doing is not backing up your statements. You won't pursuade anyone like that.
no i said what i meant. you misquoted me. you changed the exact words of my post and in doing so, completely changed the meaning. that was my point and it still stands.
0 -
Do you not see the obvious in your last sentence? Because there is one farm that mistreats their animals does not mean that there are no farms that treat them good.
you've terrible misquoted me here. someone said that i should take one person's account as universal truth. what i said in response is just because one person has a single account of life on a farm does not mean that it is true for all animals' lives on farms. i said "because there is one farm that doesn't mistreat their animals does not mean that there are no farms that do so." that's quite different.
0 -
And then when some of us came up with a counter argument, you immediately dismissed it without addressing any points and instead ranted on about your beliefs and implicitly assumed that everyone believed otherwise were somehow less "moral".
i'm sorry. i must have missed your "argument". which one are you referring to? the one where y'all just say "read everyone else's posts? or the one where y'all just say it is so because it just is?
and one person's experience is not universal truth. because there is one farm that doesn't mistreat their animals does not mean that there are no farms that do so.
This was my honest question:
if you don't absolutely have to cause the pain or suffering of another animal in order to survive, why would you? we don't need meat, so why eat it?And this is the answer I got back:
Because it's delicious. Simple really. Also, they'd eat me if they could.Now, it seems to me that this isn't a sophisticated, supported, intelligent response in any kind of way. So of course I responded with a judgment:
you would willingly cause the suffering of another being just to gratify yourself for, what, a couple of minutes at the most?wow.
And of course, I get:
Yup. Bonus points if it pisses off silly peoplePS: I eat less meat than a lion does.
Seems like just another post trying to bait me. How would you have me respond to that? You can continue to dismiss me if you want. Continue to feel superior. Do what makes you feel good.
0 -
Do you want me to list specific examples? Why don't you go look at a farm, or a ranch, or a pasture, etc. It is clear that any animals that live there aren't abused.
Obviously, it's not clear. At least not to me. I believe that is the argument we are now having.
And I think you should refer to SkepticLance's posts if you want to see an argument for keeping animals as livestock before I waste my time arguing with you about animals and freedom.I have read everyone else's posts.
What you are doing is immediately dismissing people on the basis of their diet and their views on eating because it doesn't fit with YOUR ideology. Likewise, you are implicitly suggesting that because you "care" you are somehow superior other people. You are making the appeal to pity logical fallacies and other irrelevant appeals.Since you are intent on claiming the moral high ground, you have been challenged and have been asked to back up your views. You will either put up or shut up.
I think my point was that it seemed a selfish view and it's not any less selfish just because other people or animals behave in similar ways. I think that post was in response to one in which someone said, basically, that it was indeed selfish but they do it anyway. So you missed the argument completely. And I don't dismiss anyone. I don't agree with it, but I don't dismiss them or their opinions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I said before, I have no problem with opinions. What I do have a problem with are people who try to force them on other people, or who claim them to be fact. You will not be warned again.Thanks for the warning. I'll just be here, quakin' in my vegan boots.
Otherwise I think I speak for all here when I say: Keep your annoying self-righteous mindless paranoia to yourself. I know plenty of savage, meat eating predators with better morals than you.You're so aggressive. What's that about? Is this not you, "claiming the moral high ground" here?
0 -
I was raised on a dairy farm, and I know damn well that those cows had a pretty good life. We, the farm workers, busted our guts in work to make sure the fields grew thick, juicy green grass for them. We removed any toxic weeds from the fields that might harm them, and carefully planted grass seeds of the varieties that were most nourishing, fertilising the fields to keep it growing well.
We fed them hay and silage in winter when the feed was poor, and worked really hard in summer to prepare that hay and silage. Any sick cow, and the vet was called.
I often felt that the cows had a better life than we humans did.
i'm glad to hear it. you own them, you have a responsibility to take care of them, at the very least.
0 -
I told you that you have to justify this. The facts remain that except in maybe some industrial factories, most cattle are usually raised in pretty good conditions, better than nature would have them.
you say that and then offer no proof of its truth. and what about the rest of the animals? chickens, turkeys, pigs, etc.
And what do you know about an animals feelings or freedom.no more than you do, i suppose.
Who are we to say that we know what they think or how they feel? Some people happen to believe that in farms animals die a dignified life.yes, and some people believe god created the world. and some people believe it's ok to have sex with children. and some people believe it's ok to chop other people's heads off. so what? that has no bearing on what i think.
I could argue that by raising them in a farm they have more freedom than they would in nature.um, ok. argue it.
And as much as some would like to think otherwise, we are no more selfish than other animals are. Biologically, humans are animals. You really have to stop trying to think that humans and animals are separate from nature, because its not true.i'm not sure about selfishness. why don't you enlighten me and give me some examples of how i might be living a selfish life? i'm sure there are some ways (which i probably cannot help), but I don't think that has any bearing on the things that I can help and things that I can willingly choose to do. and I don't know what you're talking about in regards to nature. It just sound like blah blah blah to me because I don't think it relates to anything i said.
Its clear that you don't know how to argue a point. I have no problems with opinions. What I do have a problem with are people who try to force them on other people, and people who think that their opinions are fact. What makes you think your opinion makes you better than anybody else? Because you merely feel better about it?It just won't cut it, and in all honesty to attempt to do so is rather rude and uncalled for.
did i ever say that my opinion was fact? did i try to force it on you? i don't think i did. I'm just throwin' in my two cents here. Sorry to offend, your highness.
0 -
I agree. If you're going to condemn something just because it's selfish - well, there are many, many things human beings do that are ultimately for selfish reasons, so that alone is not enough of a counter argument. Especially since, as SkepticLance pointed out nicely, human treatment of food animals can allow them to live a pretty decent life.
really? sounds like a pretty good argument to me. but then maybe you don't mind being selfish.
however, i do not believe that the majority of animals raised for food are treated humanely. they suffer and then they die. i can only speak for myself, but i'd much rather live a free, natural life, even for a few months, than one in a cage or a pen.
it's the quality of the lives of the animals that i'm most concerned with, not just the killing of them.
It doesn't matter how many times you say it. If you don't back it up, it will have no validity. iNow did raise a valid point. So if your trying to convince all us meat eaters otherwise, appeals to emotion/pity and ad hominems will not help you.back what up with what? my own personal feeings on the matter? just because you don't agree, you just dismiss them? well ok. i'm not sure what kind of "evidence" you're looking for. let me know and i'll see what i can do.
0 -
Let me ask you a hypthetical. Let's say a wild pig got hit by a car, and was laying on the side of the road in pain. If I go over and shoot it to put it out of it's misery, but then take it home and process it so I can freeze some and eat the rest, am I still wrong for doing so?
um, i guess if you want to eat roadkill, that's up to you. sounds pretty gross to me.
you can try to set up various hypothetical questions and situations and try to talk me into a corner, but i'll still say that eating meat causes suffering and we don't have to in order to survive and i wish that more people weren't so selfish. just leave animals alone and let them live their lives with as little human intervention as possible.
0 -
it will be interesting i think to watch this play out and see what comes of it. i hope they throw the book at the owner.
a 77 year old woman was attacked by a pit bull that escaped from its yard.
0 -
Because it's delicious. Simple really. Also, they'd eat me if they could.
you would willingly cause the suffering of another being just to gratify yourself for, what, a couple of minutes at the most?
wow.
0 -
if you don't absolutely have to cause the pain or suffering of another animal in order to survive, why would you? we don't need meat, so why eat it?
0 -
(f) 29
yes, abortion should be an option.
not your body, not your life, not your business.
0 -
If the pit bull hasn't already been raised NOT to be safe, then (I'll answer on Paralith's behalf) absolutely yes. Why do you think it would be otherwise? It's all about how they are raised.
I wonder how good a trainer you'd have to be to make a wolverine a safe pet?
is this something you have researched or are you just stating your opinion on the matter? do you not think genetics has anything to do with disposition and personality? and in wild animals, there's so much more natural instinct. i don't think you can "train" that out of an animal.
How do you measure the "quality of life" for your next meal?choose a vegetable for your next meal.
0 -
We decide "mistaken" in regard to IDEAS. And we decide that based on data and arguments. So, it's not "my perception". Don't take it so personally.
Yes, we would. Because many of the diseases are not going to be seen by natural selection. That is, they happen AFTER we have already had children. So cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, etc, mostly happen after we are 35.
However, how about just basic nursing care for children who get sick? Should we not do that? After all, isn't that also "screwing with nature"? Where do you draw the line? And are you willing to have YOUR child or YOURSELF be the victim of a disease if "screwing with nature" would save your life?
Well, you have just admitted that you are not holding a rational discussion because you won't accept any data contrary to your view.
And no, I don't "blindly" accept. Instead, I observe. Now, do human patients "suffer" when they undergo surgery under anesthetics with pain-relievers afterward?
The reason I ask is because the animals I work on -- and yes, I do animal research -- are treated just like human patients. Right now we are doing an bone gap model in rats. The rats are anesthetized with ketamine and acepromazine -- used on human -- and have a plate put on their femur. Which humans have. In fact, we are using the same Kirschner pins, steel surgical wires, bone saws, and sutures that are used on human patients. The bone is rigidly fixed just as it is in humans. The rats receive Buprenex for 3 days post-op -- just as humans do.
There is no such thing as "more evolved". You have a misstatement of evolution as a premise of your argument. Since your premise is wrong, the argument is wrong.
Now, since we have instances of unintelligent species exploiting other species, why do you think intelligent species would be different? Remember, your argument of "more evolved" is false, so you can't use that.
Ethics and "rights" apply to members of our OWN species. Now, if we rigidly applied them to members of all other species, we would starve! After all, we do have to exploit other species as animals. Isn't a farmer's field another type of cage? Would you have use give up farming?
Then you advocate eliminating zoos, don't you? Just following the logical consequences of your argument.
Of course, that would mean some species going extinct since human expansion has destroyed their habitat and the species exists ONLY in zoos. So you don't have a problem of genocide (eradication of species) as long as we don't do medical testing. Right?
you're an idiot and that is a beast of a post and i'm just not that bothered to put forth the effort to respond.
don't tell me what i think or what i can think or put me in a box according to what you think i am.
take your "right?" and shove it.
0 -
ANY pit bull can be as safe as a kitten? are you sure about that?
0 -
People hate spam, in general. Sounds like a good selling point for Verizon's marketing department.
except that it's not spam.
0 -
scary, but not surprising.
do you know if he was ever convicted? what does this mean for the research he was conducting? and they even included the guy that was involved in the research with him in the charges! bogus.
one thing i'm wondering though... why was he conducting this research at home?
unbelievable.
0 -
seems to me (and i couldn't quite decipher from the article) that it depends on the level of participation by verizon. meaning, when you sign up for the messages, is it via a program run by or through verizon? if so, i could understand that they have the right (though i think it's ridiculous) to say that they don't want to be involved in that sort of controversial program. but if the program is run by naral pro-choice america, and all that is happening is the messages are being sent via verizon service, then this is absolutely wrong.
if i sent a text to a friend of mine about abortion, would they censor that?
0 -
Do you consider it acceptable to cage animals in general (no testing involved) as pets or the like?
Edit: 3 years... ouch.
in general, no. there may be some instances i would be comfortable with but none come to mind at the moment.
0 -
Well this is the thing, isn't it? Does a flinch response to pain or a learned evasion response indicate a form of suffering which is comparable or analogous to the human perception of suffering? Read back a few months for previous discourse on that issue.
i did read all the way through this thread, i think, and didn't find what i was looking for. i'm seriously interested in this specific argument because i've never encountered it before and would love to read up on it. i just can't quite find (yet) any sources. in this thread, if i remember correctly, there was discussion of it but nothing very substantial offered in the way of evidence.
0 -
for one proving that a fetus or any other animal reacts to painful stimuli does not mean they "feel" pain. in order to truly feel pain you need to be self aware.
can you provide some references so i can study up on this?
0 -
Before you conclude the question as faulty based on your definition of "value or importance" of an organism's life consider that others feel the definition is based more as described Luscpa's post above.
Lovejunkie,
Quick question with no harsh intentions: What has been your experience in animal testing? You are very passionate in your view (which is always a good thing) and it made me curious.
not much, admitedly. i have a background in biology and have researched some. i think though that my feelings about animal testing would be the same whether i knew everything about everything or nothing about nothing. i just don't agree with it on a very simple level.
I am sure there are plenty of drugs and products which were tested on animals which we could have done without, but this would only reduce the number, not remove the need.Since ample evidence exists, this suggests that you are prepared to adjust your definition of "humane" as the evidence is presented. Is that what you intended to say, or is it more that you are incredulous at the thought of justification being possible? (There is nothing wrong with that per se, just establishing context)
i am incredulous.
1 - We definitely know that testing on animal subjects relieves massive human suffering,
2 - We do not yet know whether or not testing on animal subjects causes animal suffering.
1 - i do not accept this as fact. some animal testing may have resulted in the abatement of some human suffering, but that is a rather simple way to put it, i think. there are many more factors to be considered.
2- of course we know. you can split hairs all day long, but there is just no denying that we are inflicting pain.
p.s. if you're tired of discussing, why are you still here posting?
0 -
Larry Niven did a series of science fiction stories exploring the unintended consequences of this policy -- as well as requiring those on death row to be organ donors. Basically, if your life and the quality of your life depends on criminals, it becomes VERY tempting to legislate more and more crimes as deserving the death sentence. In one story, the end result was that too many traffic tickets within a period of time was a capital crime!
1. Did you read my post above where I noted that my research is meant to REDUCE the human suffering of osteoarthritis? I NEED animal testing to do that.
2. Should we really let nature alone? As Mr. Skeptic pointed out, antibiotics are "screwing with nature" in that we deliberately kill bacteria. How about cardiac bypass surgery? That is "screwing with nature" in that we are not letting people die of clogged arteries!
3. In nature, the lives of members of other species are NEVER as valuable as members of your own species. After all, don't lions think that lion lives are more important than wildebeast lives? They kill wildebeasts, don't they? That happens to EVERY other predator. Even the "peaceful" rabbit thinks that rabbit lives are more important than cowslip lives! Rabbits find cowslip quite tasty and eat those plants whenever they find them. Many ant species deliberately keep other species of insects as food! They think that ant lives are more important than the lives of those other species.
So, your perception of what nature is and that "life is life" is very mistaken.
Finally, did you read that animals used in research are required to be treated "humanely". Basically how we would treat human patients. What is your objection to this?
i'm not sure if this response was to me or someone else but if it was addressed to me...
we certainly have different views but i don't think that makes me "mistaken" in regards to my perception.
and i think i said something akin to letting nature run its course and i meant exactly that. we might not have the need for all the millions of medications that we have had we let natural selection weed them out of the population.
and finally, there is NOTHING you can say that will convince me that animals used in research are treated humanely. you can tell me about all the regulations in the world and even take me to some research labs, but that will not be sufficient. i'm curious as to why you so blindly accept that animals are not suffering.
There is no real reason to believe that it is "unnatural" for an intelligent species to exploit less developed species to reduce clan suffering. At least, there is no reason that is as compelling and rational as the moral objections are subjective and anthropocentric.
there is no reason to believe either that it IS natural. other species may, but are we not more evolved than that? is that not the very premise of the original argument? if we are evolved enough to reason and perceive and rationalize, why should we not use those to do what we know is better?
0
Should Euthanasia be legalised?
in Ethics
Posted
i think people should value quality of life, not just life itself. would that solve the whole problem? i don't understand why there's a big to do about it anyway. i mean, i understand that there is one, i just don't know why. if someone wants to take their life, do they really consider the legal ramifications anyway?
though really, i consider suicide and euthanasia two different things. i think of (whether there is actually a distinction or not) euthanasia as assisted suicide. i suppose there is the potential of a slippery slope there but i feel like there should be some option for people who are suffering and want to die.