PETA

[Dark Exodus]

What do you think of PETA?
Personally I dislike them, mainly because I don't approve of threatening someone below the poverty line becuase he makes a living off seal pelts.
Also I think looking out for animals when their are people starving is more than a little wrong.


Links from both sides:
Here (http://www.peta.org/)
And Here (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm)

[LSD]

PETA is not only moronically misguided and morally bankrupt, but is completely hypocritical.

PETA kills animals while condemning those who kill animals, and the fact that an organization predicated on "Total Animal Liberation" actually euthenizes animals at its headquarters should clarify the issue for anyone.

Not to mention that Nukirk is a fanatical nutball who supports terrorism and scientific regression. Remember, if PETA had its way, medical research would grind to a halt tomorrow.

These reactionary bourgeois whackjobs are our enemies. Never forget that!

[bed_of_nails]

I do not support the meaningless deaths of animals, but I do not support PETA either.

People Eating Tasty Animals

[TC]

You support clubbing baby seals???? Thats so barbaric its often used as a sarcastic example for evilness, like kicking puppies.

[Dark Exodus]

I support it if it lets a poor man feed himself and his family.

[TC]

Do you support contract killing if that lets a poor man feed himself and his family?

[LSD]

Do you support contract killing if that lets a poor man feed himself and his family?

Don't be ridiculous. There's an immense moral difference between killing another member of society and killing an animal.

If you oppose the latter, fine, but let's stay away from hyperbolic analogies, alright?

[Oglaigh na hEireann]

In the case of PETA shaking the finger at someone who "NEEDS" to kill the seal to survive, PETA is at fault. If it is the only way that the individual and family can survive, then what else are they supposed to do? But when it comes to other issues like Japan's whale harvesting (Which is growing and becoming a larger problem every season), organizations like PETA are justified in the way they respond to these types of actions they take against the rich who desire some type of whale meat because they are too fancy to go buy and eat a fucking stake.



-Sean

[black]

I don't approve of threatening someone below the poverty line becuase he makes a living off seal pelts.

http://www.harpseals.org/gallery/stills/high%20res/clubbingbeaterifawsmall.jpghttp://www.harpseals.org/gallery/stills/high%20res/foasealersdraggingsealsmall.jpg

http://www.advocatesforanimals.org.uk/campaigns/wild/seals/images/seals03.jpghttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40975000/jpg/_40975613_deadseals_ap203b.jpg


You really have no idea of what seal hunting is about do you? Where do seal pelts go? Are these men starving? A few facts for ya;

80% if the seals are under one year old.
About a quarter of a million (250,000) seals can be hunted in one quota in Canada alone, however this year there will be 300,000 and 1million over 3 years
They dont feed poor starving families - a small proportion of fisherman from the areas are actually employed and the seal hunting only contributes a limited amount of their income. This is big, commercial, capitalist hunting for a profit (where does that go?) The products, often fur, end up being made into high-fashion coats.
It's often barbarically cruel with examples of such; seals being skinned alive, others left writhing in agony after being wounded by gunfire, clubbed, or caught on sharpened steel hooks, and many are clubbed to death.
It's all being done despite and because of the fact that they (Human beings) have already depleted the fishstocks to levels never before seen.

And all to save those poor people and their "jobs". :rolleyes:

[spartafc]

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ is ridiculous.

[LSD]

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ is ridiculous.

...although entirely accurate.

[YKTMX]

I think there is something progressive and morally positive about animal rights activism. However, it has also tended, in the past and now, to crumble into a kind of fascistic anti-modernism, whereby the mass use of vivisection in medicine is compared to the holocaust and all animal testing, whether it be for lipstick or cancer medicine, is "lumped together". I think there is a coherent argument against testing cosmetics on animals, but, for now, animal testing remains neccessary when it comes to medical matter, I think.

Animal life is not as valuable as human life - if that makes me a "speciesist" then so be it.

[Xvall]

I don't particularly like PETA, however, it is simply an organization, and doesn't represent the grand scheme of everything. Assuming that everyone who hold views similar to PETA is a "reactionary borgeoise etc." would be about as reasonable as assuming that every self-proclaimed communist/anarchist is an extremist that wants to blow stuff up.

[LSD]

Assuming that everyone who hold views similar to PETA is a "reactionary borgeoise etc." would be about as reasonable as assuming that every self-proclaimed communist/anarchist is an extremist that wants to blow stuff up.

That's a false comparison.

Those "self proclaimed communist/anarchists" may use the name, but their views are not communist or anarchist. And in this context, that's what matters. I didn't say that those who "associate" themselves with PETA are reactionary, rather that those who hold reactionary views are ...well, reactionary.

An example of a reactionary view is the advocacy of "total animal liberation" or the belief that "animals are socially equal to humans". The people who hold these beliefs are not espousing reaction because they are "associated" with PETA, but because their views are reactionary.


I think there is a coherent argument against testing cosmetics on animals

Of course there is. Likewise there is a credible case for dramatically changing current slaughtering techniques and many other aspects of how we treat animals.

Capitalism has been brutal to animals, and in many ways that should and can change.

The problem, however, is those who fail to realize that these changes can only go so far. That, ultimately, humans are more important in human society. Unfortunately, that seems to describe a good deal of the current animal richts movement. :(

[Le People]

All animals are for is to feed us. I believe that animal crueltiy is wrong(nutering a dog with your teeth) but hunting is great. PETA has it's heart in the right place but is taking it too far. They're wackos!

[Xvall]

nutering a dog with your teeth

WTF?

[Anarchist Freedom]

Since when did we nuter dogs with our teeth? :blink:

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 10:52 PM

I don't approve of threatening someone below the poverty line becuase he makes a living off seal pelts.

http://www.harpseals.org/gallery/stills/high%20res/clubbingbeaterifawsmall.jpghttp://www.harpseals.org/gallery/stills/high%20res/foasealersdraggingsealsmall.jpg

http://www.advocatesforanimals.org.uk/campaigns/wild/seals/images/seals03.jpghttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40975000/jpg/_40975613_deadseals_ap203b.jpg


You really have no idea of what seal hunting is about do you? Where do seal pelts go? Are these men starving? A few facts for ya;

80% if the seals are under one year old.
About a quarter of a million (250,000) seals can be hunted in one quota in Canada alone, however this year there will be 300,000 and 1million over 3 years
They dont feed poor starving families - a small proportion of fisherman from the areas are actually employed and the seal hunting only contributes a limited amount of their income. This is big, commercial, capitalist hunting for a profit (where does that go?) The products, often fur, end up being made into high-fashion coats.
It's often barbarically cruel with examples of such; seals being skinned alive, others left writhing in agony after being wounded by gunfire, clubbed, or caught on sharpened steel hooks, and many are clubbed to death.
It's all being done despite and because of the fact that they (Human beings) have already depleted the fishstocks to levels never before seen.

And all to save those poor people and their "jobs". :rolleyes:
Yummy seal. Also, if you wish for seals to overpopulate and become extinct than contintue your campaign.

[zendo]

To anyone who savagely and inhumanely slaughters any kind of animal, be it a seal or chinchilla for reasons of profit and greed I say that person is a fucking coward because the animal is defenseless and a sentient being.

While I do not agree with every single thing that PETA does I have a great deal of admiration for them because their only concern is the well being of innocent animals that are being treated in the most savage and inhumane way. Take some time and watch 3 or 4 videos from the PETA website. watch a chinchilla or a little rabbit being skinned alive for its fur, see for yourself the way pigs are slaughtered without even being shocked, watch the horrors of a baby veal being locked up in a cage where it cannot even turn around just to keep the meat tender.

I for one am an animal lover and a vegetarian. I do not expect everyone to be vegetarian but I do expect those who treat animals inhumanely to be bought to justice.

Whatever Goes Around Comes Around, We all Reap what we Sow.

[I]"As long as man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love"
Pythagoras

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by Le [email protected] 24 2005, 07:00 PM
All animals are for is to feed us. I believe that animal crueltiy is wrong(nutering a dog with your teeth) but hunting is great. PETA has it's heart in the right place but is taking it too far. They're wackos!
Neutering with your teeth?

You are even crazier than I.

[zendo]

LYSERGIC ACID I THINK YOUR THE FUCKING WACKO

FURTHERMORE NOTHING GOOD HAS EVER COME OUT OF MEDICINE BECAUSE OF ANIMAL TESTING

I THINK LYSSERGIC ACID IS ON A 24 HOUR TRIP

YOUR BRAIN IS ROASTED YOU FUCKING IMBECILE

[Dark Exodus]

Except for Insulin...


Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 10:52 PM

I don't approve of threatening someone below the poverty line becuase he makes a living off seal pelts.

http://www.harpseals.org/gallery/stills/high%20res/clubbingbeaterifawsmall.jpghttp://www.harpseals.org/gallery/stills/high%20res/foasealersdraggingsealsmall.jpg

http://www.advocatesforanimals.org.uk/campaigns/wild/seals/images/seals03.jpghttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40975000/jpg/_40975613_deadseals_ap203b.jpg


You really have no idea of what seal hunting is about do you? Where do seal pelts go? Are these men starving? A few facts for ya;

80% if the seals are under one year old.
About a quarter of a million (250,000) seals can be hunted in one quota in Canada alone, however this year there will be 300,000 and 1million over 3 years
They dont feed poor starving families - a small proportion of fisherman from the areas are actually employed and the seal hunting only contributes a limited amount of their income. This is big, commercial, capitalist hunting for a profit (where does that go?) The products, often fur, end up being made into high-fashion coats.
It's often barbarically cruel with examples of such; seals being skinned alive, others left writhing in agony after being wounded by gunfire, clubbed, or caught on sharpened steel hooks, and many are clubbed to death.
It's all being done despite and because of the fact that they (Human beings) have already depleted the fishstocks to levels never before seen.

And all to save those poor people and their "jobs". :rolleyes:
Then PETA can target those people (which I'll give that they probably do) and not the one I was talking about. PETA members were sending him personal death-threats.
As members they represent the whole orginisation.

Now you have just demonstrated the size of this industry, why tar all with the same brush?
In the case I was talking about the person who was living below the poverty line, I said nothing about the industry as a whole. Instead you assumed I was, your statistics and pictures would be meaningless otherwise.

Thats the thing when debating with other leftists though, I find it a lot on these forums. Its more petty nitpicking and misunderstandings, deliberate or otherwise, than actual debates with people who's opinion is completely the opposite of your own.

Their are more important things in the world than seal hunting,
"A few facts for ya;"

- In the Asian, African and Latin American countries, well over 500 million people are living in what the World Bank has called "absolute poverty"

- Every year 15 million children die of hunger

- Every 3.6 seconds someone dies of hunger


1 million seals in 3 years! Bring out the fucking banners.

[zendo]

DARK EXUDUS DONT BE SUCH AN IMBECILE

ITS ALL INERELATED MAN, WHAT YOURE EXCUSING THE SENSELESS MURDER OF THOSE POOR BABY SEALS ON ACCOUNT THAT MILLIONS OF KIDS DIE A YEAR OF STARVATION??

WHAT THE FUCK DOES MURDERING BABY SEALS HAVE TO DO WITH THE STARVATION OF KIDS IN AFRICA?? NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL

IMPERIALISM AND CAPITALISM ARE THE REASON MILLIONS OF KIDS DIE OF STARVATION.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 07:37 AM
DARK EXUDUS DONT BE SUCH AN IMBECILE

ITS ALL INERELATED MAN, WHAT YOURE EXCUSING THE SENSELESS MURDER OF THOSE POOR BABY SEALS ON ACCOUNT THAT MILLIONS OF KIDS DIE A YEAR OF STARVATION??

WHAT THE FUCK DOES MURDERING BABY SEALS HAVE TO DO WITH THE STARVATION OF KIDS IN AFRICA?? NOTHING, NOTHING AT ALL

IMPERIALISM AND CAPITALISM ARE THE REASON MILLIONS OF KIDS DIE OF STARVATION.

Er, what I'm saying is animal rights is pointless at the moment when so many people are still dieing. Yet their are still groups devoted to stopping it, see my point now? Or do you need brightly coloured pictures?

Also try pressing your caps lock key once more. On the internet it acts as an idiot switch, yours is set to 'on'

[zendo]

WE REAP WHAT WE SOW, Respect Life


"I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being."
Abraham LincolN

"The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men."
Leonardo da Vinci

"For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love."
Pythagoras, mathematician

"Our task must be to free ourselves . . . by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty."
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
Albert Einstein

"Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages."
Thomas Edison

"I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't...The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further."
Mark Twain

[Dark Exodus]

I think humans are more important than animals, do you?

It is the humans who have thrived and who have achieved the most, the reason we are so globally destructive is becuase we were succesful enough to be global in the first place.

I believe that animals should be treated humanely if possible but also that humans should be treated with a higher importance.

Neither are treated well in todays world.

[black]

Originally posted by "Crazydumbass"+--> ("Crazydumbass")Yummy seal. Also, if you wish for seals to overpopulate and become extinct than contintue your campaign.[/b]

1. Seal meat isn't particularly valuable or used greatly in commercial seal hunting.
2. One species of seal was nearly wiped out by seal-hunting a few decades ago and where arguments are used to butcher these animals because they are "over-populating" the numbers aren't higher than they would be naturally, it's just human interests have already removed much of their habitats and food resources so that any number is by itself a "threat" and in the way of human gain.



"stupidchild"
1 million seals in 3 years! Bring out the fucking banners.

1 million seals in three years in one country, one entire species becomes extinct every hour, 15 million children die every year of starvation. These statistics are not at odds with each other and they dont happen in isolation but exist for the exact same reason and the exact same system that we have today.

[codyvo]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 24 2005, 11:45 PM

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ is ridiculous.

...although entirely accurate.
So you think euthanizing animals is the same as murdering them?

[Anarchist Freedom]

Hey zendo. Umm you know whats funny? typing in all caps as though somebody wont already be pissed enough reading your all caps. You go an insult them. Stop trying to instigate flame wars. Where here for consturctive debate not childish name calling. When you want to grow up your welcome to come back but until you can quit the childish bullshit. I suggest you just read the site.....

[zendo]

Anarchist

you expect me not to react harshly to someone who is advocating the senseless murdering of innocent little baby seals??

No never, I will never respect someone who advocates such barbaric and cowardly deeds. and furthermore you as an Anarchist are supposed to be an animal activist,

there are many Anrarchist groups that fight for Animal Rights, those are the groups I respect the most.

You should understand my anger towards these cowards that pick on defenseless, innocent little creatures who have done no harm.

I am a vegetarian and an animal lover and one of the things that angers me the most is animal cruelty.

[LSD]

So you think euthanizing animals is the same as murdering them?

No ...but PETA does!

They accuse animal shelters who euthenize animals of "murder". What's wrong with holding PETA to their own moral standard?

They are hypocrites not because they "murder" animals, but because they do the exact same thing that they condemn others for doing. That's practically the definition of hypocrite!


LYSERGIC ACID I THINK YOUR THE FUCKING WACKO

Really?

"THE FUCKING WACKO"?

How sad. :(


FURTHERMORE NOTHING GOOD HAS EVER COME OUT OF MEDICINE BECAUSE OF ANIMAL TESTING

Except insulin, penncilin, strptomycin (all the mycins actually), cyclosporine, angioplasty, artifical hearts, hips, and organs, vaccines for, count them, anthrax, chicken pox, cholera, dipheria, flu, influenza, hep A and B, measles, mumps, polio, rabies, rubella, smallpox, teatnus, yellow fever, and many more. Not to mention the invention of pacemakers, organ transplantation, and chemotherapy!

Yeah, I think a couple of "good" things have come out of animal testing!

[zendo]

lYSERGIC ADIC HAHAHAH

CHEMOTHERAPY :lol: :lol: :lol:

NOW I KNOW YOURE TRIPPIN ON ACID FOR SURE

LOOK ITS LIKE THIS, 90 PERCENT OF ALL DISEASES STEM FROM LACK OF PHYSICAL EXERCISE, OBESITY AND BAD FOOD DIETS, STRESS AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

ANIMAL TESTING IS USELESS

Natural medicine is the way to go, The earth provides us with all the herbal medicine that we need

if you have a healthy diet and a healthy lifestyle you will never need all those useless drugs that you mentioned.

Why do you think AMericans are so drugged up?? Because theyre all fat and lazy and don't exercise.

Most animal testing nowadays is used to test new Pfizer drugs to keep Americans hooked on pills. Its disgusting.

Animal testing is used by the big Capitalist Pharmaceutical Corporations to find newer and stronger drugs to get our young children hooked on pills by the age of 6 years old.

[zendo]

ANIMAL TESTING IS IMMORAL AND IS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE

Graphic pictures of cats with electrodes clamped to their heads, or monkeys strapped to chairs with their brains cut open, their eyes filled with pain and terror, are enough to upset momentarily even the most hardened person. But most of us put these images out of our mind and accept the situation, because we're told by the government and medical establishment that such experiments are for our own good. They insist that without these procedures there will never be cures for the world's diseases, and that those who oppose animal experiments are extremists holding back "progress".

Yet, despite the supposed stringency of animal tests on drugs deemed safe for human consumption and released onto the market, two million Americans become seriously ill and approximately 100,000 people die every year because of reactions to medicines they were prescribed.1 This figure exceeds the number of deaths from all illegal drugs combined, at an annual cost to the public of more than US$136 billion in health care expenses.2 In England, an estimated 70,000 deaths and cases of severe disability occur each year because of adverse reactions to prescription drugs, making this the third most common cause of death (after heart attack and stroke)

WHY ANIMAL MODELS ARE NOT PREDICTIVE
Open up a rat, a dog, a pig and a human and you will find much the same terrain, but with differences. But it is precisely these differences which have an impact when it comes to assimilating drugs. For example, rats, the species most commonly used in vivisection, have no gall bladder and excrete bile very effectively.

"Many drugs are excreted via bile, so this affects the half-life of the drug," explain Ray and Jean Greek. "Drugs bind to rat plasma much less efficiently. Rats always breathe through the nose. Because some chemicals are absorbed in the nose, some are filtered. So rats get a different mix of substances entering their systems. Also, they are nocturnal. Their gut flora are in a different location. Their skin has different absorptive properties than that of humans. Any one of these discrepancies will alter drug metabolism."

These differences are only on a gross level. Medications act on a microscopic level, initiating or interrupting chemical reactions that are far too small for the human eye to observe.

"We differ on the cellular level and molecular level and, importantly, that is where disease occurs," the authors explain. "The cells of chimps are very similar to [the cells of] humans, but the spatial organisation of the cells is vastly different."

Even those who favour the animal model admit its unpredictability among their peers.

Dr Ralph Heywood, director of Huntingdon Research Center in the United States, says: "The best guess for the correlation of adverse reactions in man and animal toxicity data is somewhere between five and 25 per cent."6

Dr Herbert Hensel, Director of the Institute of Physiology at Marburg University, goes further: "In the opinion of leading biostatisticians, it is not possible to transfer the probability predictions from animals to humans. At present, therefore, there exists no possibility at all of a scientifically based prediction. In this respect, the situation is even less favourable than a game of chance."7

Even the most widely respected textbook on animal experimentation states: "Uncritical reliance on the results of animal tests can be dangerously misleading and has cost the health and lives of tens of thousands of humans."8

The best-known example of this is thalidomide. Mothers who took this drug to ameliorate morning sickness gave birth to children with shocking deformities, with most lacking developed limbs. Animal tests had not predicted this. The first recorded case of side effects occurred on Christmas Day 1956, but in 1957 the drug was released anyway.9

WHAT DOESN'T WORK FOR ANIMALS MAY WORK FOR HUMANS
As well as animal tests allowing unsafe drugs onto the market, the flip side is that human health is also compromised when drugs which may be beneficial to humans are prevented from being released. Most drugs have side effects, some of which are more acute than others, but many useful medications used to save lives would not have reached clinical trials if they had first been tested on animals.

We only have to look in our own medicine cabinets for examples. Today, around 29 billion aspirin per year are sold in the United States and twice that number worldwide, yet aspirin causes birth defects in mice and rats and results in such extensive blood abnormalities in cats that they can only take 20 per cent of the human dosage every third day.20 Another painkiller, ibuprofen, causes kidney failure in dogs, even at low doses.

Other prescription drugs were initially unavailable to people because animal studies predicted side effects not found in humans. They include:

Corticosteroids: These have been shown to cause cancer in some rodents, despite their being used safely by humans for years.
Depo-Provera: This contraceptive was barred from release in the US in 1973 because it caused cancer in dogs and baboons.
FK506: This anti-rejection drug was almost shelved before it proceeded to clinical trials. After experimenting on dogs, researchers said animal toxicity was too severe to proceed to the clinical trial stage.
Furosemide: Mice, rats and hamsters suffer liver damage from this diuretic, but humans do not. It is widely prescribed for the treatment of high blood pressure and heart disease.
Isoniazid: This medication, commonly used for treating tuberculosis, caused cancer in animals.
Penicillin: The release of penicillin was delayed when its discoverer, Alexander Fleming, put it to one side because it did not work in rabbits. This is because rabbits excrete penicillin in their urine. Only when Fleming had a sick human patient and nothing else to try, did he administer penicillin -- with excellent results.
Prilosec: The release of this gastrointestinal medication was delayed for 12 years because of an effect in animals which did not occur in humans.
Streptomycin: This popular antibiotic caused birth defects such as limb malformations in the offspring of rats.

[zendo]

THE CANCER WAR
According to Dr Ray and Jean Swingle Greek, 40 per cent of us will have a diagnosis of cancer at some time in our lives. It is the one disease which most of us will have had some encounter with, whether personally or through contact with friends or family. But despite billions of dollars poured into "cancer research", the medical establishment is not winning its war against the Big C. Deaths from the disease are increasing; for example, from 1973 to 1992 they went up by 6.3 per cent in the United States.

The Greeks reveal in their book that despite thousands of substances being fed to, painted on and injected into hundreds of millions of animals, we are no closer to saving lives. "In many cases, it [animal experimentation] has actually led to more life loss and introduced new dangers," they argue.

There are more than 200 different forms of human cancer. Some of these have counterparts in animals, although even these differ greatly from those in humans in terms of cause, effect, treatment and prognosis. An histiocytoma is fatal in humans but benign in dogs, as all cancers have species-specific effects.

Ironically, in the 1950s the only known carcinogens were those found by studying humans epidemiologically, the authors explain. "A study of dyeworkers showed a high incidence of bladder cancer," they write. "Droves of dyed lab animals failed to prove the rule. Chromium was found to be carcinogenic in humans but not in animals. The link between radiation and cancer was also reported from clinical studies by that time. In 1956, British doctors warned of carcinogenic effects of X-rays given during pregnancy, resulting in childhood cancers. But no amount of irradiated pregnant quadrupeds necessarily produced the same effect.

"In these instances and many others, the inability to validate carcinogenicity in animals kept cancer-causing agents legal for a much longer time."

Asbestos is another example. The link between cancer and asbestos was made as long ago as 1907; but, after scientists failed to induce the disease in animals, it took more than 30 years before the human-model evidence became irrefutable.

Ray and Jean Greek point out that, between 1970 and 1985, researchers subjected an estimated 300 to 400 million animals to more than half a million compounds to check for anticancer effects. Based on these animal experiments, only 80 compounds progressed to clinical trials. Just 24 proved to have any anticancer activity in humans, and, of these, 12 went on to have a substantial role in chemotherapy. But, all 12 of these compounds were chemical variations of previously known chemotherapeutic agents. The fact that these chemicals could be used to fight cancer had already been predicted by their chemical structure.21 In other words, for 15 years, billions of dollars of investment money was ploughed into subjecting millions of animals to the most painful, cruel and barbaric procedures and then killing them, all of which proved nothing new.

Even the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) has admitted its failures. In the Los Angeles Times of 6 May 1998, NCI Director Dr Richard Klausner was quoted as saying: "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades and it simply didn't work in humans."

In the United States in the 1990s, scientists came up with the idea of genetically engineering rats to accept human cancers. But in 63 per cent of cases, according to the Greeks, the human tumours in the rats did not respond to chemotherapies which are "currently and effectively" used in humans, because the way cancers grow in animals is different from how they grow in humans. It begs the question as to how many anticancer drugs which could be successful in treating human cancers have been missed because they did not work in mice or rats. Chemotherapeutic agents which have been successful in humans have all come from non-animal means, according to the Greeks.

The next time any of us is tempted to put money into a tin shaken by cancer research charities which fund research using animal models, we would do well to remember the words of Dr Irwin Bross, formerly of the Roswell Park Memorial Institute for Cancer Research, in testimony before the US Congress in 1981: "While conflicting animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance in either the prevention or treatment of human cancer."

WHY ANIMAL-BASED RESEARCH CONTINUES, DESPITE THE EVIDENCE
If even the proponents of the vivisection lobby admit that animal studies are inaccurate and produce little reliable data for human extrapolation, why on earth do they continue to employ these methods?

Dr Werner Hartinger, a German surgeon, surmised in 1989: "There are, in fact, only two categories of doctors and scientists who are not opposed to vivisection: those who don't know enough about it, and those who make money from it."

The latter in particular, according to Ray and Jean Greek, is the main reason. "Scientists are just like the rest of us, materialistic and opportunistic. They, too, struggle to survive and excel in a competitive world," they argue.

Dr Irwin Bross agrees. In 1986 he was quoted in Cancer Research on Animals as saying: "They [scientists] may claim to love truth; but when it is a matter of truth versus dollars, they love the dollars more."

To get grants for research and stay employed, you must churn out papers with the utmost regularity. And the fastest and easiest way to get papers published is to use animal experimentation.

"Animal experimentation is tidy," the Greeks explain. "The lovely thing about rats is that you can go home on Friday night and rest assured that they will still be in their cages when you get back on Monday. On the other hand, clinical research on humans can be tricky. Clinicians have no control over patients who may not return for follow-up appointments. Human subjects may even be dishonest about their lifestyles. You can addict monkeys to crack cocaine or heroin in your nice, clean lab. If you want to study human crack or heroin addicts, you may have to interact with potentially nasty people."

Time is also of the essence. "A rat's generation time is weeks, not decades. By the time a clinician publishes one good paper, an animal experimenter can publish at least five. The easiest way to publish is to take a concept already published and change something, the type of animal used, the dose of the drug, the method of assessing the results or some other variable." It is the number, as opposed to the value of research, that is important to those wishing to get on in their scientific career.

Acceptance of the status quo, not rocking the boat, is also a key factor. The pressure on students and young doctors to publish should not be underestimated. It has led to a proliferation of scientific journals which are often edited by researchers using animal experiments. This means that vivisectionists are able to put forward their work, but those who are against animal studies can find no place to publish-despite there being an estimated 100,000 scientific journals in print today. Many of these journals rely on advertising revenue from pharmaceutical companies and others who make products for animal experimenters.

Mainstream media also collude to keep anti-vivisectionists' work out of the public eye. At the UK press conference of the Greeks' new book, not one journalist from a national newspaper attended, despite novelist Jilly Cooper being there to promote it.

Reporters and editors soon realise that if they want to hang onto their jobs and maintain a steady flow of breaking news, they must keep their contacts happy. Most of these scientific contacts will be part of the animal experimentation lobby who will not take too kindly to the prospect of having their industry exposed as a money-making fraud.

This money, by the way, is yours. The US Government spends around $10 billion of taxpayers' money each year on animal-based research, according to the Greeks. The largest single provider of funds to medical research institutions in the United States is the National Institutes of Health (NIH). But only one-third of NIH competing research grant applications includes human subjects.22 So it is not hard to see why animal studies are the preferred option of researchers with career ambitions and mortgages to pay.

Then there is the grip of corporations to contend with. The animal experimentation industry grosses between an estimated 100 billion and one trillion dollars a year worldwide. This figure includes the employment of hundreds of thousands of people, including those who manufacture and sell jackets for immobilising animals and pumps for force-feeding them, needles, cages, scalpels and equipment used to kill animals in a specific way, not to mention the sales of animals themselves. Take Cedar River Laboratories, for example, which specialises in selling cats; its price is usually $225 for animals less than 16 weeks old.

Pharmaceutical firms benefit from the industry, too. According to its 1999 annual report, Merck's sales for the year came in at $32,714 million.

Animal experimentation is the quickest way of getting a new drug onto the market. Researchers given grant money by pharmaceutical companies are far more likely to come out with a positive review of the drug than those who are not receiving financial support. The Journal of the American Medical Association reported that 43 per cent of more than 2,000 researchers surveyed at the top 50 research universities said they had received gifts, including cash, even when the giver required prior approval of the results of the research being conducted.23

Even charities are not exempt from the profit-making loop. Many of them -- such as the American Institute for Cancer Research, the American Diabetes Association and the American Heart Association, and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the British Heart Foundation (BHF) in the UK -- fund or carry out animal-based research. Out of a total income of £56 million in 1998, the BHF spent £34.9 million on research, with only £5.1 million going into educational programs. In one test, dogs' chests were cut open and their blood was circulated out of their bodies and back again in order to allow blood pressure to change quickly in the neck arteries. The experimenters then came to the conclusion that a person bending down and suddenly standing up could experience dizziness and fainting.24

Animal testing also provides pharmaceutical firms with a weapon to protect themselves from being sued by people who have been damaged by their products. In Europe, all medications when they reach the final product stage are legally required to be tested on animals for carcinogenicity and birth defects. But, explains Wendy Higgins, campaigns director of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, this is not the case in the developmental stages of a drug, which is where most animal testing goes on.

The situation in the United States is similar. According to Dr Ray Greek: "Most pharmaceutical firms do more testing than the government requires, so they can say in court that they saw no effects like the one that killed the plaintiff's wife. Officials will tell you off the record that they rely on animal testing and think that it is a big factor in protection from lawsuits." Or, the companies can turn around and dismiss the animal tests as being unreliable in humans. Either way, it is extremely hard for victims to take legal action against them.

[zendo]

ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL-BASED RESEARCH
Real developments always arise from a human-modelled foundation, Ray and Jean Greek assert. The potent painkiller morphine, for example, is extracted from poppy flowers. Quinine, used to treat malaria, comes from cinchona bark. Aspirin, the most widely used medication in the world, was first prescribed by Hippocrates in the form of willow bark. None of these owes anything to animal experiments.

Clinical studies of patients and good old-fashioned observation have led to the successful treatment of childhood leukaemia and thyroid disease. Our present HIV and AIDS therapies and a number of heart drugs have also been developed in this way.

In vitro or test-tube study has revolutionised medical research. Cell and tissue preservation technology is now so advanced that many different types of cells can be kept alive almost indefinitely, giving far more accurate results when studying disease on the microscopic level at which it occurs.

Autopsies and epidemiology are other key areas of research, with technology today allowing thousands of patients at multiple institutions to be tracked. Ray and Jean Greek point out that epidemiological studies discovered the link between folic acid deficiency and spina bifida. Epidemiological studies also showed the cause/effect relationship between smoking and cancer, cancer and diet, heart disease and cholesterol, coal dust and black lung disease, smoking and heart disease, among many other diseases. It was epidemiology that proved the link between smoking and lung disease, despite the tobacco industry arguing for years that this was not the case because animal-based models said so. Experimenters had tried unsuccessfully for more than half a century to give animals cancer with tobacco smoke. They reasoned that since animals do not get cancer from tobacco, there is no proof that it causes cancer. The tobacco industry even paid doctors in the 1950s and 1960s to advertise cigarettes.

Breast cancer is an area that has benefited from mathematical modelling where computers simulate parts of the human body. This is a relatively new area of research, as is computer-assisted research where molecules can be studied on screen using computer graphics which mimic the body's systems.

The Dr Hadwen Trust is a UK-based charity established to come up with alternative research techniques. It funded the development of a new brain-scanning technique for studying vision, which replaced the need for invasive experiments on cats and led to a revolution in the understanding of the human brain with untold potential. The Trust also funded a pioneering 3D computer model of human teeth which is used to predict the results of corrective dental procedures such as braces.

These alternatives are not prohibitively expensive, either. Many are in fact cheaper than using animals. An initial cost of implementing new procedures would have to be incurred, but the long-term savings would justify the investment.

MORAL, ETHICAL AND SCIENTIFIC CONCERNS
The moral and ethical objections to vivisection will continue to rage on. If you are not interested in "animal rights", the use of animals in experiments will probably not bother you. But the scientific evidence against this practice should worry every single one of us who cares about our health.

Anyone who is yet to be convinced should take note of the section in Ray and Jean Greeks' book which outlines the results of a 1998 survey conducted by the Public Citizens' Health Research Group (PCHRG) in the United States. In the survey, 19 medical officers at the FDA said that 27 new drugs approved by the agency in the past three years should not have been. "Dr Sidney Wolfe, Director of the PCHRG, said that standards are going down because the agency has been under pressure from Congress to approve products more quickly. Of 172 officers interviewed, eight said there were 14 instances in the past three years where they had been told not to present their opinion to an advisory committee if it would reduce the likelihood of a drug's approval."25, 26

So, contrary to the propaganda put forward by the medical establishment to justify its work, animal experimentation does not save human lives. As the industry's own evidence proves, it does just the opposite.

[LSD]

NOW I KNOW YOURE TRIPPIN ON ACID FOR SURE

Is that your way of dodging the issue?

All the medicines/procedures I listed were developed in whole or in part because of animal testing, that is a fact. Animal testing is nescessary, that is the consensus of the medical community, the pharmacological community, and the scientific community.

When polled, 97% of Nobel Laurietes in medicine agreed that animal testing is essential. I tend to trust Nobel Prize winning scientists above "Ray and Jean Greek"! :lol:


LOOK ITS LIKE THIS, 90 PERCENT OF ALL DISEASES STEM FROM LACK OF PHYSICAL EXERCISE, OBESITY AND BAD FOOD DIETS, STRESS AND THE ENVIRONMENT

I'd ask you to cite your source, but there's no point seeing as how you pulled that statistic out of your ass.

"90% OF ALL DISEASES"? WTF?


Natural medicine is the way to go, The earth provides us with all the herbal medicine that we need

...except it doesn't.

The earth didn't "provide" the smallpox vaccine, we invented it, and it has saved hundreds of millions of lives. This primitivist attitude that "nature will provide" is petty-bourgeois reactionary crap. The earth isn't sentient, it doesn't "provide" anything. We need to take and develop the tools to survive, not "trust" that the "earth will provide".


if you have a healthy diet and a healthy lifestyle you will never need all those useless drugs that you mentioned.

Bullshit.

Paleolithic man had a "healthy diet" (vegetables, roots, only occasional meat) and a "healthy lifestyle" (very active!), but he only lived 30 years!

Modern medecine saves lives. Period.


Why do you think AMericans are so drugged up?? Because theyre all fat and lazy and don't exercise.

Why do you think it is that people in the first world live longer and healthier lives? Could it be because of modern medicine?


Animal testing is used by the big Capitalist Pharmaceutical Corporations to find newer and stronger drugs to get our young children hooked on pills by the age of 6 years old.

That's an argument against capitalism, not animal testing.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 04:12 PM
1 million seals in three years in one country, one entire species becomes extinct every hour, 15 million children die every year of starvation. These statistics are not at odds with each other and they dont happen in isolation but exist for the exact same reason and the exact same system that we have today.
Which is why I'm a leftist.

Otherwise I agree with LSD completely.

[zendo]

LYSERGIC ACID YOU FUCKING JUNKEY

DID YOU NOT READ WHAT I POSTED ASSFACE??

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR REFRIED BRAIN

GET OFF THOSE FUCKING DRUGS YOU LITTLE DIRTY HIPPY

ANIMAL TESTING IS EVIL

HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF YOU WERE A MONKEY HAVING YOUR BRAIN OPENED UP?

YOU FUCKING LITTLE DIRTY HIPPY HAVE SOME DIGNITY, PRINCIPLES AND RESPECT FOR LIFE!

[LSD]

ANIMAL TESTING IS EVIL

That's a curious term for a self-described Marxist.

Why is it "EVIL"?

It works, it is nescessary, it helps society, it does not harm society to an intolerable level.

If you want to prove "EVIL" you need to provide reasons why human society should grant such protections to non-human organisms.


HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU LIKE IT IF YOU WERE A MONKEY HAVING YOUR BRAIN OPENED UP?

I wouldn't. But then I'm actually capable of imagining a hypothetical, monnkeys are not.


YOU FUCKING LITTLE DIRTY HIPPY

LYSERGIC ACID YOU FUCKING JUNKEY

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR REFRIED BRAIN

ASSFACE

Zendo, your hostile behvaiour and constant flaming have gone on enough. If you persist, I will be forced to give you a warning point and possibly restrict you to OI.

Please understand that this board will not tolerate flaming or personal insults. Stalinists are tolerated but only if they are capable of intelligent debate. I am sure that you are, and I am sure that you can be a contributing member here. But you must calm the fuck down!

[zendo]

LYSERGIC YOURE THE ONE THAT STARTED INSULTING ME FIRST OK, SCROLL BACK YOU'LL SEE

FURTHERMORE IF YOU CONTINUE WITH YOUR BULLSHIT I WILL TRACK YOU DOWN

FIND OUT WHERE YOU LIVE AND TORUTURE YOU THE WAY ANIMALS ARE TURTURED IN LABORATORIES

SEE HOW YOU LIKE THAT SHIT

DON'T YOU EVER THREATEN ME, LIKE DADDY STALIN I DON'T LIKE BEING THREATENED

[zendo]

SON YOU THINK I GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT YOU OR THIS FUCKING SILLY FORUM FULL OF JUDAS TROTSKYITES AND LIBERAL PUSSIES

HAHA

[LSD]

LYSERGIC YOURE THE ONE THAT STARTED INSULTING ME FIRST OK, SCROLL BACK YOU'LL SEE

The second post you made in this thread was:

LYSERGIC ACID I THINK YOUR THE FUCKING WACKO

FURTHERMORE NOTHING GOOD HAS EVER COME OUT OF MEDICINE BECAUSE OF ANIMAL TESTING

I THINK LYSSERGIC ACID IS ON A 24 HOUR TRIP

YOUR BRAIN IS ROASTED YOU FUCKING IMBECILE

I never mentioned you or responded to you in any way before this.


FURTHERMORE IF YOU CONTINUE WITH YOUR BULLSHIT I WILL TRACK YOU DOWN

And if you continue with yours, you will be banned.


SON YOU THINK I GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT YOU OR THIS FUCKING SILLY FORUM FULL OF JUDAS TROTSKYITES AND LIBERAL PUSSIES

Jesus, man, unstick your shift key and type like a normal person.

[Dark Exodus]

Originally posted by zendo
LYSERGIC YOURE THE ONE THAT STARTED INSULTING ME FIRST OK, SCROLL BACK YOU'LL SEE

FURTHERMORE IF YOU CONTINUE WITH YOUR BULLSHIT I WILL TRACK YOU DOWN

FIND OUT WHERE YOU LIVE AND TORUTURE YOU THE WAY ANIMALS ARE TURTURED IN LABORATORIES

SEE HOW YOU LIKE THAT SHIT

DON'T YOU EVER THREATEN ME, LIKE DADDY STALIN I DON'T LIKE BEING THREATENED


http://s89199910.onlinehome.us/humour/chillpill2.jpg

[novemba]

I havn't read the whole thread but:

We're worrying about the human race. Being human it is our duties to take care of our home (earth) and our neighbors who live in it (animals). It is necessary to eat animals, but eating anything that doesn't have the brain capacity to know it has a brain doesn't trouble me too much. :lol:

[novemba]

Oh, and on another note, if they do 'liberate the animals' whats after that...?

Plant Liberation?

ahaha. :lol: :D :lol:

[Vallegrande]

I agree with zendo about where our new drugs come from. All that has to go into it is a little synthesizing, and you got yourelf a product that you can patent. Like HIV/AIDS, chemists found that lauric acid in coconut oil actually destroys the virus.

Derived from lauric acid, there is now a patent for this powerful HIV drug. When in reality, our bodies have the power to ingest lauric acid and turn it into mono-laurin, which fucks up the HIV/AIDS virus quite righteously.

[Black Dagger]

PETA kills animals while condemning those who kill animals, and the fact that an organization predicated on "Total Animal Liberation" actually euthenizes animals at its headquarters should clarify the issue for anyone.

How was this data 'discovered'? How and why are these animals being killed?

[LSD]

How was this data 'discovered'?

PETA admits it!

As a tax-exempt organization, they have to list all their expenses, and killing animals costs money.


How and why are these animals being killed?

The same reason all animal shelters euthenize animals. To save space, to save resources, to prevent overcrowding and disease, etc...

[Black Dagger]

Has there been any public defence of these actions?

[LSD]

Has there been any public defence of these actions?

"It is a totally rotten business, but sometimes the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever. I don't think a dog living in a cage walking in circles for the rest of its life in a dog prison is a swell thing. It sounds lovely if you're naive, we could become a no-kill shelter immediately, but it means we wouldn't do as much work. Nobody wants most of the animals that we touch."

-PETA President and Founder Ingrid Newkirk.

[Soul Rebel]

1) PETA does have the ability to take into account people's life situation. PETA is known for example to collect fur coats and donate them to the homeless so they can keep warm. Their idea is that animals should not be used for vanity for example. If your life situation is one in which you must use animals for your survival, PETA is actually really sensitive to that.

2) If PETA does euthanize its a lot more cruel free than allowing an animal to die in a painful manner or to live on the streets reproducing constantly and creating more homeless animals. However, i do not believe in the whole PETA euthanizing in their offices- if anything they support it to some extent. As a supporter of PETA (financially-i do donate when i can- and in ideas) i can tell you that what is true and awesome is that they carry out a neuter and spay program in order to help the whole ordeal that is happening with homeless animals, which is the same that happens with humans (suffer the tempatures, no food, no shelter, cannot provide for their children, etc.)

3) To say that animal rights activists are reactionary is the silliest thing ever. They are practicing a form of dissent (from the norm) and can be some of the best allies (just as feminists are). Notice why so many anarchists, communists, feminists, are vegetarians or vegans. If you really believe it is reactionary than you are calling some of the greatest personalities in the political spectrum, such as Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (who has spoken in favor of animal rights), reactionary. Think twice about what you say...thinking things clearly through leads to some great understanding.

4) Animal liberation and human liberation is intricatly intertwinned. You cannot seperate the oppressions- they work together. If you want to free anyone or anything you have to free all.

[LSD]

However, i do not believe in the whole PETA euthanizing in their offices

You "don't believe in" it?

Sorry, but it's an admitted fact. "Belief" has nothing to do with it.


f your life situation is one in which you must use animals for your survival, PETA is actually really sensitive to that.

No they aren't.

All of our "life situations" are those in which we must use animals for our survival. It's called biomedical research, and not only does PETA oppose it, it supports criminals who firebomb research clinics.

PETA has, publically, opposed the use of guide dogs for the blind. "Sensitive" my achin' ass! :angry:


They are practicing a form of dissent (from the norm)

So are White Nationalists. The question is not what are they opposing, it's what are they supporting, and what PETA supports is reactionary.


To say that animal rights activists are reactionary is the silliest thing ever.

Animal rights activists as a group are not intrinsically reactionary. Clearly there is a lot of nescessary work to be done in the field of animal treatment.

TAL advocates (Total Animal Liberation), however, are reactionary because their ideology is fundamentally anti-humanist, regressive, primitavist, and supertstitious.

Look, no one here supports needless animal cruelty. No one wants to go around beating dogs and strangling cats. But animals are not human and we cannot treat them as such. We are omnivores, we eat animals. That's about as natural an act as there is. Preventing people from eating meat is an act of oppression. It reduces freedom of action for nebulous reasons in support of a nebulous goal.

The animal fanatics want to give animals the rights of people with none of the responsibilities. I suppose that means that we should all financially support them so that they don't starve! I can't imagine what they forsee animals giving back to society however...

The simple truth is that animals are not sentient and as such unable to be a part of our society. They are inferior to us and pretending that that isn't true doesn't change it. The simple truth is that we are superior to mice!

Animals are not a part of human society and so do not enjoy the rights given by that society. The very idea of rights is a human invention and applies only to humans. Society must protect rights because it is in the best interest of that society that it do so, that's it.

There is no "higher being" enforcing rights, they are as much a societal creation as anything. Sosicety exists to bennefit the members of said society, therefore it is the obligation of society to afford all liberties and basic rights to members of society so long as said liberties to not infringe on the same rights and liberties of other member of society.

Human society has no obligation to those species which are intrinsically biologically incapable of participating in such society.

Our human obligations are such because that is the nature of our relationship. Our relationship with other animals is in the context of their relationhip with themselves and with other animals. Animals eat animals! Therefore, from a philosophical sense, the eating of meat is within their moral framework. The primary relationship in nature between animal and animal, mammal and mammal is that of hunter and prey, therefore, in terms of our natural responsibility, we are merely participating in preexisting supersocial acts.

That's philosophy, now here's reason: Rights are a societal creation. We are only obligated to provide rights for those who are part of human society. We have no obligation, nor logical reason, to provide rights for those who are not only not a part of said society, but of a species which is fundamentally incapable of even convieving of rights.

Specially incapable. There may be members of human society (infants, the infirmed) who are not capable of concieving of much, but the capacity and the excersizing of said capacity are two seperate things. Humans are genetically capable of concieving of complex abstract ideas, other animals are not.

It is that fucking simple.


You cannot seperate the oppressions

Animals are not "oppressed". In order to be oppressed, you must be able to concieve of liberty. Animals are not.

And comparing the treatment of animals to the treatment of real people is exactly the reactionary anti-humanist bullshit I'm talking about!


If you want to free anyone or anything you have to free all.

That's one of the more ludicrous comments I have ever read.

Of course it's possible to free individual groups. Especially when one of the groups in question can't even be "liberated" at all!

"Freedom", in a social context, is a human societal invention and as such has no validity in regards to nonhuman beings. We can, and should, afford certain protections to animals, but we cannot afford human moral liberties to creatures that are genetically incapable of comprehending liberation let alone morality!

[Severian]

Originally posted by Soul [email protected] 28 2005, 12:06 PM
To say that animal rights activists are reactionary is the silliest thing ever. They are practicing a form of dissent (from the norm) and can be some of the best allies (just as feminists are).
How ironic you should make this comparison, while PETA routinely compares women to barnyard animals and uses images of naked women covered in blood to promote its cause.

The fur industry makes some good points here. (http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsF06f.htm)

Who and what is PETA appealing to, exactly, with images like those? If Wilhelm Reich was writing "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" today, its ads would work beautifully as textbook illustrations...reaching for its target audience at some deep subconscious level, and definitely for people's worst instincts and neuroses, not our best impulses....

[plug]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 28 2005, 06:55 PM
That's philosophy, now here's reason: Rights are a societal creation. We are only obligated to provide rights for those who are part of human society. We have no obligation, nor logical reason, to provide rights for those who are not only not a part of said society, but of a species which is fundamentally incapable of even convieving of rights.


Thank you!

I am against the physical suffering of animals, because obviously they have nerve cells and can feel pain. However, rights? I don't think so. Applying human conceptions to animals just isn't logical to me.

Being a human, I consider myself as more important than other species. I have no problems with humans using animals as food, labour, etc, as long as it is necessary. Stuff like fur fashion is just idiotic though. Why kill an animal to get fur when there's perfectly faux fur?

[Soul Rebel]

How ironic you should make this comparison, while PETA routinely compares women to barnyard animals and uses images of naked women covered in blood to promote its cause.

Actually if looked at from an eco-feminist point of view its not ironic at all. Many Eco-feminists believe that there is a natural connection between womyn and the earth, womyn's life cycles are in balance with that of the earth, and both the earth and womyn have been changed and oppressed by corporations (usually led by men). Therefore, many eco-feminist groups actually support and promote the woman-nature connection and use advertisments such as PETAs to demonstrate this and to capture womyns attention. This is one of PETA's things- it is not done to say womyn are barnyard animals. Its also done because womyn do tend to be vegetarians on a much higher level than men.


You "don't believe in" it?

Sorry, but it's an admitted fact. "Belief" has nothing to do with it.

First of all, its not just a "belief." Its called the "TRUTH." I dont think you understand that there is a big difference between supporting the euthanizing of animals and then actually doing it. PETA supports it to an extent, but does not actually do it themselves. There is no euthanizing going on in their offices. All that goes on down there is paper work and using the phone.

And PETA never admitted to doing it in their offices. They admitted (like its such a horrible thing) that they support it. Once again- BIG DIFFERENCE.

No they aren't.

All of our "life situations" are those in which we must use animals for our survival. It's called biomedical research, and not only does PETA oppose it, it supports criminals who firebomb research clinics.

PETA has, publically, opposed the use of guide dogs for the blind. "Sensitive" my achin' ass!

That is the biggest bunch of crap ever!!! you actually got me laughing.

Yes, they are against biomedical research and for a good reason! Its no longer needed! We have supposedly advanced enough that there are computer generated ways of testing medicines. We also have this thing called "human" clinical trials, in which many patients suffering from diseases such as HIV/AIDS are more than willing to try it and have actually been pressuring drug companies and the government to give them the opportunity to actually be able to participate in these studies.

And PETA has never publically opposed the use of guide dogs for the blind, it has opposed how these dogs are often trained, which is many times through physical abuse. BIG DIFFERENCE in those two statements. Try reading things as they are.

They are inferior to us and pretending that that isn't true doesn't change it. The simple truth is that we are superior to mice!

how are they inferior? they have the ability to communicate, to think (have to think to an extent in order to communicate), show love, etc. they show many of the same qualities that humans have, even greed. just because they dont get all dolled up, head corps, and start wars doesnt mean they are inferior.

Animals are not a part of human society

you also tend to forget that humans are animals. that will never change no matter how much you believe in difference.

That's one of the more ludicrous comments I have ever read.

To someone who doesnt have an understanding of how oppression actually works, of course it is. Try reading up on the theory of intersectionality, its one of the most progressive ways to look at and battle oppression. It is really the only thing that will help any progressive movement reach its goals.

[LSD]

First of all, its not just a "belief." Its called the "TRUTH." I dont think you understand that there is a big difference between supporting the euthanizing of animals and then actually doing it. PETA supports it to an extent, but does not actually do it themselves.

No, they actually do it themselves in their headquarters at Hampton Roads, Virginia. Not only that but they store the corpses underneath their facility in a tax-free freezer they purchased, filed in their public tax returns of 1997.


Yes, they are against biomedical research and for a good reason! Its no longer needed!

Yes it is.

That's what every bioresearcher worth his salt says, and I'm going to trust them over a corrupt organization and their murdering, firebombing associates.


We have supposedly advanced enough that there are computer generated ways of testing medicines.

"supposedly"?

"Supposed" by whom? You? Someone with a "moral" imperitive to find animal testing wrong?

Excuse me if I want a slightly less biased source.

How about virtually every Nobel winning medical researcher? How about every serious association of biologists and doctors? How about the consensus of the entire medical community?

If we didn't need animal testing, we wouldn't be testing on animals.

We have to test on something, and testing on fellow members of society is simply not an option.


how are they inferior?

Genetically, cognitively, neurologically, intellectually, morally, psychologically, and socially.

Animals are specially incapable of indepedent rational thought, we are not. They are incapable of indepdendent moral judgment, they lack the fundamental cognitive ability to concieve of complex ideas.

Honestly, is any of this new to you? Are you seriously trying to argue that we are not superior to a ...chipmunk? :lol:


they have the ability to communicate, to think (have to think to an extent in order to communicate), show love, etc. they show many of the same qualities that humans have

But none of the relevent ones.

It doesn't matter whether they can "love" or are capable of rudimentaty communication, we're talking about society here, not fucking Bambi. In order to be protected by rights invented by society, one must be a member of society, that's why rights exist.

Those beings which are not capable of even concieving of said rights, therefore, cannot be afforded the protections of them. And, honestly, how could you? Animals are simply not able to understand the responsibilities that come with membership in human society. Can you really relly upon a wolfe to recognize the "human rights" of a deer? Can you really expect a mosquito to acknowlege your "right to privacy"?

The simple truth is, despite your Disney fantasy world, animals are not human and do not have anything approaching a human understanding of the world. They cannot be participating members in human society, because the lack even the rudimentary ability to recognize that that society even exists.

If you want to extend HUMAN rights to non-HUMAN life forms, you need to provide rational justification. You need to explain why "rights" created solely to protect members of society should encompass those who are by definition not part of society.

Rights have no "independent" life, they are not "greater" than us, we invented them. And we did so so that we are all secure and cared for, rights carry the implict understanding that we must respect the rights of others, otherwise they do not exist. And, accordingly, rights only extend, as a group, to those who are able to participate as moral actors in recognizing the rights of others.

Animals can never do this!


You also tend to forget that humans are animals.

No I don't.

But if the english language is too confusing for you, replace the word "animal" with "non-human animal".

There, happy now?

[Dark Exodus]

Many Eco-feminists believe that there is a natural connection between womyn and the earth, womyn's life cycles are in balance with that of the earth, and both the earth and womyn have been changed and oppressed by corporations (usually led by men). Therefore, many eco-feminist groups actually support and promote the woman-nature connection and use advertisments such as PETAs to demonstrate this and to capture womyns attention.

Are you trying to imply that women are more in tune with the earth than men?

Also, whats with 'womyn'?

[Severian]

Originally posted by Soul [email protected] 1 2005, 04:39 PM
[ctually if looked at from an eco-feminist point of view its not ironic at all. Many Eco-feminists believe that there is a natural connection between womyn and the earth, womyn's life cycles are in balance with that of the earth, and both the earth and womyn have been changed and oppressed by corporations (usually led by men). Therefore, many eco-feminist groups actually support and promote the woman-nature connection and use advertisments such as PETAs to demonstrate this and to capture womyns attention. This is one of PETA's things- it is not done to say womyn are barnyard animals. Its also done because womyn do tend to be vegetarians on a much higher level than men.
No, sorry, even "eco-feminists" and some animal rights people have pointed out how sexist PETA's ads are.

I might point out all this "womyn's life cycles are in balance with that of the earth" stuff, like all ideas about womens' supposed moral superiority, really harks back to the "angel of the house" Victorian ideas about womens' moral superiority...which were meant to keep women up on a pedestal rather than engaging the world and fighting for equality.

[bed_of_nails]

I find this Eco-Feminist stance to be quite sexist actually. It is true that the menstrual cycle is thought to be lunar-attuned, but that doesnt mean females are more in touch with nature.

I just get the feeling that these groups hate all males, and that makes me slightly uncomfortable with them.

[poster_child]

PETA is an organization that stands up for animals' rights. As leftists, I'm sure you would all agree that it is important to stand up for rights. Animals feel the effects of capitalism, like the lower class in society. As long as capitalism exists, animals will be tortured and mistreated. They, like everything else, living or non-living, will be treated like a product. As long as capitalism exists, groups like PETA must exist as well, to lobby these people who mistreat animals. Yes, there are hundreds more important issues out there, but this is important too.

There is no reality, there is only perception. Groups like PETA try and change society's perception of animals from a comodity to be exploited. As leftists, you should commend this sort of thought, as everything is not to be bought and sold as it is today.

[LSD]

PETA is an organization that stands up for animals' rights. As leftists, I'm sure you would all agree that it is important to stand up for rights

Only when those rights have a basis in reality. Animal "rights" do not. Certainly not to the ludicrous degree that TAL advocates claim!


Animals feel the effects of capitalism, like the lower class in society.

That's a ridiculous parallel.

Yes, animals are affected by capitalism, but so is my lampshade. The significance of capitalism in regards to the "lower class", however, is that it is exploitative.

Animals are functionally unable to be exploited by human society.


As long as capitalism exists, animals will be tortured and mistreated.

True enough, and it is indeed another reason to abandon capitalism as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, I fear that we are using different defintions of "mistreatment". I would define it as action which harms the animal and offers no significant bennefit to humanity. Since you are a supporter of PETA, I would imagine that you would drop the last part.

If so, then I'm afraid that "mistreatment" will go on regardless of the socio-economic system.

People will never stop eating meat and they will not stop needing vivisective experimentation for a long time to come. Perhaps one day scientific progress will eliminate the need for animal use, but all that this will result in is a massive cull.

The PETA/ALF disney dream of a "paradise" of dancing hippos is just that: fantasia bullshit.


Groups like PETA try and change society's perception of animals from a comodity to be exploited.

No they don't, they want "total animal liberation". They want to grant human societal rights to explicit non-participants. A thoroughly insane proposal.


As leftists, you should commend this sort of thought, as everything is not to be bought and sold as it is today.

And if PETA was remotely leftist, this would be relevent.

But PETA has no problem with capitalism so long as, theoretically, animals are able to participate in the market. In fact, by all indications, PETA has no socio-economic conerns, after all, they really don't care for humans all that much.

If TAL were achieved under capitalism, PETA would be satisfied. If it were achieved under fascism they would probably be happy too. They would certainly be confortable given the incredibly totalitarian nature of the organization.

As leftists we should support leftist causes, not petty-bourgeois middle-class fucks with way too much time on their hands living out an amusement park fantasy of "happy" and "free" animals.

PETA is petty idealism at its worst.


There is no reality, there is only perception.

Speaking of petty idealism... <_<

[poster_child]

I do not understand how you can justify the ill treatment of animals; for instance, grinding up baby chickens alive or making cages so small that chickens cannot even turn around or spread their wings. This is completely unnecessary. We could just as easily let them run free, or make larger cages. There are ways to properly euthanize animals.
PETA lobbies to eliminate the unnecessary ill-treatment of animals.
Do you think that this treatment is okay?
Why do you believe that animals don&#39;t have any rights?
How do you justify this?

[LSD]

Do you think that this treatment is okay?

No.


PETA lobbies to eliminate the unnecessary ill-treatment of animals.

That&#39;s the point, no they don&#39;t.

There are organizations that do; that lobby to try and improve the treatment of animals, and I believe that for the most part these organizations are absolutely correct ...but PETA isn&#39;t one of them.

PETA wants "total animal liberation", that&#39;s their mission statement. They want to grant complete human rights to animals. That means no meat, no pets, no animal research, no guide dogs, no zoos, no milk, no eggs, etc...

PETA is not fighting for improved conditions, it&#39;s fighting for "animal rights". It&#39;s fighting for the complete restructuring of society in a way that is fundamentally unsustainable. PETA wants to grant a set of societal rights to a massive population that has no way of understanding them nor respecting the rights of others.

PETA wants to devastate human society for the sake of their nebulous conception of animals as "oppressed".

I&#39;ll support the humane society, I&#39;ll even support the SPCA, I will never support PETA.


Why do you believe that animals don&#39;t have any rights?

As I&#39;ve already explained, animals are specially incapable of participating in human societ as indipendent moral actors and so are unable to be a part of the human societal moral framework from which rights derive.

Animals are deserving of societal protectiona which should extend just so far as they do not in any way adversly affect the interests of humanity, as society must always prioritize its membership. That&#39;s why it exists.


How do you justify this?

How do you?

How can you justify supporting an organization like PETA which has funded the firebombing of clinics and has convicted arsenists on its payroll?

An organization that honestly believes that the treatment of chickens is no different from the holocaust?

PETA is bourgeois post-modern anti-humanism at is worst. It&#39;s an example of everything that&#39;s wrong with post-materialism.

Animals are sentient and they should be protected, but they are not human and they never will be. Treating them like they are is pure lunacy,

[poster_child]

Actually, among many other things, PETA does fight to improve the standard of living for animals raised for slaughter. In 2000, it successfully lobbied McDonalds to significantly improve conditions for its animals. PETA fights for other things as well; they promote vegetarianism and veganism, they disencourage people to wear fur, they raise awareness when it comes to labratory abuses, ill-treatment in circuses, and so much more.


animals are specially incapable of participating in human societ as indipendent moral actors

According to your argument, neither do criminals... but they still have rights.
Personally, I believe that animals do contribute to human society as companions. But according to your argument, just because animals aren&#39;t a part of human society means that we own them, and are free to exploit them?

If you believe that animals don&#39;t have rights, then why would you support the humane society and the SPCA?

PETA isn&#39;t perfect, and I don&#39;t agree with all their campaigns; but they are fighting for a cause I believe in.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by poster_child

animals are specially incapable of participating in human societ as indipendent moral actors

According to your argument, neither do criminals... but they still have rights.
No, criminals ARE capable of doing just that... Animals aren&#39;t and never would be. If they were they&#39;d be human&#33;


Personally, I believe that animals do contribute to human society as companions.
They also contribute as food and by allowing us to make medical advances. The point is that they do not and CANNOT (by definition of them being animals) participate in human society.


If you believe that animals don&#39;t have rights, then why would you support the humane society and the SPCA?
I can&#39;t speak for LSD here but I&#39;d say it&#39;s because we understand that unnecessary cruelty to animals is wrong. Nevertheless we also don&#39;t believe that animals have any &#39;rights.&#39;

[LSD]

Actually, among many other things, PETA does fight to improve the standard of living for animals raised for slaughter. In 2000, it successfully lobbied McDonalds to significantly improve conditions for its animals. PETA fights for other things as well; they promote vegetarianism and veganism, they disencourage people to wear fur, they raise awareness when it comes to labratory abuses, ill-treatment in circuses, and so much more.

It&#39;s the "so much more" that bothers me.

PETA promotes an agenda that is fundamentally wrong. Whether or not in the course of this they manage to do one or two things right is irrelevent. There are much better organizations to support.

You&#39;re falling for the PETA line and not looking at their agenda closely enough ...which is, of course, what they are relying on.

PETA wants you to look at their "good deeds" and ignore their fanaticism, but don&#39;t let them fool you&#33; PETA is as radical as it comes, they honestly believe that animals should be afforded complete human rights, that human society should grant them equal status to its actual human members.

If you want to improve the treatment of animals, fine, it&#39;s a debatable and noble issue, but PETA is not the way to do it. These are simply not rational people. They promote a hard-line agenda that is entirely incongruous with material reality; they fight for a cause that is prima facie insane. There is nothing useful that can come from that.


According to your argument, neither do criminals...

How so?

Criminals are more than capable of participating in human society. Criminality just means the breaking of a law, it doesn&#39;t mean an inability to act as an independent actor.

In fact, if anything, committing a crime is an affirmation that one is capable of independent moral decision making. An animal, you see, can never be a criminal.

Perhaps you&#39;re misunderstanding my point. I am not saying that animals are unable to "follow the rules", I&#39;m saying that they&#39;re unable to recognize that the rules exist. The reason that a criminal is a criminal is because he has chosen to violate a law. He has made an independent choice with full knowledge of the abstract conceptual issues involved, something that no animal can do.

You see, membership in human society carries with it the fundamental responsibility to respect the rights of others. That&#39;s how rights exist, people respect them. The problem with granting "rights" to animals is that they cannot choose to respect them. They cannot even choose to not respect them, they simply are unable to conceptualize that they even exist.


Personally, I believe that animals do contribute to human society as companions.

Again, this isn&#39;t about "contribution", my lamp-shade "contributes", it&#39;s about participation, something that animals are specially incapable of doing.


But according to your argument, just because animals aren&#39;t a part of human society means that we own them, and are free to exploit them?

Because animals are not part of human society, human society has no obligation to them. More than that I am not saying.

I reject the use of the term "exploit" since exploitation by nescessity requires the existance of a prior social obligation which, as I&#39;ve already explained, does not exist in this case.


If you believe that animals don&#39;t have rights, then why would you support the humane society and the SPCA?

Again, animals should be protected by human society out of compassion so long as such protection does not inconvienience the societal franchise.

Causing unnescessary pain should always be avoided both out of a genuine altruistic concern for other sentient beings and equally out of a psychological concern for the empathic well-being of societal members. But this compassion cannot extend to actively harmiing those members.

There is a critical difference between unnescessary cruelty to animals and the socially valuable use of animals. Equating the two is sensationalist hyperbole that ignores the critical issue of social responsibilty, the only question of relevence in a discussion on "rights".


PETA isn&#39;t perfect

That is quite the understatement&#33;

I would call supporting arson, advocating chaos, and destroying progress to be reprehensible myself.


and I don&#39;t agree with all their campaigns; but they are fighting for a cause I believe in.

Total Animal Liberation?

Really?

You oppose medical research and seeing-eye dogs?

You want forced veganism and animal "paticipation"?

You think that a disney fairyland in which all animals and people live together in perfect harmonious love is a viable goal?

Sorry, but when you propose something so radically insane, the owness is on you. So, again, I ask the question, with all the alternatives available, how can you support an organization like PETA?

[poster_child]

Do I oppose seeing eye dogs? No.
Seeing eye dogs are not exploited.. they are companions, with acceptable living conditions.
Do I oppose medical research? Maybe.
I am a reasonable person. I realize that we need research to a certain degree. I can see how that is justifyable, but putting animals in cages that they cannot turn around in and never seeing the outdoors for their entire pitifull life is not. Much of the animal testing done today is unnecessary and not required by the FDA.

I support PETA because they actually get things done. You and I sitting here on our computers saying "what a shame" does not get anything done to change this situation. Although PETA is very radical in their views, it is IMPOSSIBLE for PETA to achieve its mandate. They make small and gradual changes that are reasonable to everyone. Larger cages, humane slaughtering, accountability, etc. are all included in this.


There is a critical difference between unnescessary cruelty to animals and the socially valuable use of animals.

I completely agree. It is unfortuante that big corporations do not see it this way.


I would call supporting arson, advocating chaos, and destroying progress to be reprehensible myself.

This could be the same argument used when talking to someone who is pro-life. (I am personally not against abortion, but this is a good example.) There are a few unreasonable radicals who resort to violence and give the organization a bad name.


Again, animals should be protected by human society out of compassion so long as such protection does not inconvienience the societal franchise.


I agree, however, under captialism, we have become so dependent on the exploitation (YES, I will stick to this word.) of animals that it seems to inconvience the societal franchise.


I reject the use of the term "exploit" since exploitation by nescessity requires the existance of a prior social obligation which, as I&#39;ve already explained, does not exist in this case.


You are saying that we have no obligation to animals, but yet we should protect them out of compassion? It sounds a bit like a contradiction there.

[LSD]

Do I oppose seeing eye dogs? No.
Seeing eye dogs are not exploited.. they are companions, with acceptable living conditions.
Do I oppose medical research? Maybe.

I notice you didn&#39;t answer the question on forced veganism.

Just for the purposes of clarity, what is your positon on meat? (that&#39;s eating meat in general, not the specific state of the present industry)


I support PETA because they actually get things done. You and I sitting here on our computers saying "what a shame" does not get anything done to change this situation.

No, but organizations such as the humane society and the SPCA do, much better, in fact, than PETA does.

Supporting organizations that actually have reasonable goals, without the hypocrisy and fanaticism, is vastly superior to choosing the most radical organization simply because it&#39;s radical.

Action is comendable when it&#39;s properly channeled. If a neo-nazi group was doing "good work", I still would never support it. Motivations speak louder than actions. If PETA&#39;s motivations are wrong then so is the organization, there is no "middle ground".

If you agree, and honestly, how can&#39;t you, that PETA is incorrect on key issues, then you have a moral duty to find an organization with more laudable goals. Otherwise, you are exhibiting the same hypocrisy that PETA is so guilty of.


Although PETA is very radical in their views, it is IMPOSSIBLE for PETA to achieve its mandate.

I agree, but unfortunately PETA does not.

That means that they will continue to try and unfortunately that means hurting the rest of us.

Remember that PETA is an organization that spent tens of thousands of tax-free charitibly donated dollars on the support of a convicted clinic arsonist.


This could be the same argument used when talking to someone who is pro-life. (I am personally not against abortion, but this is a good example.) There are a few unreasonable radicals who resort to violence and give the organization a bad name.

"pro-life" is a cause, not an organization.

And to take your hypothetical, if there was an organization that displayed the characteristics that you&#39;re describing (radicalism and violence), it would not make the cause wrong per se, but it would indeed make that organization culpable.

PETA is not the animal welfare movement, it&#39;s one radical group. It&#39;s actions speak to itself and condemning it for its own statements and actions is nothing less that prudent rationality.

Judging a group based on what it has done and said is perfectly reasonable.


I agree, however, under captialism, we have become so dependent on the exploitation (YES, I will stick to this word.) of animals that it seems to inconvience the societal franchise.

How so?

How are humans (the only franchise of human society) hurt by the "exploitation" of animals?


You are saying that we have no obligation to animals, but yet we should protect them out of compassion?

Yes, insofar as that protection does not inconvienence humanity.


It sounds a bit like a contradiction there.

Why?

Cruelty to animals is psychologically painful for most humans and it serves no legitimate purpose. Furthermore, we do have a limited moral duty to minimize suffering if at all possible out of altruistic compassion.

Sort of an "if we can, why not" deal.

But this limited obligation does not meet the burden of social obligation, merely that of a protective externalization.

In order to be "exploited" one must be owed a social obligation of, effectively, non-exploitation; that would be individual self-actualization or in other words rights.

Human-animal obligation is nowhere near this level. Animals do not have human rights, they merely should be protected by society. What you need to realize here is the difference between must and should. Animals should be protected, humans must. If humans are not completely and utterly protected then society collapses, if animals are not somewhat protected (as I&#39;ve previously outlined) then I think we&#39;ve made a mistake, but society will keep on ticking.

One is fundamental, one is optional. I have my opinion on the subject, as do you. But opion does not constitute a social obligation.

[poster_child]

My position on meat eating is complex. I do not believe in raising animals for food. I do not believe in slaughterhouses. I think meat eating is justifiable in a primitive style society where natural hunting takes place. (much like the native american society that relied on the buffalo for food.) The population was not affected until the white man came and changed their entire hunting practice. Meat eating, in my opinion, is acceptable when it does not, how can I put this, "upset the natural way of the earth". (I know this sounds lame, but I believe that slaughterhouses are unnatural.)

Sure, the SPCA and the humane society do great things for animals, and I support those organizations 100%. However, they operate on a local level, while PETA is the only organization with international status. They have successfully lobbied big corporations to change the way they treat animals. I admit, I do not 100% support PETA, but it is a step in the general direction of the elimination of the unnecessary treatment of animals.


How are humans (the only franchise of human society) hurt by the "exploitation" of animals?

You may have misunderstood my point. I was getting at the fact that, under capitalism, we have become so accustomed to making money off of animals, and using them in that way, that any change to this would seem like an inconvienece. Humans are not "hurt" by the exploitation of animals.

By comparing an animal to a lampshade is very similar to comparing the ill-treatment of chickens to the holocaust. (It&#39;s not much better)


Animals should be protected, humans must.

I guess this is a matter of opinion. Who decides what is protected and what is not? What degree of protection should be offered once this is decided?

You base rights on the fact that humans are "self-actualized". I don&#39;t base the "right to rights" on that. I base it on the fact that animals feel, physically and emotionally. They feel pain. That is enough to be granted rights, to me. I guess it is just a matter of the way you see things.

[gewehr_3]

im drunk as fuck but i think we evolved to eat meat so we should but we also should treat the animals humanley ( I cant spell now im sorry);lkjdsgakhg :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: Zapitistas are awesome

[LSD]

You may have misunderstood my point. I was getting at the fact that, under capitalism, we have become so accustomed to making money off of animals, and using them in that way, that any change to this would seem like an inconvienece.

Which speaks more to the nature of capitalism than it does to the nature of meat eating.

Obviously no real progress can be made on this or many other issues without first abolishing capitalism. On this forum, I think that goes without saying&#33;


By comparing an animal to a lampshade is very similar to comparing the ill-treatment of chickens to the holocaust. (It&#39;s not much better)

No. It&#39;s an oversimplified and grossly incorrect analogy, I&#39;ll grant you, although it did serve a useful rhetorical purpose.

But what makes the holocaust/chicken comparison so reprehensible is that it compares the willful murder of an independent societal moral actor by another with the slaughtering of meat.

It, implicitly, minimizes a societal outrage into a common day occurance and accordingly trivializes it.

Comparing a chicken to a lampshade may be ludicrous for any number of perfectly credible reasons, but it does not carry with it the same moral offense nor does it exsit within the same emotional context.

Comparing a chicken to a lampshade does trivialize a chicken ...but that doesn&#39;t matter. Chickens don&#39;t care, holocaust survivor do.


I guess this is a matter of opinion. Who decides what is protected and what is not?

The fundamental nature of society. Society exists to protect its members, that is its sole reason for creation. Rights exist as a method of accomplishing this and exist only within a societal context. Granting rights outside of this context is meaningles and self-defeating.

No one "decides" who is protected, protection stems from the nescessity of objective reality.


You base rights on the fact that humans are "self-actualized".

No&#33;

I base it on their membership in society, which itself is dependent on the capacity to participate.

Remember, rights only exist within the societal context of the society granting them. They are no "bigger" than that. If the society in question has no prior social obligation to you then you have no rights within that society.

Such is the case with animals.

[MoscowFarewell]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 03:36 PM
Do you support contract killing if that lets a poor man feed himself and his family?
You&#39;re a dumb ass. I&#39;m sure if cows were meant to fight back, they&#39;d have hands and twelve gauges, or at least intelligence, maybe even survival capabilities.

[Carmen]

It&#39;s a tricky subject animal testing, cause on the one hand most of us wouldn&#39;t like to know that the animals are in pain, but on the other hand, if we want progress in medical science it is kind of inevitable that they will have to suffer. But i do believe that testing on animals for cosmetic reasons is wrong. It&#39;s avoidable cruelty in my opinion. I also think that &#39;wherever possible&#39; humans should be tested on, because afterall we have different reactions to substances compared with animals.
I once saw an undercover documentary on channel4 about that huntington lab, you saw &#39;scientists&#39; punching beagle puppies in the face. Now that&#39;s hardly for science. Something has to be done about that kind of abuse.
And as for meat eating, the world eats too much meat (i am vegetarian). If we ate less then there would be no need for factory farming-less demand. You can thanks fastfood corporations for increasing demand for meat. I&#39;m okay with people eating meat by all means, but i believe that the animal should have some quality of life- in a field for example, not a cramped metal pen with no sunlight.

[Phalanx]

Yeah, that&#39;s exactly why I deer hunt. You give the animal a chance to live, their death is much less painful, and their quality of life is much better in the wild. I know I must be a sadistic murderer to some of you environmentalists, but I gave my reasons, and I don&#39;t plan on stopping in the future.

[black]

I base it on their membership in society, which itself is dependent on the capacity to participate.

Why?

And no, rights only exist within a legal system brought about through Capitalist and Enlightenment ideals of equal "worth" and protection via a State apparatus. It is the system of private property as applied to people in society (and beyond). If you hold any criticisms of Law per se, then rights necessarily come into it. Your ideas of denying animals respect and consideration owing to their capacity to suffer, feel and think are ungrounded pathetic attempts at justification through metaphysical detached concepts that amount to them not being human. Which is a bullshit argument.


that&#39;s exactly why I deer hunt. You give the animal a chance to live, their death is much less painful, and their quality of life is much better in the wild.

You don&#39;t need to deer hunt, and firing at an animal with a modern rifle hardly counts as "giving it a chance", a complete fool can pull a trigger. Likewise, from a deer&#39;s point of view it would probably much rather live in the wild than die for your amusement. Trust me on that.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Chinghis [email protected] 29 2005, 05:20 PM
Yeah, that&#39;s exactly why I deer hunt. You give the animal a chance to live, their death is much less painful, and their quality of life is much better in the wild. I know I must be a sadistic murderer to some of you environmentalists, but I gave my reasons, and I don&#39;t plan on stopping in the future.
Hunting is pathetic.

[LSD]

I base it on their membership in society, which itself is dependent on the capacity to participate.

Why?

to which part?

"Why" are rights based on societal membership, or "why" is societal membership based on capacity for participation?


And no, rights only exist within a legal system brought about through Capitalist and Enlightenment ideals of equal "worth" and protection via a State apparatus.

That&#39;s ludicrous. We see the concept of rights as far back as Sumerian legal codes, not to mention the incredible focus on them in golden age greece. If you don&#39;t think that Periclean Athens had a concept of rights, you should ask your history teacher for a refund.

Not that that really matters, of course. Rights are a societal tool for maximixing bennefit. Who cares when they were were developed?

Modern society is an evolutionary being. It is the sum of tens of thousands of years of development and change. Because of that it contains elements from tens of thousands, from thousands, and yeah, from hundreds of years ago. Over these years, we&#39;ve lost a lot of bad ideas and we&#39;ve kept a lot of good ones. We&#39;ve kept some bad ones too of course, but evolution isn&#39;t always direct.

The concept of "rights" happen to be one of the good ones. One of the better ideas that we&#39;ve kept. It also, of course, happens to one of the oldest. Going back, in one form or another, for at least 5000 years. You see, for society to exist, the members of that society had to have a desire to be in it. That meant that the society had to offer something better then the alternative.

Membership had to be benneficial. This meant protections, securities, and rights. It&#39;s the very foundational principle of society. It exists to serve its members.

Now, many sub-societies today do not do this well. That&#39;s part of why this very forum exists. We believe that this society could serve all of us better ...and we have a model for how. But we are still operating within the paradigm of human society. We are still understanding that our aim is to make human society fulfill its function, not to destroy it.

Attempting to ingrain animals into the social fabric of a moral framework that they are incapable of understanding would destroy it, not to mention serve absolutely no purpose.


Your ideas of denying animals respect and consideration owing to their capacity to suffer, feel and think are ungrounded pathetic attempts at justification through metaphysical detached concepts that amount to them not being human.

As I have explained numerous times, it&#39;s not their not being human per se, it&#39;s their not being a part of human society. If a non-human animal was able to participate as an independent rational actor within the human moral framework, then they would be deserving of human societal rights, but as long as they are unable to do so they do not exist within the human societal paradigm. They are external agents which can be acted upon by human society but which have no part within it.

The problem here is that you&#39;ve misplaced the burden. It is you who must justify your claim, not I. It&#39;s you[b/] that is both proposing a positive change [b]and challanging the fundamental organization of soceity. The owness here is clearly on you.

Why should a society provide for nonmembers? Why should a society afford its most basic protection to creatures who can never be a part of it?

If you cannot satisfactorally answer these questions then you concede the argument and the status quo must persist, at least in some varried form.

[black]

That&#39;s ludicrous. We see the concept of rights as far back as Sumerian legal codes, not to mention the incredible focus on them in golden age greece.

Um, the Persian Empire (Cyrus) etc. were examples of what kind of a political structure?

An early State structure.

But the concept of human rights only came into being in totality during the Englightenment. Ask your history teacher.


As I have explained numerous times, it&#39;s not their not being human per se, it&#39;s their not being a part of human society.

What&#39;s a fundamental prequisite for being part of the human society? What&#39;s the one thing you must have and be to be entitled to societal inclusion? Tell me. Yet, and bring on those marginal cases, not everyone in human society is capable of contributing to other people. Not everyone comprehends or reciprocates moral behaviour, and yet they are still included. Why?

Why should a human care about a non-human?

Because that human is also an animal.
There is not society and then a mass of confused, chaos we have no part of.
The human and non-human animal both share a massive amount in terms of what is important, worthwhile and not beneficial to their lives.
They both live their lives in relation to each other, and indeed depend on each other.
The fomer does not need to harm the latter. It does for its own short-term gain (or for the greed of a few) and it, is fact, harming itself in the long-term by doing this.

But likewise, an "ethical" being does not deny his/her ethical consideration to those who could recognise and benefit from that consideration. Animals can. The fact that they do not contribute to human society only entails that should not be treated as human beings within society, not that they should be denied for what they are. As sentient beings like ourselves they should be treated like sentient beings.

[LSD]

Um, the Persian Empire (Cyrus) etc. were examples of what kind of a political structure?

An early State structure.

Persia? :huh:

What the hell are you talking about&#33;? Who brought up Persia&#33;?


But the concept of human rights only came into being in totality during the Englightenment.

Define "totality".

Human rights as a concept go back at least 2500 years, probably longer, but again, it really doesn&#39;t matter when they developed.

The fact remains that it is the purpose of any society to maximize the bennefit of all its members, rights are an effective way to do this.


What&#39;s a fundamental prequisite for being part of the human society? What&#39;s the one thing you must have and be to be entitled to societal inclusion? Tell me.

The ability to participate in human society as an independent rational moral actor.


Yet, and bring on those marginal cases, not everyone in human society is capable of contributing to other people. Not everyone comprehends or reciprocates moral behaviour, and yet they are still included. Why?

Oh, the argument from marginal cases

Just to run through it quickly, again, the mentally handicapped that are so seriously damaged as to be comparable to animals (the marginal cases, as it were) are afforded protections because, firstly, they are still human, and as such members of a community which is composed of rational actors, secondly, because these people are potential rational actors who are merely unable to excerzie their capacity, and thirdly, because the protection of such people is important to assure the protection of both potentiary rational actors (e.g., children) and former rational actors (e.g., the elderly).

And even for those rare few who are entirely unable to rationaly think, almost universally, they are so disabled that they are barely even afforded rights. They are afforded protections. They are given societal protections due to their relationship with the community. That is their humanity makes them de facto members of society even if they are themselves unable to participate due to intervening circumstances.


Why should a human care about a non-human?

You&#39;re asking the wrong question. The issue isn&#39;t whether "a human" should care, it&#39;s whether human society should care.


Because that human is also an animal.

You&#39;re drawing an arbitrary line and saying that we animals should stick together, but nothing else. That makes far less sense than humanism&#33;

After all, why can&#39;t plants be in your little club as well? We&#39;re all carbon-based lifeforms, we all live, we all die, we all need to eat and excrete. Why is our inclusion in the category "animal" more important than our inclusion in the category "life"?

The fact is once you move away from rationality and start imagining that human society has a duty to non-members, you cannot legitmately draw the line ...anywhere.

If animals have a right to human rights, then so do microbes. It&#39;s as simple as that.


There is not society and then a mass of confused, chaos we have no part of.

No, there is society amid a mass of confused chaos with which we have a great deal of contact ...but no, we don&#39;t have a "part" of that chaos. Not unless we go off and live in the woods of Montana.

Human society is unique. It is the only true society on earth and as such it is seperated from the rest of the "animal world". Not seperated to the degree that there&#39;s no interaction but seperate enough that the line between them is blazingly clear.

No one is ever confused on who&#39;s in human society and who isn&#39;t. No one ever has to "wonder" as to where the demarkation is.


The human and non-human animal both share a massive amount in terms of what is important, worthwhile and not beneficial to their lives.

As does E. Coli ...and the pitcher-plant.

Again, you&#39;re drawing arbitrary lines.


The fomer does not need to harm the latter. It does for its own short-term gain (or for the greed of a few)

Depends on how you define "need".

We certainly do "need" medical research, that shouldn&#39;t even be controversial. Likewise there&#39;s credible evidence that we do "need" product safety testing.

Not to mention that we use animal products in virtually ever industry on earth. Yo do realize that in all likelyhood the computer in front of you contains or was made with animal products of one kind or another, not to mention the chair you&#39;re sitting on and the building you&#39;re in.

Who can say what would happen if we abandoned all use of animals. What I can tell you is that not "needing" something in the strictest possible sense is not an argument not to use it. We don&#39;t "need" many things, but they still make our lives better so we use them.

It&#39;s the same with animals.


They both live their lives in relation to each other, and indeed depend on each other.

We do?

I thought you just finished explaining how we don&#39;t "need" animals.

Exactly what kind of "dependency" are you imagining that doesn&#39;t include some variance of what you would call "exploitation"?

Fire-side chats? :lol:


and it is fact, harming itself in the long-term by doing this

No "it" isn&#39;t. "It" is bennefiting greatly.

See? Aren&#39;t naked assertions fun&#33; :)


But likewise, an "ethical" being does not deny his/her ethical consideration to those who could recognise and benefit from that consideration. Animals can. The fact that they do not contribute to human society only entails that should not be treated as human beings within society, not that they should be denied for what they are. As sentient beings like ourselves they should be treated like sentient beings.

And how should "sentient beings" be treated?

Since these "beings" do not exist within human society, we cannot base their treatment on the mores of that society. But, as you say, they should be treated independently of that society "like sentient beings".

Well, in order to determine what this specifically entails, we should look at the preexisting treatment of sentient beings by other sentient beings that aren&#39;t us. In other words, we should persist the treatment that they would otherwise get if we did not exist.

In order to "treat [animals] like sntient beings" we must put aside our own anthrocentric preconceptions and base our relationship with other animals in the context of their relationhip with themselves and with other animals. How do animals relate to one another; what is the "treatment" that a "sentient being" can expect. Well, first and foremost, animals eat animals&#33; Therefore the eating of meat is within their moral framework. The primary relationship in nature between animal and animal and between mammal and mammal is that of hunter and prey. "Sentient beings" are eaten by other non-human "sentient beings" every day, therefore, in terms of our natural responsibility, we are merely participating in preexisting supersocial acts without enforcing our own societal judgements upon them. We are "treating" them like they "deserve", if you will.

You see, once you move outside of human society, there are no rights. In the natural world, being "treated like sentient beings" means being eaten.

Welcome to world.

[Rasta Sapian]

PETA believes that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans. Like you, they are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use—for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other reason

-Peta Website

I love animals, however do support those whom choose to hunt wild animals, ie. seals ect. simply cultural / economic living at its finest.

I eat meat, chickens, cattle, pigs, ect. domesticated animals raised, farmed as horticulture.

My point is that these anmials are not wild, and this is where I am going......morally anyway,

I was recently on an Island of the Atlantic coast of Canada, where I learned of a new type of horticulture venture. This however was farming wild animals "Mink Farms"

The business venture begins in Denmark where the rare mink is bread into a large population, they are then shipped by plane across the Atlantic and placed into a faciltiy similar to that of a hatchery a.k.a chicken farm. They are placed into cages grown to full size and then slaughterd for their fur which is then sent to another location(s) and made into fur coats.

p.s. the mink is a solitary mammal in the wild, and a very picky eater, these mink are force fed processed feed.

So if you were planning on buying a Mink Coat you might want to think again&#33;
but I know I don&#39;t have to worry about you guys anyway.

peace out