Speciesm Amongst the Left

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Alright, you view animal testing for medical research as completely legitimate. However, it is preferable (though unethical in many circumstances) to test on animals rather than humans. What about people with an intelligence level similiar to animals who are dependent - and always will be - on another person to survive.

I support animal research, but why aren't we being universal in how we support such research? It seems to me we are being rather speciest in how we select who can be tested on, but am I wrong?

This topic should stay in discrimination, by the way, because animals deserve to be recognized as victims of discrimination by definition.

[Chris Hiv_E_]

I believe that neither animal or human testing is right or even needed. Animal testing does not give accurate results because of the vast differences in genetic make-up from humans. And Scientists have learned to succesfully clone human cells that could be used to test the effects of medicines/beauty supply/etc. So yes, We are being specieist to say what species is the "less-important" and better to test on. But we don't need to test on either. Its all about money. It is a lot cheaper to test on animals. Try to get your hands on Animal Liberation by Peter Singer if you want more information about it.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 09, 2006 10:08 pm
Alright, you view animal testing for medical research as completely legitimate. However, it is preferable (though unethical in many circumstances) to test on animals rather than humans. What about people with an intelligence level similiar to animals who are dependent - and always will be - on another person to survive.


Are you suggesting that we should test on the disabled, handicapped, or mentally ill? Or did I get confused somewhere? :unsure:

[CoexisT]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 10, 2006 02:25 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 10, 2006 02:25 am)
Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 09, 2006 10:08 pm
Alright, you view animal testing for medical research as completely legitimate. However, it is preferable (though unethical in many circumstances) to test on animals rather than humans. What about people with an intelligence level similiar to animals who are dependent - and always will be - on another person to survive.


Are you suggesting that we should test on the disabled, handicapped, or mentally ill? Or did I get confused somewhere? :unsure: [/b]
I think Dooga is referring to "vegetables." I could be wrong though.

[Chris Hiv_E_]

Disabled, Handicapped, Vegetable, Whatever he may have been suggesting is still very unmoral.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Chris [email protected] 09, 2006 09:37 pm
Disabled, Handicapped, Vegetable, Whatever he may have been suggesting is still very unmoral.
1. "unmoral"? :rolleyes:
2. Define "right" and "wrong".
3. Justify your morality, rationally.

[Chris Hiv_E_]

Sorry...**Immoral**
And I apologize, Everyones idea of Right and Wrong are going to differ. But for me testing medical/cosmetic or any product on a non-consenting handicapped, disabled, or "vegetable" person is not "Right." Maybe "Unethical" would have been a better word choice.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Chris [email protected] 09, 2006 09:54 pm
Sorry...**Immoral**
And I apologize, Everyones idea of Right and Wrong are going to differ. But for me testing medical/cosmetic or any product on a non-consenting handicapped, disabled, or "vegetable" person is not "Right." Maybe "Unethical" would have been a better word choice.
Define "ethical."

Does it have anything to do with what the *majority* of people think is right? Or what you subjectively judge is "best" for society? Is it just an instinctive thing, protection? "fairness"?

[Chris Hiv_E_]

Fairness I guess would be the best choice out of those.

[Everyday Anarchy]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 09, 2006 08:25 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 09, 2006 08:25 pm)
Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 09, 2006 10:08 pm
Alright, you view animal testing for medical research as completely legitimate. However, it is preferable (though unethical in many circumstances) to test on animals rather than humans. What about people with an intelligence level similiar to animals who are dependent - and always will be - on another person to survive.


Are you suggesting that we should test on the disabled, handicapped, or mentally ill? Or did I get confused somewhere? :unsure: [/b]
I'm assuming you find it as wrong to test on 'vegetables' (there has to be some better word for this). But why would it be wrong to test on vegetables but not on animals?
Are you placing humans above animals simply because they're humans?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Everyday [email protected] 10, 2006 12:07 am
I'm assuming you find it as wrong to test on 'vegetables' (there has to be some better word for this). But why would it be wrong to test on vegetables but not on animals?
Are you placing humans above animals simply because they're humans?
I just find it both interesting, and also potentially exploitive, and I wanted some clarification, I have not made up my mind on this subject, therefore I will remain indifferent until I can really evaluate both sides and see which I would support.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Ummm Im guessing we dont test on mentally disabled people because we cant:
A. Capture or breed them in a Laboratory
B. Convince anybody that its ethical

I posted this in another but again rats and mice are not equal to humans.

[Everyday Anarchy]

A. Capture or breed them in a LaboratoryHow can't we capture humans or breed them in a laboratory?

B. Convince anybody that its ethicalSo convincing someone that it is ethical is all that needs to be done to make something ethical?

I posted this in another but again rats and mice are not equal to humans.How so?

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Originally posted by Everyday [email protected] 10, 2006 04:40 am

A. Capture or breed them in a LaboratoryHow can't we capture humans or breed them in a laboratory?

B. Convince anybody that its ethicalSo convincing someone that it is ethical is all that needs to be done to make something ethical?

I posted this in another but again rats and mice are not equal to humans.How so?
We cant capture or breed humans in a laboratory because im pretty sure its a crime against humanity especially if the people you are breeding are mentally disabled.

No convincing somebody that something is ethical doesnt make it ethical, but it does get laws passed. i.e. abortion laws.

I know im not equal to a mouse or a rat because i cant be bought at a pet store or put in cage and i am able to communicate ideas on a much higher level, but again if you think that you are on the same level as a rat or a mouse thats ok with me.

[Delirium]

I don't think dooga is saying we should test on humans, but asking what makes them different from the other animals without "intelligence".

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 09, 2006 07:25 pm--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 09, 2006 07:25 pm)
Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 09, 2006 10:08 pm
Alright, you view animal testing for medical research as completely legitimate. However, it is preferable (though unethical in many circumstances) to test on animals rather than humans. What about people with an intelligence level similiar to animals who are dependent - and always will be - on another person to survive.


Are you suggesting that we should test on the disabled, handicapped, or mentally ill? Or did I get confused somewhere? :unsure: [/b]
I am not suggesting that. I am asking why people who have the same intellectual capabilities as animals get treated differently. To put a more materialist spin on things, why do people who contribute the same amount to society as animals - or less - and have the same amount of contribution potential (ie they aren't going to become intelligent or useful any time soon) are treated differently than animals with those same characteristics.

What qualities are we using to separate humans from animals. So basically, I am asking why we feel comfortable testing on certain animals and not certain people.

[Dimentio]

Humans and other types of life are just the same, if we for a movement would ignore about 1.500 years of christian-humanist indoctrination. The thing is that illusions could produce result and strengthen behavior which are needed if the society should be a pleasant place to live in.

The problem with animal rights activists is that they are often humanificating the other living beings, and wants to for example attribute the chicken eggs as "property" and so forth.

Neither humans or hens actually have property, even though humans often are conditioned to think that they have what they have not, exactly like a president for example is conditioned to think that he is a president. :D

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 10, 2006 09:57 am

I am not suggesting that. I am asking why people who have the same intellectual capabilities as animals get treated differently. To put a more materialist spin on things, why do people who contribute the same amount to society as animals - or less - and have the same amount of contribution potential (ie they aren't going to become intelligent or useful any time soon) are treated differently than animals with those same characteristics.

What qualities are we using to separate humans from animals. So basically, I am asking why we feel comfortable testing on certain animals and not certain people.
You make a valid point, however i dont think you can really compare a mentally disabled person to any other type of animal. Mice arent mentally disabled, they are able to find shelter and food and for the most part take care of themselves. Mentally disabled people are dependent on someone else to feed them and bathe them and keep them safe. So mice actually have the upper hand to mentally disabled people because they are able to take care themselves. If you look at this in a materialist way, you see that it is far more beneficial to test on a healthy rat than a defective human.

[Delirium]

Originally posted by The Crying [email protected] 10, 2006 01:00 pm

You make a valid point, however i dont think you can really compare a mentally disabled person to any other type of animal. Mice arent mentally disabled, they are able to find shelter and food and for the most part take care of themselves. Mentally disabled people are dependent on someone else to feed them and bathe them and keep them safe. So mice actually have the upper hand to mentally disabled people because they are able to take care themselves.
Any animals that you are testing upon most likely are dependent upon humans. being confined, which means they need to be feed, watered, etc...


If you look at this in a materialist way, you see that it is far more beneficial to test on a healthy rat than a defective human.

Neither of them are producing anything, it would depend on what was being tested and what your goal was to decide which is more beneficial.

[Dimentio]

http://penguinconspiracy.blogspot.com/

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 10, 2006 05:57 am
I am not suggesting that. I am asking why people who have the same intellectual capabilities as animals get treated differently. To put a more materialist spin on things, why do people who contribute the same amount to society as animals - or less - and have the same amount of contribution potential (ie they aren't going to become intelligent or useful any time soon) are treated differently than animals with those same characteristics.

What qualities are we using to separate humans from animals. So basically, I am asking why we feel comfortable testing on certain animals and not certain people.
Ah, I see now, thank you.

[Chris Hiv_E_]

I am not suggesting that. I am asking why people who have the same intellectual capabilities as animals get treated differently. To put a more materialist spin on things, why do people who contribute the same amount to society as animals - or less - and have the same amount of contribution potential (ie they aren't going to become intelligent or useful any time soon) are treated differently than animals with those same characteristics.

What qualities are we using to separate humans from animals. So basically, I am asking why we feel comfortable testing on certain animals and not certain people.
If that is your point then it is simply specieism. Humans have the belief that they are better then other animals. Most of us see animal life as "less important" then Human life. Even if the human, as you said, contributes the same amount or less to society. In that, we feel more comfortable testing on them.

[LSD]

Alright, you view animal testing for medical research as completely legitimate. However, it is preferable (though unethical in many circumstances) to test on animals rather than humans. What about people with an intelligence level similiar to animals who are dependent - and always will be - on another person to survive.

If only this question had been addressed before ...oh wait. <_<


Originally posted by LSD

Are you suggesting that humans that cannot "participate" in human society have no value and should therefore be used as a resource?

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 are members of a community which is composed of rational actors; secondly, because these people are potential rational actors who are merely unable to exercise 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).

The point is that there is a difference between capacity and being able to utilize that capacity. The mentally challanged are capable, they are just prevented from using that capacity by a debilitating medical condition.

And remember, most of the mentally challanged are still able to convieve of moral concepts. Most are able to distinguish right and wrong and make, at the very least, rudimentary ethical determinations. They are able to enter into rational dialogues and participate, at some level, in human society. No animal is&#33;

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 rather afforded protections.

That is, their humanity and relationship with the community makes them de facto members of society even if they are themselves unable to participate due to intervening circumstances.

vivsection (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55840&hl="marginal+cases")
Animal Rights (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51383&hl="marginal+cases")
Abortion (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51920&hl="marginal+cases")
PETA (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38285&hl="marginal+cases")
PETA&#39;s recent "Animal Liberation Display" (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=39148&hl="marginal+cases")
Zoo&#39;s (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36883&hl="marginal+cases")


This topic should stay in discrimination, by the way, because animals deserve to be recognized as victims of discrimination by definition.

How do you figure?

The description of the Discrimination forum specifically details that it is intended for issues of social discrimination, i.e., thos within society.

The "discrimination" of those who are by definition not a part of human society, like animals, obviously doesn&#39;t qualify.

Besides, this thread is primarily about medical research and how it should be conducted. As such it&#39;s a science issue more than a discrmination one.

Moved.

[Chris Hiv_E_]

How do you figure?

The description of the Discrimination forum specifically details that it is intended for issues of social discrimination, i.e., thos within society.

The "discrimination" of those who are by definition not a part of human society, like animals, obviously doesn&#39;t qualify.

Besides, this thread is primarily about medical research and how it should be conducted. As such it&#39;s a science issue more than a discrmination one.
This is always going to be a really debated subject because those strongly for animal rights believe that society is a generalization of all creatures in a community. I personally believe it should have remained in discrimination but I do see how it is a science issue as well.

[Enragé]

who cares if its "speciesm" or not

think of it like this

you are given the choice
kill your best friend
or kill an ant

what do you choose?

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 10:22 am
Humans and other types of life are just the same, if we for a movement would ignore about 1.500 years of christian-humanist indoctrination. The thing is that illusions could produce result and strengthen behavior which are needed if the society should be a pleasant place to live in.

The problem with animal rights activists is that they are often humanificating the other living beings, and wants to for example attribute the chicken eggs as "property" and so forth.

Neither humans or hens actually have property, even though humans often are conditioned to think that they have what they have not, exactly like a president for example is conditioned to think that he is a president. :D
anthropomorphism, or "humanifcating" as you put it, which i think is a made up word, certainly is a problem with many in the animal rights community, and is the byproduct of the same anthropocentric thinking that results in our inability to understand the differences and similarities between species.

[Chris Hiv_E_]

Well if I had a choice to kill my best friend or a complete stranger, but still a human stranger, I would choose the stranger. What if my best friend was the ant?

[Enragé]

Originally posted by Chris [email protected] 10, 2006 10:07 pm
Well if I had a choice to kill my best friend or a complete stranger, but still a human stranger, I would choose the stranger. What if my best friend was the ant?
:huh: sigh

new choice

human stranger
or an ant

what do you choose?

(no the stranger is not a genocidal/fascist/whatever maniac, we&#39;d shoot them anyway)



in any case my point is that to a human being, which i assume we all are, the idea that a human life is more important than an animal one is self evident

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The argument isn&#39;t very convincing, LSD. We can still afford protection to the eldery and children - on different grounds - while not affording it to disabled individuals. We can do this on the basis of past contribution and contribution potential.

I think another argument is neccessary to defend disabled individuals, in this case. II think whether animals can enter rational dialogues is irrelevant. What is important is whether or not they can contribute to society, and they can.

You intitled to move the thread, but you should specify that this forum&#39;s definition of within society does not include animals.

[LSD]

Again, it&#39;s not merely to protect potential rational actors, that&#39;s only one of several reasons to afford these people protections.

It&#39;s also nescessary to be as broad as possible to assure that no rational actor is exploited; and as disabled people are in fact rational actors prevented from excersizing that capacity, they are in an entirely different class from animals that are by there nature incapable of societal participation.


What is important is whether or not they can contribute to society, and they can.

Bacteria can "contribute" too. Does that mean you want to give them rights?


you should specify that this forum&#39;s definition of within society does not include animals.

It does without saying.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 05:35 pm
Again, it&#39;s not merely to protect potential rational actors, that&#39;s only one of several reasons to afford these people protections.

It&#39;s also nescessary to be as broad as possible to assure that no rational actor is exploited; and as disabled people are in fact rational actors prevented from excersizing that capacity, they are in an entirely different class from animals that are by there nature incapable of societal participation.


What is important is whether or not they can contribute to society, and they can.

Bacteria can "contribute" too. Does that mean you want to give them rights?


you should specify that this forum&#39;s definition of within society does not include animals.

It does without saying.
Of course I don&#39;t want to give bacteria rights. However, perhaps I am misunderstanding your argument. It says that by their nature humans are rational actors. So the people who aren&#39;t rational actors are rational actors but are prevented from excercizing that capacity.

So basically, disabled individuals are rational actors who have something preventing them from becoming rational actors. Fine, but that doesn&#39;t justify why animals should be treated differently. Animals may well have the potential to become rational actors - via evolution.

Shouldn&#39;t it be more important what a person&#39;s current material status is (ie not a functioning rational actor) than what it could be. Furthermore, certain disabilities aren&#39;t going to be reversed any time soon are they?

I don&#39;t see how the rational actor argument can work.

[LSD]

It says that by their nature humans are rational actors. So the people who aren&#39;t rational actors are rational actors but are prevented from excercizing that capacity.

So basically, disabled individuals are rational actors who have something preventing them from becoming rational actors. Fine, but that doesn&#39;t justify why animals should be treated differently. Animals may well have the potential to become rational actors - via evolution.

Animal species may have that capacity (may), but individual animals do not.

Individual humans, however, are rational actors regardless of whether or not they are prevented from excersizing that capacity.

And, no, we&#39;re not going to reverse all mental disabilities any time soon, but we&#39;re getting better and better at treating them every day.

Besides, again, I wouldn&#39;t say that completely disabled humans ("vegetables") do have rights, they have protections. Protections which are afforded because of the above reasons and also because it assures that all rational actors are safe.

We know that no know squirrel or shark has the potential to engage in society. 99.99% of humans, however, do. Therefore protecting all humans, regardless of their condition at the time of analysis, and regardless of whether one thinks it will last or not, assures that no member of society is left unprotected.

Is there a bit of bleed there? Yes. Some genetically human people are born so disabled that they will never be able to do anything. But protecting them ensures that we don&#39;t miss anyone.

It&#39;s erring on the side of caution, in other words; and since we don&#39;t lose anything by doing so, it seems to me to be the smartest approach.

[apathy maybe]

"Many animal species exhibit awareness, cognizance and communication skills typical of human toddlers and of humans with arrested development. Yet, the latter enjoy rights denied the former."


Anyway, would intelligent aliens be afforded the same rights as humans? What if they had travelled the distances between the stars, and were socially communistic?

[LSD]

Anyway, would intelligent aliens be afforded the same rights as humans?

If they lived in our society? I should say so.

[chimx]

The issue of rights has always struck me as an irrelevant point. We rationalize human rights legally, but that is rarely the actual human reaction to violations of human rights. More than anything, we deplore acts of violence against innocent people because we empathize with the victim.

I certainly understand the rational argument, that we create human rights to legally protect the human community and deter crimes against me, you, my mom, people with developmental disabilities, etc.--but this rationalization is a much delayed after thought to what is generally a very emotional reaction.

My initial reaction to watching the Rodney King beatings wasn&#39;t concern that his civil rights were being violated, and if his rights were able to be denied, what is to stop mine from equally being denied. It was an empathetic rage, felt for seeing injustice being done to another.

The same holds true for animals. Aside from a handful of sadists, most empathize with animal suffering on a gut level, but rationalize the violence secondarily.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 07:51 pm

Anyway, would intelligent aliens be afforded the same rights as humans?

If they lived in our society? I should say so.
I was starting to accept your rational actor argument until you said this. Now I am afraid I don&#39;t understand it at all. My understand of the rational actor argument was that it valued species protection on the basis of a hypothetical (what if this happened to you) type of argument... similiar to how we oppose the death penalty because it could convict a just man. I was about to accept that.

However, now you add another distinction. At first, I thought your argument was somewha to of a pragmatic speciesm which I might accept. Now it is an entirely different one. Something like unified speciesm among species that are by their nature rational actors. If that is the case, we have the possibility that one society defines another as a non-rational actor. And by that logic, would it not be beneficial for us to stop testing on animals if we come into contact with other intelligent life? No, I&#39;m not going to argue that the chance of coming into contact with intelligent life (.00...1 or 0) is enough not to test on animals. I&#39;m not a liberation Pascal. However, your entire is argument, in itself, seems to be based on the acceptance that certain probabilities basically:

The probability that you yourself are affected by human testing negatively outweights the positive benefits of human testing AND the probability that animal testing negatively affects you does not outweigh the positive benefits of animal testing.

Accepting the rational actor argument, you might have a case. But let&#39;s change the argument:

How about we immediately kill people with disabilities. If I were in such a situation, I might want to live. But if I could make that decision now, I would want to be peacefully killed. Society functions much more efficiently with the death of dependent individuals who will likely not achieve independence. We essentially keep them alive to test on them and find out future cures for their diseases.

How is this kind of human testing acceptable when it forces individuals to continue living in such a way?

[Chris Hiv_E_]

Originally posted by NKOS+December 10, 2006 10:50 pm--> (NKOS @ December 10, 2006 10:50 pm)
Chris [email protected] 10, 2006 10:07 pm
Well if I had a choice to kill my best friend or a complete stranger, but still a human stranger, I would choose the stranger. What if my best friend was the ant?
:huh: sigh

new choice

human stranger
or an ant

what do you choose?

(no the stranger is not a genocidal/fascist/whatever maniac, we&#39;d shoot them anyway)



in any case my point is that to a human being, which i assume we all are, the idea that a human life is more important than an animal one is self evident [/b]
Alright yes you are right. In the choice between ant or human stranger Id choose the human to live. So I guess it is impossible for someone to completely escape specieism. But equality is not equal rights it is equal consideration, and if it were between a man or an animal to die, I would want neither to. But the human is of more importance...i suppose. Even though most ants would live a much more constructive life.

[LSD]

I was starting to accept your rational actor argument until you said this. Now I am afraid I don&#39;t understand it at all.

Really? I don&#39;t see how it changes anything.

My position is that society is composed of independent rational actors and that society grants rights and protections to these actors. Anyone participating in this society or with the potential to participate in this society must be granted those rights.

Whether that person is human or some "alien" is irrelevent, all that matters is their participation.

Now, right now, the only beings that are capable of engaging human society is humans. And so the only type of creature with rights is humanity. If that were to change, however, rights would have to be extended.

You call it "specieism", but it&#39;s only so because our species happens to be unique: it&#39;s the only one capable of participation in complex society. If another species were capable as well, we would have to institute a policy of "bi-speciesism" and so forth for three, etc...

The point, again, is to ensure that every rational actor is protected. "Speciesism" is just a convenient means of achieving that at the moment.


My understand of the rational actor argument was that it valued species protection on the basis of a hypothetical (what if this happened to you) type of argument...

Not at all. You&#39;re looking at this much too personally.

It&#39;s not about "you" or "me", it&#39;s about society and the criteria on which it extends rights.


At first, I thought your argument was somewha to of a pragmatic speciesm

That&#39;s exactly what it is.

We can&#39;t know for certain which disabled people are permanently so and which are not and so not granting rights to all disabled people leaves the very real possibility of failing to protect real and/or potential rational members of society.

Additionaly, the blurrier we make the line, the easier we make it for society to infringe on the rights of actual members. By setting a blanket policy to protect all humans, regardless of immediate status, we ensure that no one has their rights infringed upon.

Again, we know that no know squirrel or shark has the potential to engage in society. 99.99% of humans, however, do. Therefore protecting all humans, regardless of their condition at the time of analysis, and regardless of whether one thinks it will last or not, assures that no member of society is left unprotected.

Is there a bit of bleed there? Yes. Some genetically human people are born so disabled that they will never be able to do anything. But protecting them ensures that we don&#39;t miss anyone.

It&#39;s erring on the side of caution, in other words; and since we don&#39;t lose anything by doing so, it seems to me to be the smartest approach.


If that is the case, we have the possibility that one society defines another as a non-rational actor. And by that logic, would it not be beneficial for us to stop testing on animals if we come into contact with other intelligent life?

Sorry, I don&#39;t see your argument.

Participation in society is not a subjective determination. We know who can or cannot rationally interact based, rather intuitively, on whether they do or do not rationally interact.

If some alien species is capable of communicating with us in such a way that indicates a capacity for high-level thinking, then clearly they posses that ability to be a part of society.

No non-human animal, however, has ever demonstrated that capacity. No animal is even capable of conceiving of rights, let alone understand what it means to have and respect them.

Therefore granting them to such animals would invalidate the entire concept.


The probability that you yourself are affected by human testing negatively outweights the positive benefits of human testing AND the probability that animal testing negatively affects you does not outweigh the positive benefits of animal testing.

Again, this has nothing to do with "me".

The chance of human testing affecting "me" is pretty much zero. If it were to occur, I can say with near absolute certainty that it would happen in the third world, so there&#39;s pretty much no risk of being tested on myself, no matter how disabled I might become.

That doesn&#39;t mean, however, that testing on disabled people is a good idea.

Society has an obligation to protect its members, that&#39;s the sole reason for its existance. Performing medical experiments on those members would not be in keeping with that obligation.

In order to protect society, all members are must be afforded rights which ensure that their basic needs and interests are served. These rights apply to all rational actors, all potential rational actors, and all "marginal cases" in which a rational capacity is present but cannot be excersized for some reason or another.

Like you said, "pragmatic speciesism".


How about we immediately kill people with disabilities. If I were in such a situation, I might want to live. But if I could make that decision now, I would want to be peacefully killed.

What you "would want" is irrelevent. We can&#39;t make societal decisions based on what one person thinks they might want in a similar circumstance.

A living disabled person can be helped, a dead one cannot. Therefore, unless we have some indication that it&#39;s not what they want, we have to default to keeping them alive.

Again, it&#39;s just pragmatism.


How is this kind of human testing acceptable when it forces individuals to continue living in such a way?

No one&#39;s "forcing" these individuals to live. Again, in the absence of any indication otherwise, we have to assume that they want to live or at the very least, don&#39;t want to die.

In most cases, of course, they don&#39;t "want" anything as they&#39;re not able to think in such terms due to their condition.

Either way though, society has an obligation to keep them alive regardless and to do so in a dignified and respectful manner. We can&#39;t make them sicker to "see what happens" or infect them with diseases to chart the results.

Thta&#39;s what we&#39;d to if we were really "forcing them to live" to "find out cures".

In reality, of course, we do to them what we do to every other patient; try our damndest to cure them and, in the process, understand medicine better to help everyone else.


The same holds true for animals. Aside from a handful of sadists, most empathize with animal suffering on a gut level, but rationalize the violence secondarily.

No doubt, which is why unnecessary animal should be disallowed, it causes immense empathic suffering and serves no purpose. The same goes for inhumane animal slaughtering / testing.

But when it comes to needed animal uses (food, testing, etc..), we have to put the rational interests of society ahead of the emotional discomfort we feel at seeing animals harmed.

[Vanguard1917]

It&#39;s not right to test on disabled people because, disabled or not, they are still people.


But when it comes to needed animal uses (food, testing, etc..), we have to put the rational interests of society ahead of the emotional discomfort we feel at seeing animals harmed.

I don&#39;t think we should look at animal testing as some kind of &#39;necessary evil&#39;. That would still be assuming that animals have a right to life - and that we, unfortunately, have to deny them that right out of need and necessity.

Animals have no rights whatsoever. They have no right to not be &#39;tortured&#39;, to not be &#39;mistreated&#39; or to not be &#39;harmed meaninglessly&#39;.

For example, if you oppose, say, testing on animals for cosmetic purposes, you are still assigning a right to animals - i.e. the right not to be tested on &#39;unnecessarily&#39;. Or if you oppose dog fighting or bull baiting, you&#39;re saying that dogs and bulls have right to not be &#39;mistreated&#39; for the purposes of human entertainment. Same with using animal skin to make coats, animal tusks to make smoking pipes or killing a lion so that you can cut of its head and use if for display on your living room wall.

There is no principled reason why should oppose any of this unless we believe in animal rights.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 05:41 pm
Animals have no rights whatsoever. They have no right to not be &#39;tortured&#39;, to not be &#39;mistreated&#39; or to not be &#39;harmed meaninglessly&#39;.
I don&#39;t care what you call it. Certain animals (maybe not all) should be protected from torture. It serves no purpose. At least LSD coincides that at least some animals (perhaps all) should be spared from such indecent behavior. I would accept your argument that animals have no rights if you were not so quick to give humans rights.

I think rights are established as society defines. They are not intrinsic. That said, it is undeniable that animals should be spared such cruelty as torture. Empathy is a human characteristic that is observable in society and across species. The enjoyment one person gets from animal cruelty is not acceptable to a vast portion of society and causes them harm.

To LSD, I think I understand the rational actor argument better. However, I don&#39;t know that it legitimately accounts for us not testing on people who we are certain will not recover. You clearly hold the right to life in higher regard than I do, but I am looking at this from the perspective of maximizing happiness. It seems like the risk of testing on certain disabled individuals (who will not recover) almost outweighs the negatives.

As for the disabled individual argument who is in a horrible state of mind, what would you say to the following. If happiness is defined as a chemical process, and these chemicals can not be altered, should we not kill those who are in a state of supreme depression.

Killing someone is irreversible, but not killing them causes pain that is irreversible. So I really see a state of nothingness as superior to that, but I may be wrong on this. Personally, I think the rational actor argument is interesting, and I am inclined to agree with it partly, but the idea of protecting all rational actors, to me, means ensuring the happiness of all rational actors as best we can. Sometimes, that means removing rational actors. However, I would also be inclined to disagree with protecting all rational actors on the basis of species. I would be inclined to protect them on the basis of whether or not they contribute to society or will likely do so in the future.

As for defining rational actors, I would include all species that contribute or have the potential to contribute (as an individual rather than a species) as rational actors. I would include my dog in this category.

I think the main flaw of the rational argument is that is presupposes a slippery slope will occur when we begin any human testing. That, to me, seems to stem simply from fear when you yourself admitted that the chance of human testing affecting us is low. Let&#39;s take it further. I would take a 1/10000 chance of death to get 1000 dollars. Hell, I might take a 1/100 chance. It&#39;s not probable, but humans are selfish. Likewise, the risk of me being affected by human testing seems low. The benefits seem high. The amount of the population being affected seems low.

What, again, are the reasons behind seeing it as neccessary to protect all rational actors on the basis that they belong to a species of rational actors.

Keeping in mind that empathy exists, in my opinion, I would be more inclined to say we are empathetic to fellow living creatures and would advocate killing individuals in certain states via mercy-killing. Perhaps this is a different topic since I am presupposing empathy exists and supporting mercy-killing.

Is the rational argument yours? If not, where could I find some more information?

I would take the rational argument as being in favor of human rights so-long as they aren&#39;t at the expensive of human rights. IE. people get more pleasure from denying them rights than giving them rights. When it comes to meat, I would say people as individuals get more pain. In fact, I would argue that people have psychologicall repressed regret for eating meat, but that is on the basis that empathy exists cross-species (or at all).

Anyway, I went off on a tangent.

[RevMARKSman]

I think rights are established as society defines. They are not intrinsic. That said, it is undeniable that animals should be spared such cruelty as torture. Empathy is a human characteristic that is observable in society and across species. The enjoyment one person gets from animal cruelty is not acceptable to a vast portion of society and causes them harm.

Wait, define "should." I don&#39;t like moralistic bullshit, and neither do a whole lot of people on this board. You need to explain yourself.

If we can&#39;t define human rights ourselves, why not animal rights? Why do they have some sort of intrinsic value that we don&#39;t?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 04:54 am

I think rights are established as society defines. They are not intrinsic. That said, it is undeniable that animals should be spared such cruelty as torture. Empathy is a human characteristic that is observable in society and across species. The enjoyment one person gets from animal cruelty is not acceptable to a vast portion of society and causes them harm.

Wait, define "should." I don&#39;t like moralistic bullshit, and neither do a whole lot of people on this board. You need to explain yourself.

If we can&#39;t define human rights ourselves, why not animal rights? Why do they have some sort of intrinsic value that we don&#39;t?
I am saying the idea of rights themselves is established subjectively. We decide how to define rights. However, I am saying that from the definitions we currently use about what is right, we can come to conclusions about not torturing animals.

I am saying our conclusion is deductively valid not that our premises for reaching that conclusion are neccessarily objective.

[Vanguard1917]

it is undeniable that animals should be spared such cruelty as torture. Empathy is a human characteristic that is observable in society and across species. The enjoyment one person gets from animal cruelty is not acceptable to a vast portion of society and causes them harm.

I never said anything about &#39;torture&#39;. No one in their right mind would torture an animal. What are you going to torture it for? Secret information?

No, human beings do not have a track record of torturing animals. But we do like to utilise animals for a range of purposes. Some are more important than others. Food, clothing and medicine naturally come first. After that, animals are used for sport and entertainment purposes, or to make luxury items. Sometimes animals have no use at all. They may even threaten us or get in our way, and therefore need to be killed.

Animals have no &#39;right&#39; to be protected from any of this. Furthermore, none of this is a result of a lack of human empathy. From a human-centered perspective, a person&#39;s empathy is evaluated by how he or she treats other people.

[LSD]

To LSD, I think I understand the rational actor argument better. However, I don&#39;t know that it legitimately accounts for us not testing on people who we are certain will not recover.

If we could know with absolute 100% certainty which individuals will recover and which won&#39;t and we had a medical and political system without flaw or corruption then I would agree.

But because the line between unrecoverable and recoverable is so blurred and because doctors and scientists routinely make mistakes, it&#39;s nescessary to have a clear understandable and intuitive line -- even if that line somewhat expands the protective franchise.

That is, it&#39;s better to protect a tiny minority of "vegetables" which has no legitimate claim to enfranchisement than to not protect a group of people who do.

It&#39;s not so much a "slippery slope" argument as it is a pragmatic recognition of imperfection. It&#39;s not that I fear that human testing would "open the door" to some massive holocaust of abuse; it&#39;s just that if we start testing on "vegetables", eventually we&#39;ll make a mistake along the way and harm a member of society.

The limitations of our medical knowledge pretty much assure it.

And as society exists solely to bennefit those who compose it, it must make every effort possible to ensure that no member of said society is harmed.

Obviously sometimes injury is unavoidable, but this clearly is not one of those cases.

There just isn&#39;t that much information that we&#39;d get from human testing that we can&#39;t get from other sources. If testing on "vegetables" were all that were standing between us and a cure for AIDS then I would support limited human testing ...but that&#39;s just not the case.

Disabled humans simply aren&#39;t that useful for medical purposes. What we really need are controlled healthy human trials and we have those now. We just wait until animal trials have been completed first.

Animal trials which, again, provide us with just as useful if not more useful data than we&#39;d get from testing on sick and generally malformed "vegetables".


As for the disabled individual argument who is in a horrible state of mind, what would you say to the following. If happiness is defined as a chemical process, and these chemicals can not be altered, should we not kill those who are in a state of supreme depression.

Happiness may be a state of mind, but it&#39;s a subjective state of mind and, at present, we have no real way of chemically determining who is or isn&#39;t "happy".

Therefore all that society can realistically do is make sure that every opportunity is presented for individuals to create their own happiness. That&#39;s why ensuring food, education, etc... is so important; it&#39;s also why freedom is such an essential part of social organization.

And when a person is incapacitated we can&#39;t know how their feeling or what they want for themselves. And since, again, killing them would permanently end their existance, we must err on the side of impermanence and possibility.

After all, there always is the chance that they&#39;d recover or that a cure could be developed.

That might mean keeping them in misery, but it also may mean keeping them in a relatively peaceful state of mind. We just can&#39;t know.

And so absense any indication of what they themselves would want, we have no choice but to keep them alive.


As for defining rational actors, I would include all species that contribute or have the potential to contribute (as an individual rather than a species) as rational actors. I would include my dog in this category.

"Contribution" is a very subjective idea. It&#39;s also entirely disconnected from societal participation.

Anything can "contribute" if the word&#39;s defined properly. Trees "contribute", computers "contribute", even bacteria "contribute".

Your dog may add to your happiness and/or perform some service to society, but that does not mean that she is a member of human society. In order to meet that burden, she would have to be able to conceptualize said society and the rights and responsiblities therein.

And that&#39;s something that no dog can do.


What, again, are the reasons behind seeing it as neccessary to protect all rational actors on the basis that they belong to a species of rational actors.

The fact that we, at present, have no better way of assuredly determining who is or isn&#39;t an actual or potential member of society. Judging based on species is easy, simple, and 99.9% accurate.

Additionaly, humans (even diabled humans) are part of a community of rational actors and as such they are emotionally bonded to members of society. So for the same reason that animal torture should be outlaws (the empathic harm it does to humans), testing on "vegetable" humans should be avoided.


When it comes to meat, I would say people as individuals get more pain. In fact, I would argue that people have psychologicall repressed regret for eating meat, but that is on the basis that empathy exists cross-species (or at all).

Sorry, but that sounds pretty ridulous to me.

I eat meat every day, as do many people I know, and not once havee I felt "psychic pain" for doing so.

And before you blame that on the detatchment of capitalist production, I would remind you that humans haver been eating meat for millions of years. And for most of that time we were hunting, killing, and carving that meat ourselves.

The only people who feel pain at eating meat are vegetarians, and so they don&#39;t do it. Something which they have every right to do.

But to try and project their feelings onto the rest of society and on that basis outlaw meat ...well, that&#39;s a bullshit excuse and you know it.

There&#39;s only one person who can testifify as to what someone&#39;s feeling and that&#39;s the person who&#39;s feeling it. And it&#39;s when we start forgeting that, when we start "trusting" others to tell us what we&#39;re "really feeling" that we get into trouble.

Every dictator in history has justified his actions based what the people "really needed". And that&#39;s the road you head down when you start dictating to people what they&#39;re people are "repressing" but don&#39;t know it.

If people want to eat meat, they want to eat meat and the only person who can say whether it&#39;s harmful to them or not is them.

Animal torture is an near universal harm. Without practically no exceptions, everybody opposes it. The exact opposite is true for meat.

Which is why forced vegetarianism is intrinsically oppressive.


I never said anything about &#39;torture&#39;. No one in their right mind would torture an animal.

No kidding, but the issue is people who aren&#39;t in their "right mind".

Like with the whole age of consent debate, your standard line seems to be that if you wouldn&#39;t do something it means that no one else would. Well, that&#39;s just not the way the real world works.

In the real world, people molest children and people torture animals. The question is should there be measures in place to stop them from doing it.

My answer is yes. Not because animals have human rights, but because seeing an animal abuses is deeply traumatic to human beings.

It&#39;s actually not unlike how rare historical artifacts should be preserved from harm. There&#39;s a reason after all that so many people were disturbed by thge Taliban&#39;s destruction of those Buddha statues a few years back.

[Vanguard1917]

No kidding, but the issue is people who aren&#39;t in their "right mind".

Like with the whole age of consent debate, your standard line seems to be that if you wouldn&#39;t do something it means that no one else would. Well, that&#39;s just not the way the real world works.

My point is that there is a difference between torturing a human and torturing an animal.

Unlike animal torture, there is a rationale behind the torture of a human being (e.g. to get secret information, punishment for treachery, sending out a message to enemies, etc.). Since there can be no such rationale behind the torture of animals, only those devoid of rational capacity will torture an animal (such as the mentally ill).

Torturing animals is wrong not so much because it&#39;s cruel, but chiefly because it represents an act of pure irrationality on behalf of the human (which cannot be said of human torture). Because this act of irrationality is wholly uncharacteristic of human beings, animal torture signifies that the person (doing the animal torturing) probably needs some help. But the animal itself has no right to not be tortured. Our starting point should always have a human-centered perspective.


In the real world, people molest children and people torture animals.

That&#39;s an extremely clumsy phrase. It also has a misanthropic slant.

In the real world, a tiny minority of people molest children and a tiny minority of people torture animals. Such acts are the exceptions that prove the rule that human beings love their children and care for their animals.

The assumption that people will molest kids and torture animals in the absence of laws is your starting point. My starting point is the direct opposite of that.

[LSD]

The assumption that people will molest kids and torture animals in the absence of laws is your starting point. My starting point is the direct opposite of that.

My assumption is actually borne out by the facts. In every society in history, a small minority has always committed criminal acts. Measures are therefore necessary to protect the rest of us from them.

The nature and extent of those measures are, and should be, debatable. But neither child molestation nor animal torture are going to "disappear" just &#39;cause they don&#39;t make sense to you.

And so any postrevolutionary society is going to have to address the issue of what to do with those who torture animals. My solution, again, is to recognize the harm that such acts do to humans and on that basis outlaw them.

I&#39;m as yet unsure what your position is...

[chimx]

lsd: But when it comes to needed animal uses (food, testing, etc..), we have to put the rational interests of society ahead of the emotional discomfort we feel at seeing animals harmed.

Animals as a food source aren&#39;t a necessity, but a luxury, and if one considers the current mode of production for capitalist animal husbandry, ecologically unsustainable.

[Sentinel]

Animals as a food source aren&#39;t a necessity, but a luxury

They might not be a necessity to for a human being to survive. However, science seems to indicate it was meat eating that once caused our brains, and so our intellect, to grow to their current size. See this (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/04/23/MN62659.DTL) article.


White and his colleagues, in the respected tradition of anthropology, are being ultra-cautious. While while they have placed their new Australopithecus species on a direct evolutionary line midway between Lucy, called A. afarensis, and Homo habilis, the earliest known members of the truly human race, they concede that their own A. garhi species might -- just might -- have been an offshoot of the line rather than directly on it.

Despite that caution, however, White showed far more excitement in discussing the implications of the discovery:

&#96;&#96;It&#39;s a major breakthrough because it tells us about a new species previously unknown to science,&#39;&#39; White said, &#96;&#39;and it tells us about the early, early -- 2 1/2 million years early -- acquisition of meat and marrow eating among our human ancestors, revolutionary technological and dietary steps in the human career. This is the first time we have anatomical evidence and behavioral evidence right together&#39;&#39;

To White and Clark the revolution in diet was a key step toward nourishing the hominid brain that was then still small. It was, as White put it, &#96;&#96;the next major revolution in human evolution&#39;&#39; because it allowed the hominid brain to evolve into a larger and larger organ, eventually toward human brain size.

Eating meat has made us what we are, and I see no reason to replace such a clearly beneficial diet with something else. Least of all should we regress into a diet our ancestors abandoned millions of years ago, they did so for a reason.

[chimx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 06:48 pm

Animals as a food source aren&#39;t a necessity, but a luxury

They might not be a necessity to for a human being to survive. However, science seems to indicate it was meat eating that once caused our brains, and so our intellect, to grow to their current size. See this (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/04/23/MN62659.DTL) article.

i have read articles like that in the past and have no reason to disagree with them.

[Yazman]

For fuck&#39;s sake people, they are animals. To this day I cannot conceive of why somebody would campaign to give "rights" to a being that is unable to participate in human society. Humans are the only beings in human society that have rights because we are the only ones that can participate in it. A chimpanzee, for all it&#39;s relative intelligence still cannot vote, or write a piece of deep literature, or invent a way to sustain a nuclear fusion reaction. Nor can it do the simple things like cook me dinner or have a conversation with me. The day I can have a 4 player game of Halo with an Orangutan, a Chimpanzee, and a Bonobo followed by a reading of bovine poetry is the day I will agree that animals should have rights.


Anyway, would intelligent aliens be afforded the same rights as humans? What if they had travelled the distances between the stars, and were socially communistic?

What&#39;s the point in even asking this question? It is self evident that intelligent aliens would be afforded the same rights as humans in our society as we humans would be given in the alien society because intelligent aliens could participate in human society and vice versa.

Animals cannot contribute to human society in any meaningful way, shape, or form. Being my food or material for my leather trenchcoat doesn&#39;t mean a few cows contributed to society. It means those animals were used to benefit me. They did not contribute, they were tools.

If a cow contributes to society by being my food, then so too does a wrench for fixing my bike. Let us form the Wrench Liberation Movement.

[chimx]

your thinking is synonymous with that of Descartes.

[Jazzratt]

Brilliant refutation chimx, so very convincing.

It looks a little to me like you&#39;re strayiong into dangerous terratory. (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html)

[chimx]

The science community has completely discarded the Descartian notion that animals are nothing more than automaton, to be used as one would a gear or a wrench. That thinking is so conservative and so reactionary, that it is totally and completely an intellectual anachronism to contemporary western culture.

Proof of this has been cited by myself in plenty of threads in the past regarding this subject. Use the search feature. The argument is unscientific and an utter absurdity.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 05:14 pm
The science community has completely discarded the Descartian notion that animals are nothing more than automaton, to be used as one would a gear or a wrench. That thinking is so conservative and so reactionary, that it is totally and completely an intellectual anachronism to contemporary western culture.

Proof of this has been cited by myself in plenty of threads in the past regarding this subject. Use the search feature. The argument is unscientific and an utter absurdity.
Wait, so a moralistic debate about "rights" can be contributed to scientifically?

People--either stop saying "should" and throw away the cute-fuzzy-thing mentality OR don&#39;t introduce science at all. Your choice.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 10:14 pm
The science community has completely discarded the Descartian notion that animals are nothing more than automaton, to be used as one would a gear or a wrench. That thinking is so conservative and so reactionary, that it is totally and completely an intellectual anachronism to contemporary western culture.

That&#39;s fair enough, you could however have elaborated on that instead of making a one line reply.


Proof of this has been cited by myself in plenty of threads in the past regarding this subject. Use the search feature. The argument is unscientific and an utter absurdity. When I first read this I thought it said *your* argument, and was about to rant about how I had not put forward my argument. Anyway, I&#39;m sure it is however that does not immediatly mean we should be handing our &#39;rights&#39; or &#39;equality&#39; to fucking animals willy nilly. The first reason is of course that they are unable to activley and knowingly fufill their duties to society, it makes no sense to protect something by law when it has not concept of law itself. Also, putting emotionalism aside for a second, animals are fucking useful and have been throughout our history. The idea we should be giving rights to animals is an utter absurdity on par with &#39;rights&#39; for foetuses.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by chimx+December 17, 2006 12:48 pm--> (chimx @ December 17, 2006 12:48 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2006 06:48 pm

Animals as a food source aren&#39;t a necessity, but a luxury

They might not be a necessity to for a human being to survive. However, science seems to indicate it was meat eating that once caused our brains, and so our intellect, to grow to their current size. See this (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/04/23/MN62659.DTL) article.

i have read articles like that in the past and have no reason to disagree with them. [/b]
Brain size does not equal intellect.

[Yazman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 08:14 am
The science community has completely discarded the Descartian notion that animals are nothing more than automaton, to be used as one would a gear or a wrench. That thinking is so conservative and so reactionary, that it is totally and completely an intellectual anachronism to contemporary western culture.

Proof of this has been cited by myself in plenty of threads in the past regarding this subject. Use the search feature. The argument is unscientific and an utter absurdity.
Regardless of whatever label you apply to me or line of thought you associate me with, it does not change the fact that animals cannot participate in human society. They are outside of it and always will be.

If you can find me any animal that can invent something new, write something special, create a political or economic theory, or just generally have a meaningful conversation with me, then I will agree that animals should have "rights."

They are not sapient however and thus have no rights, nor do they deserve any. They have no concept of "rights." They have no concept of any human creations, it is folly to anthropomorphise them in such a way.

When I can co-write a novel with an animal then I will agree that animal should have rights.

[chimx]

How about when you are able to write a novel on your own we here will agree to grant you rights. n00b.

But seriously, I have consistently rejected anthropomorphic thinking put forth by those that condemn animal liberation, and those that participate with it. Unfortunately for yourself, you are placing yourself in the same camp as those that seek to compare animals to humans as you are placing human value judgments upon non-human creatures. Your line of thought is at its heart anthropocentric, the basis of anthropomorphism.

We are all just balls of organic life. Some of us (animals) have better tuned muscles, some of us have higher cognitive skills. You are placing judgment upon non-sapient creatures simply for failing to compare to your own biological realm. That is anthropocentricism.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:32 pm
How about when you are able to write a novel on your own we here will agree to grant you rights. n00b.

But seriously, I have consistently rejected anthropomorphic thinking put forth by those that condemn animal liberation, and those that participate with it. Unfortunately for yourself, you are placing yourself in the same camp as those that seek to compare animals to humans as you are placing human value judgments upon non-human creatures. Your line of thought is at its heart anthropocentric, the basis of anthropomorphism.

We are all just balls of organic life. Some of us (animals) have better tuned muscles, some of us have higher cognitive skills. You are placing judgment upon non-sapient creatures simply for failing to compare to your own biological realm. That is anthropocentricism.
What&#39;s your point?

You&#39;re like the theists: "You&#39;re using human judgments on God. God is past all human logic, judgment and definitions."

You say we&#39;re being anthropocentric.
What&#39;s wrong with that? What&#39;s your point?

[Sentinel]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor+December 19, 2006 01:14 pm--> (Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor &#064; December 19, 2006 01:14 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2006 12:48 pm

[email protected] 17, 2006 06:48 pm

Animals as a food source aren&#39;t a necessity, but a luxury

They might not be a necessity to for a human being to survive. However, science seems to indicate it was meat eating that once caused our brains, and so our intellect, to grow to their current size. See this (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/04/23/MN62659.DTL) article.

i have read articles like that in the past and have no reason to disagree with them.
Brain size does not equal intellect.[/b]
No, but many agree that the brain to body mass ratio does. Generally, the more brain is left over from running the body, the more can be used on actual thinking. As our brains have grown, as a result of meat-eating, that ratio seems to have constantly increased. That has made the one of humans among the largest compared to other species. It doesn&#39;t have to be the only reason for our magnificent intellect, but evidence seems to suggest it&#39;s one.

Humans have the second largest brain to body mass ratio on Earth, followed by the dolphins, and other quite highly intelligent species. Weirdly, shrews have the largest one of all, but personally I&#39;d suggest they don&#39;t rule this planet because they happen to be almost blind and live in tunnels below the surface.. :lol:

The intelligence of a species needs more than a high Encephalization Quotient to grow, like an adventurous and curious nature, the will to learn how to master the environment rather than adapt to it, being physically capable to use language and tools, not to mention satisfying sensorial abilities for instance, but the absence of intelligent species without one seems to suggest it&#39;s quite clearly one of the prequisites.

[chimx]

Monica:


What&#39;s your point?

You&#39;re like the theists: "You&#39;re using human judgments on God. God is past all human logic, judgment and definitions."

You say we&#39;re being anthropocentric.
What&#39;s wrong with that? What&#39;s your point?

Actually your theism argument makes my point for me. Thanks.

[encephalon]

Call it anthropocentric if you&#39;d like, but a very definitive part of human existence is placing humans above animals. Anyone who places a non-sentient being--as we humans perceive it--at or above the level of a sentient being deserves a fate worse than the non-sentient beings to which they claim affinity.

This doesn&#39;t mean other life can&#39;t be treated with respect, but merely that the so-called "rights" of animals quite often come into direct conflict with the "rights" of humans. Most of our medical and biological knowledge stems directly from animal testing and dissection, which has benefited both humans and otherwise (especially of the pet variety, which we anthropomorphize the most).

Hell, as a species we routinely care for animals that under other circumstances would have no problem chewing the fat from our bones.

Our survival depends upon competing and co-depending upon different species. It&#39;s evolution. A great many species have disappeared because of humans, and a great many species have flourished because of humans. The fact that we&#39;re on the top of the food chain gives us no "moral duties" to act any differently than any other species; you can be rest assured that no animal other than a human would have a problem with our extinction if the roles were reversed (that is, unless they depended upon us to better their own chances of survival).

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:36 pm
Monica:


What&#39;s your point?

You&#39;re like the theists: "You&#39;re using human judgments on God. God is past all human logic, judgment and definitions."

You say we&#39;re being anthropocentric.
What&#39;s wrong with that? What&#39;s your point?

Actually your theism argument makes my point for me. Thanks.
Your point being?

[chimx]

encephalon:


Call it anthropocentric if you&#39;d like, but a very definitive part of human existence is placing humans above animals.

Copernicus is laughing at your moral bias inhibiting rational observation.

MonicaTTmed:


Your point being?

That theists postulate that it is illogical to judge the existence of god on materialist terms because god is not of the material world. Equally so, it is illogical to judge animals solely in terms of human qualities. It is based on the moral assumption that humans are "better" than other species. In all actuality, we are simply different.

Think of it like this. An alien being lands on Earth. It is a non-carbon life form. Lets say it is primarily composed of nitrogen. Would it make sense for it to assume you are "inferior" because you lack the a strong nitrogen base? It is completely arbitrary and based solely on the self-perception that their species is the right and better species. Cognitive ability is equally a value bias. We are all carbon based organisms that move around thanks to chemical and/or electrical impulses throughout our bodies. There is anything particularly "special" about humans.

The issue of "rights" is another argument, and I have never advocated animal rights. Unfortunately those that argue for or against animal rights remain fixated on this anthropocentricism which ultimately undermines any point that could be made.

[Chris Hiv_E_]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2006 04:49 pm
For fuck&#39;s sake people, they are animals. To this day I cannot conceive of why somebody would campaign to give "rights" to a being that is unable to participate in human society. Humans are the only beings in human society that have rights because we are the only ones that can participate in it. A chimpanzee, for all it&#39;s relative intelligence still cannot vote, or write a piece of deep literature, or invent a way to sustain a nuclear fusion reaction. Nor can it do the simple things like cook me dinner or have a conversation with me. The day I can have a 4 player game of Halo with an Orangutan, a Chimpanzee, and a Bonobo followed by a reading of bovine poetry is the day I will agree that animals should have rights.


Anyway, would intelligent aliens be afforded the same rights as humans? What if they had travelled the distances between the stars, and were socially communistic?

What&#39;s the point in even asking this question? It is self evident that intelligent aliens would be afforded the same rights as humans in our society as we humans would be given in the alien society because intelligent aliens could participate in human society and vice versa.

Animals cannot contribute to human society in any meaningful way, shape, or form. Being my food or material for my leather trenchcoat doesn&#39;t mean a few cows contributed to society. It means those animals were used to benefit me. They did not contribute, they were tools.

If a cow contributes to society by being my food, then so too does a wrench for fixing my bike. Let us form the Wrench Liberation Movement.
And this entire statement is the perfect example of specieism. It&#39;s not the fact that they do/do not contribute to human society, It is the fact that they have a right to live as much as we do. And people care about the animal liberation movement just like you would care should you hear about some oppressed starving people in some foreign country. You do not feel their pain, And they do not contribute to anything that would ever effect you personally, but it is the fact that they suffer needlessly that causes your sympathy and your want for them to have better lives.
And a wrench does not feel pain, or is even animate for that matter, so it does not deserve equal consideration. And I no not of there ever existing any form of wrench genocide.

[encephalon]

Copernicus is laughing at your moral bias inhibiting rational observation.


Care to further elucidate this statement?

There&#39;s nothing moral about it at all, actually; the concept of rights arose out of and strictly concerns human endeavors. Animals don&#39;t have any sacred right to life. Humans have invented rights as a means to genetic survival in complex society. Rights serve selfish human interests.

A polar bear does not consider the rights of a penguin.

A lion does not consider the rights of a Hyena.

A domestic cat does not consider the rights of a mouse.

A rat does not consider the rights of a cockroach.

When another species aids a species in some fashion, however, it&#39;s a bit different. I wouldn&#39;t go as far as saying it&#39;s a consideration of rights, but it&#39;s definitely a consideration of interests--which is exactly where rights come from. Rights come from symbiotic relationships, whether it be inter-species or intra-species, but only when it&#39;s in the interest of all parties.

Fish like to have hippos around and vice versa. They give one another the "right" to exist in the same territory.

Dogs and humans have given each other mutual "rights" for thousands of years. We grew up together and have grown nigh inseparable as two species can be.

You can call "rights" whatever you want, they are merely the solidified form of mutual interests and people will apply the concept to any relationship they have.

Chimx: Why is it that you&#39;re a vegan, exactly? From what I understand, it&#39;s an argument of empathy rather than rights (it&#39;s always a wonderful idea to base your policies on emotions..). Do you empathize with an aborted fetus as well, and thus oppose abortion? Does anyone that eats meat have some kind of inability to feel empathy for suffering creatures? I&#39;d really like to know where your empathy argument begins and ends.

[Chris Hiv_E_]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 11:46 am


Copernicus is laughing at your moral bias inhibiting rational observation.


Care to further elucidate this statement?

There&#39;s nothing moral about it at all, actually; the concept of rights arose out of and strictly concerns human endeavors. Animals don&#39;t have any sacred right to life. Humans have invented rights as a means to genetic survival in complex society. Rights serve selfish human interests.

A polar bear does not consider the rights of a penguin.

A lion does not consider the rights of a Hyena.

A domestic cat does not consider the rights of a mouse.

A rat does not consider the rights of a cockroach.

When another species aids a species in some fashion, however, it&#39;s a bit different. I wouldn&#39;t go as far as saying it&#39;s a consideration of rights, but it&#39;s definitely a consideration of interests--which is exactly where rights come from. Rights come from symbiotic relationships, whether it be inter-species or intra-species, but only when it&#39;s in the interest of all parties.

Fish like to have hippos around and vice versa. They give one another the "right" to exist in the same territory.

Dogs and humans have given each other mutual "rights" for thousands of years. We grew up together and have grown nigh inseparable as two species can be.

You can call "rights" whatever you want, they are merely the solidified form of mutual interests and people will apply the concept to any relationship they have.

Chimx: Why is it that you&#39;re a vegan, exactly? From what I understand, it&#39;s an argument of empathy rather than rights (it&#39;s always a wonderful idea to base your policies on emotions..). Do you empathize with an aborted fetus as well, and thus oppose abortion? Does anyone that eats meat have some kind of inability to feel empathy for suffering creatures? I&#39;d really like to know where your empathy argument begins and ends.
In defense of Chimx, I have not read any books on veganism that at any time took empathy as a defense of their beliefs. Although most vegans obviously are very emotionally opposed to eating meat. Arguments are rarely based on empathy alone.

[encephalon]

n defense of Chimx, I have not read any books on veganism that at any time took empathy as a defense of their beliefs. Although most vegans obviously are very emotionally opposed to eating meat. Arguments are rarely based on empathy alone.

From what I understand, he isn&#39;t arguing about any sort of rights, but that veganism--at least his own--is an empathetic choice. I&#39;d like to see that explored to see its limitations.

[chimx]

I&#39;m interested in animal liberation because on an emotional level, I am not interested in seeing needless suffering. Whereas you may try to rationalize your distaste of violence done to humans, your natural primary response is an emotional one. You rationalize the notion of "human rights" only after the fact.

I&#39;m not interested in arguing in favor of animal liberation. I gave that up years ago, mainly because rarely are people ever open to the idea and instead just want to push their own view points. If I were to argue for animal liberation, I would give you the rationalized bit, and leave my own emotional reactions out of it.

But the shit we are talking about though, is anthropocentricism, and how it is unfounded, regardless of ones dietary habits.

edit add: also, i still don&#39;t understand why you keep talking to me about animal rights, as i have never advocated such a thing (well maybe in my early 20s I did).

[Chris Hiv_E_]

anthropocentricism
Sorry but that just went right over my head..