animal rights - whats the point

[DKAnarchy53]

i seriously dont see any why animals need rights, i mean sure we shouldnt torture them for fun, thats common sense, but as far as animal testing is concerened, im all for it. would you rather them have to test on people and the people get hurt or would you rather some worthless rats get hurt. i must not know the whole side of the story, please enlighten me.

[Loknar]

Anyone who eats meat has no right to complain about animal rights. The thing that worries me though is that science-like religion 800 years ago-has the potential to get way out of control.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Loknar on 7:10 pm on July 15, 2003
Anyone who eats meat has no right to complain about animal rights. The thing that worries me though is that science-like religion 800 years ago-has the potential to get way out of control.

I have no problem with eating meat, it is a fact of life one must accept. A farmed animal's life is to be eaten, however I do believe that they should have rights. Even if they are going to be eaten, there is no need to make there lives unpleasant up until that point.

You are going to die some day, but do you think that more powerful people than you should be able to make your life a misery just because you are going to die?

I am in favour of banning intensive farming, perfectly viable alternatives are available, organic/freerange are far more moraly acceptable. Some would say that if it was banned then there would be a lack of meats, but considering that on average people in the UK far exceed the levels of protein and minerals gained from meat eating, It is not such a disasterus problem. Perhaps if people were eating more fruit and veg rather than meat people would be more healthy.

I also want the banning of Fox hunting, It is just the cruel sport of the vicious. Oscar Wilde said it best: - "the uneatable in persuit of the uneatable."

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I don't even think it's a case of giving animals "rights" as such, more so, it is a case of humans having a bit of compassion and using their heads a bit.

As for eating meat, that is nature. Just like a lioness hunts, kills and eats an antelope, humans hunt, kill and eat a cow. However we have alternative methods due to the level of intelligence of humans.

However, despite the fact that we all, in the animal world, need to kill eachother to eat, we should still respect one another.

Yes, we can farm animals. But not in the way that it is done now. By injecting them with some shit to make their breasts meatier....just their breasts...thus leaving the rest of their body normal sized while the one part is disproportionately large.

Also, DKAnarchy, do you think it right that we test animals with chemicals, potentially lethal, more often than not deforming, just so that we can have clear and smooth skin? Or red, glimmering lips? If you do, you have a serious problem.

It is one thing to farm animals to keep us alive; a completely different thing to subject them to retarding effects and potential death just so our homes can have air which smells of freshly squeezed peach.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 9:46 pm on July 15, 2003
I don't even think it's a case of giving animals "rights" as such, more so, it is a case of humans having a bit of compassion and using their heads a bit.

As for eating meat, that is nature. Just like a lioness hunts, kills and eats an antelope, humans hunt, kill and eat a cow. However we have alternative methods due to the level of intelligence of humans.

However, despite the fact that we all, in the animal world, need to kill eachother to eat, we should still respect one another.

Yes, we can farm animals. But not in the way that it is done now. By injecting them with some shit to make their breasts meatier....just their breasts...thus leaving the rest of their body normal sized while the one part is disproportionately large.

Also, DKAnarchy, do you think it right that we test animals with chemicals, potentially lethal, more often than not deforming, just so that we can have clear and smooth skin? Or red, glimmering lips? If you do, you have a serious problem.

It is one thing to farm animals to keep us alive; a completely different thing to subject them to retarding effects and potential death just so our homes can have air which smells of freshly squeezed peach.



I have to say that you said exactly what I wanted to say, however you managed to get the point across far better though. I also agree 100% with your view on animal testing. Obviously for serious medical research testing must be done, however your highly accurate description of the majority of testing certainly places testing in a different angle.

Good post.

[DKAnarchy53]

well, whatim saying is these products are going to have to be tested before they go on the market, would you rather them be deforming rabbits or humans?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from DKAnarchy53 on 10:57 pm on July 15, 2003
well, whatim saying is these products are going to have to be tested before they go on the market, would you rather them be deforming rabbits or humans?

I would rather them not going on the market at all if all they are is cheep cosmetics. Why should an animal be killed just so you can wear a moisturising cream or shaving cream?

Sorry I would rather have clammy skin and a small cut... or god forbid a bowl of warm water and soap.

[mentalbunny]

DKAnarchy, do you ever wear make-up? Cosmetics are luxery items, meaning they aren't necessary. Is it worth subjecting an animal which can feel but cannot object to this torture?

I feel the same way about toiletires, there are other methods of testing available, Sainsbury's, amoung others, fund research into these alternatives. I support testing pharmaceuticals but that's it, and I wish that the pain those animals feel could be relieved in some way, I follow the same opinions as Albert Schwitzer when it comes to animals.

By the way, nicely said SoM.

[In It 4 The Money]

Testing on animals gets results, simple as!

Humans are the dominant species on the planet, we control these animals, if it wasnt for testing they wouldnt be alive in the first place so why complain, they are merely doing what they are bred for,

[DKAnarchy53]

"DKAnarchy, do you ever wear make-up? Cosmetics are luxery items, meaning they aren't necessary. Is it worth subjecting an animal which can feel but cannot object to this torture?"

point taken

i agree now....it would be better for them to never go on the market

[mentalbunny]

Well I'm glad to see that you're a reasonable individual, DKAnarchy.

II4M, I don't think I'll bother, you aren't going to change are you? or maybe i should bother. The thing is, yeah we may be the most intelligent species or whatever, but that means wee have a responsibility to the rest of nature; ultimately our abuse of the Earth will lead to our destruction.

[In It 4 The Money]

Ahh yes, i love this argument, we should save the world for everybody. I go back to my earlier point, we dont go and hunt aniamls for testing. we breed them, we raise them so that they can do us service before their pointless little lives end. What part dont you understand? We are not affecting the Earth's mystical balance, we are creating tools to be used before they are thrown away

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from In It 4 The Money on 11:16 pm on July 15, 2003
Testing on animals gets results, simple as!

Humans are the dominant species on the planet, we control these animals, if it wasnt for testing they wouldnt be alive in the first place so why complain, they are merely doing what they are bred for,


Ignore this fool he has already proved in other threads to have less intelligence than the animals he wishes to torture.

The thing is, yeah we may be the most intelligent species or whatever, but that means wee have a responsibility to the rest of nature; ultimately our abuse of the Earth will lead to our destruction.

Dont waste your time, he's probably one of those fools who denys the affects of Global warming and deforestation.

You may as well try and explain atomic theory to a chimp for all the posertive responce you will get.

[mentalbunny]

EDIT: AK47, I'm going to try.

How are the animals we breed to test different from us? They are less intelligent, true, but that's about it, they still feel pain like we do, but unlike us they cannot voice this pain, they cannot object to what we do to them. So they are given life, is life worth all this suffering that they go through? I don't think so, not if it's only for some shower gel or nail polish.

(Edited by mentalbunny at 11:45 pm on July 15, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 11:43 pm on July 15, 2003
EDIT: AK47, I'm going to try.

How are the animals we breed to test different from us? They are less intelligent, true, but that's about it, they still feel pain like we do, but unlike us they cannot voice this pain, they cannot object to what we do to them. So they are given life, is life worth all this suffering that they go through? I don't think so, not if it's only for some shower gel or nail polish.

(Edited by mentalbunny at 11:45 pm on July 15, 2003)


Well I think you will be wasting your time, but then again my patience seams to have reduced rapidly for some strange reason recently... maybe its the heat?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

In It 4 The Money....what is this about:

"if it wasnt for testing they wouldnt be alive in the first place so why complain"

I could tell from previous posts you had limited intelligence, but this makes me wonder whether you have any intelligence.

You think humans were the first animals to inhabit Earth?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

And also, I too would like to commend DKAnarchy for his reasonability.

Very unusual to see someone in this community face facts and accept when they are incorrect. Very unusual, yet very commendable.

[In It 4 The Money]

What the hell are you talking about? You think the animals we test just appear in mid-air? Test animals are bred specificly for this purpose, if it wasnt for us those animals wouldnt be alive, what do you find confusing about this? Testing creates these indiviudal animals, they are bred to be tested. It is their destiny

MB: Do you feel this way about all animals? Dont plants feel pain? Do microscopic life-forms? Where do we draw the line of non-testing, cute and cuddly? Face it, testing on animals is efficient and without it we would be in a lot worse position than we are now.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

In It For The Money....you honestly think an animal would prefer to exist solely for the purpose of being deformed. I think they, just as any human would, would prefer not to be born at all.

As for your pathetic point about plants etc. Did you not know that plants are not actually animals? Plus, I vageuly remember being told by a teacher that plants do not feel any pain anyway. Could be wrong. Never the less, it's irrelevant.

[mentalbunny]

II4M, we were takling about cosmetic testing, not pharmaceuticals. I understand that medicine is heavily reliant on animal testing, and while I don't particularly like it, I support it because the benfits are so large. I'm against testing cosmetics and toiletries on animals, you have a problem with that?

[In It 4 The Money]

Who cares if plants feel pain? Why should we be allowed to test on plants if we have a problem with breeding something to die?


What proof do you have that animals can feel logical thought and are not just a collection of instincts, untill someone can prove to me that an animal can reason i will not oppose animal testing. You think they, like any human would prefer to have not been born than to be deformed? Do you realise how insulting that point is to a member of the disabled community? Basically arguing that they are better of dead than deformed?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Are you severly misunderstanding the meaning of the word "animal" and what type of being is incorporated into this category?

It seems as though you are.

You ask whether we know if "animals" feel pain and have logic and thoughts etc......

Incase you hadn't noticed, we are animals and can therefore speak for and as animals when we say that we feel pain and have thoughts etc.

[mentalbunny]

II4M, this isn't about being deformed, it's about being in pain, get it?!!!!! Look at the euthanasia cases, people who are in so much pain and they won't recover they want to die. So why should it not be like that for animals?

[In It 4 The Money]

You dont seem to understand the point of discussion, it evolves and expands touching upon related topics.


It is quite an easy link to make between disregarding animal testing due to the pain felt and questioning is validity by suggesting that plants could be equally affected.

A Cat is an animal, can it speak for and as an animal?

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Yes it can. In it's way of communication. We are all animals, yet we al have different characteristics and, thus, different ways of communicating with our own types.

You're beginning to make a bit of an arse of yourself now mate. Should maybe give up or accept enlightenment like DK gracefully did

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Plus, you are forgetting distress signs which animals show.

Just another side point.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from In It 4 The Money on 12:19 am on July 16, 2003
You dont seem to understand the point of discussion, it evolves and expands touching upon related topics.


It is quite an easy link to make between disregarding animal testing due to the pain felt and questioning is validity by suggesting that plants could be equally affected.

A Cat is an animal, can it speak for and as an animal?


So let me get this straight you think it is moraly acceptable to put an animal through pain just so you can use the new "lynx" or what ever?

Your only argument is that they were bred for it thats, why they exist. Well sorry that does not exactly improve your case it rather weakens it. How can it be moraly acceptable to breed animals just to torture them?!

[In It 4 The Money]

Plants communicate by releasing certain pheromones.


I still dont give a damn if animals feel pain. They are tools for research.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

You're running out of points because we have proved all of your old ones wrong.

Now you are making points which are either ridiculous, or saying things without backing them up.

You're not actually arguing our points like we did yours.

[In It 4 The Money]

You have made no points, you are talking about irrelevancies, it is as reasonable to complain that plants feel pain as it is to complain that animals. We merely are more comfortable with thinknig that animalsa re nice and cuddly and so dont like seeing them hurt. You still have failed to provide a reason why animal testing is wrong.


Im going ot leave you now for this night, im tired and i have double politics tomorrow

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

You still have failed to provide a reason why animal testing is wrong.

Now I am beginning to wonder whether you are also blind.

[In It 4 The Money]

What is this reason then? That animals feel pain? That it is better not to have been born than to be imperfect of form?
I tell you what, go and read a grown up book (one without chewable pages preferably) and give me a proper reason

[Ex Nihilo]

Animals have no concept of 'morality' as we know it. They'd kill us without as second thought if given the chance.

(Edited by Ex Nihilo at 12:45 am on July 16, 2003)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

So preventing the suffering of an animal is not a good enough reason???

Preventing someone else suffering from immense pain is not a good enough reason not to stab somebody???

You're an absolute arsehole.


(Edited by Socialsmo o Muerte at 12:46 am on July 16, 2003)

[In It 4 The Money]

You seem to have some problem distinguishing animals from humans, id hate to see that state of your family.

So if you saw somone hurting an animal you would feel perfectly justified in stabbing them?

I tell you what, try it and see what happens

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

HUMANS ARE ANIMALS!!!

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from In It 4 The Money on 12:40 am on July 16, 2003
What is this reason then? That animals feel pain? That it is better not to have been born than to be imperfect of form?
I tell you what, go and read a grown up book (one without chewable pages preferably) and give me a proper reason

Well how about we swap you with a rabbit bred for testing and you are subjected to having highly acidic alcaholic concoctions injected in your eye to see what your reaction is? Then we would see if animals feal pain, anyway what kind of dumb question is that? Do animals feel pain, you go tred on a cats tail and I guarantee you will swiftly find the answer, and a clawed leg in most likleyhood.

Also Humans are animals do you feal pain? Or are you a lepper? Well unless you are then you will know that animals feal pain.

How do you find that animals suffering unnecessarily irrelavant, it is of the highest relevance. Why should an animal have to suffer so that you can make your BO smell a little better? How can you possibly defend that?

[Ex Nihilo]

Animals that possess the ability to reason and preform abstract thought.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Ex Nihilo...they would kill us to eat us. Something that none of us are debating is wrong.

And we only say it is wrong if the animal being killed is kept in horrendous conditions with no compassion. I doubt a lion, for example, would be guilty of treating farmed humans inhumanely before killing them to eat.

Thus, your point is somewhatbacking us up.

[dopediana]

oooh, i can't wait till apes conquer the planet and use all the cappies in their weird experiments.

these fine comrades have said all the reasons concerning the animals and i agree with all of them, but consider this....

would you really want to use products that were so potentially harmful that they had to be injected into a bunny's eye to see exactly HOW much damage it would do and what it would take to fix it? no. the thought makes me cringe. it basically means that the product has been tested not for results, but lack of bad effects.

but seriously, let's rub mascara all over a rabbit's eye to see how badly it affects his vision and reaction to negative stimuli. let's try out these new razors really hard on his back and see how cut up he gets. let's see how poisonous this dandruff shampoo is in how large a quantity. can you honestly inflict this on another living, breathing, feeling being to see what measures need to be taken to make it safer? it's disgusting. it's not totally animal safe. it's not totally person safe. if that's different from animal.

oh, but animals aren't the only ones being tested. medicine was tested in an insane asylum in haiti on psychotic people. and the majority died. and their conditions weren't improved in the slightest. but that's a whole different story altogether.

[elijahcraig]

I'm actually a vegitarian. I don't need to eat meat, it helps because it helps some animals, and I am in moral opposition to the cruelty to animals. I support ALF, and ELF.

[elijahcraig]

Also, I feel it is wrong that we kill animals for our pleasure, when some of them are extremely intelligent. For example, elephants mourn their dead.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Are you always this illogical, In It 4 The Money? I agree with the compassionate on this thread, that testing cosmetics on animals is simply wretched.

And as far as "results" go for animal testing, one must remember that humans have physical differences that make certain tests on other animals unconvincing. Owls are allergic to penicillin... the most useful drug humans ever had will kill owls. Chocolate is a tasty treat for us hairless apes, but it will kill dogs. One must be skeptical of research conducted on non-humans because our bodies may react entirely differently.

[mentalbunny]

II4M, I don't understand where your obsession with being deformed comes from, we never mentioned it and it is totally unconnected as far as I can see. Please explain.

[Hegemonicretribution]

II4M, you earlier got confused with plants and animals, asking if it would be the same if it was a plant suffering and not a cute fluffy animal, yes it would be. These products are often counter productive and have natural and superior alternatives. So I wouldn't want anything to suffer in their making, I don't think making them is a good idea.

Plants will not generally be tested for cosmetics, becuase they haven't got the right bits. However, even if they did they wouldn't be the ones using the product as they hae no money. So why shoud they suffer in the process?

I say test it on those that will use the products, its only fair, and although the suffering is not justiffied for an unecessary product, at least it is the end user suffering. Of course they should be allowed to suffer, most of us are liberal here.

[dopediana]

in the first place, products that could be potential harmful shouldn't be made. they shouldn't be tested on animals. they especially shouldn't be tested on animals if they're merely manufactured to accomodate human vanity.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

mentalbunny...it was I that mentioned animals being deformed due to the testing and therefore the reason that idiot talks asbout deformity is because I mentioned it.

But I meant it as in being deformed, thus causing pain. Besides, deforming an animal isn't very nice anyway!!

[Soul Rebel]

GGGGRRRRRR...... my blood is really boiling right now, thanks to certain posters. As most of you know- im a radical animal rights activist and a vegan. I live a cruelty free life to help animals. I believe that because animals dont have a voice i should be one for them. Animals, who really can be a best friend and a life saver, deserve compassion and understanding, which many people unfortunately don't give them.

As a human i am very saddened to see the way in which we treat animals. Animals were not put here to be tested on, worn, eaten, or used for entertainment or teaching purposes. We take advantage of animals- we assume they have no feelings and that because they have no voice or ability to consent that we can do whatever we want to them.

With all the technology available there is no reason for us to continue testiing products on animals or to continue using them for teaching purposes. Computers can be used to learn the same things that one would see while dissecting an animal. As for cosmetics and other health and beauty products- if humans desire to use these products so much then the products should be tested on humans themselves. There is no need to test hbc items on animals because they do not use these products and they endure a lot of suffering just so humans can use a ridiculous luxury. Do you know what its like to have an ear grown out of your back? To have bleach pored into your eyes? To have you skin shaved off with razors to test them? To have your skin bleached or dyed? Do have a bull hook used on you? To be starved? If you dont ever want to go through this then why would you allow animals to go through this?

Be green, be friendly, be kind, be vegan.

[dopediana]

hear, hear! senora, as usual, your post just made my heart sing. you better be in dc on october 25. or else i'll never forgive you.

[Soul Rebel]

amaryllis- im definitely going to be there. im already making plans with others. when i get the final details i will let you know so we can meet up :-D

[Ex Nihilo]

Animals are tools to be used and nothing more. Their suffering is irrelevant. All that matters is man. We are the lords of this world.

[Soul Rebel]

ex nihilo- you are seriously a sorry excuse for a human being. i can't believe nature spent time creating you. what a waste of a brain and body. you are truly pathetic.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from Ex Nihilo on 3:50 am on July 17, 2003
Animals are tools to be used and nothing more. Their suffering is irrelevant. All that matters is man. We are the lords of this world.


Does the same apply to classes as well? Suffering of the proltariat does not matter all that matters is your lifestyle? Just wondering.

[dopediana]

Quote: from Ex Nihilo on 3:50 am on July 17, 2003
Animals are tools to be used and nothing more. Their suffering is irrelevant. All that matters is man. We are the lords of this world.


a question, you dickwad. are you a good god-fearing american?

and that post isn't a quality post, therefore, it deserves a low-quality but highly esteemed answer. you're a ****.

[In It 4 The Money]

You all seem to have serious problems.

Where to start. You dont think a products side effects should be tested? What happens if a child is playing about and gets mascara in his eye, isnt it important that we know what to do to stop him feeling pain? Would you rather a small child suffers so that some animals can be saved?

Animals may react differently to some drugs. That is why products are tested on a variety of animals to get a wider range of results before having human subjects.

Do you realise how many drugs would not have been on the market if it hadnt been for animal testing? How can a drug be approved if it has no living subjects? Or do you think that all drugs should be tested straight away on humans? The potentially unsafe drugs tested straight on humans, the small number of test subjects that would be available, lets face it, without animals there would be far less useful drugs on the market.

And if you are going to argue that people are going to volunteer to be tested or be paid then you seriously havent thought something through. Imagine if people were paid to have drugs tested on them. All the subjects would be homelsee people, subjecting themselves to tests to earn themselves food.

So face it people. While not neccesarily all that nice animal testing is vital to the safety of society.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from In It 4 The Money on 2:21 pm on July 17, 2003
You all seem to have serious problems.

Where to start. You dont think a products side effects should be tested? What happens if a child is playing about and gets mascara in his eye, isnt it important that we know what to do to stop him feeling pain? Would you rather a small child suffers so that some animals can be saved?

Animals may react differently to some drugs. That is why products are tested on a variety of animals to get a wider range of results before having human subjects.

Do you realise how many drugs would not have been on the market if it hadnt been for animal testing? How can a drug be approved if it has no living subjects? Or do you think that all drugs should be tested straight away on humans? The potentially unsafe drugs tested straight on humans, the small number of test subjects that would be available, lets face it, without animals there would be far less useful drugs on the market.

And if you are going to argue that people are going to volunteer to be tested or be paid then you seriously havent thought something through. Imagine if people were paid to have drugs tested on them. All the subjects would be homelsee people, subjecting themselves to tests to earn themselves food.

So face it people. While not neccesarily all that nice animal testing is vital to the safety of society.

Where to start. You dont think a products side effects should be tested? What happens if a child is playing about and gets mascara in his eye, isnt it important that we know what to do to stop him feeling pain? Would you rather a small child suffers so that some animals can be saved?


The argument is that such products as cosmetics should not be on the market if they need to be tested on animals. Then the child would not be in any danger, and the animal would not be tortured and poisoned. Why should an animal suffer for your petty beutification?

As for serious medical experimentation into real Deceases i dont think that anybody here has a problem with medical experimentation on animals, but that is for a serious medical treatment, not maskara.

[Elect Marx]

Ex Nihilo, I can't believe you are being serious...but if you are, fuck you, some day animals will eat you.

[Moskitto]

most ingredients that make up the bulk of cosmetics have been tested on animals at some point in the past anyway. many people suggest keeping with these ingredients, which don't need further testing, until we actually need something new (eg. a fragrance) then we wouldn't need animal testing for cosmetics.

[dopediana]

And if you are going to argue that people are going to volunteer to be tested or be paid then you seriously havent thought something through. Imagine if people were paid to have drugs tested on them. All the subjects would be homelsee people, subjecting themselves to tests to earn themselves food.

well, maybe society should use money to fucking TAKE CARE OF THOSE PEOPLE instead of helping rich people to indulge in their worthless vanity at the expense of cute furry creatures.

[In It 4 The Money]

Ah yes, the cute furry creatures argument.

And what money are you talking about which will suddenly appear to help the homeless? Do you perhaps mean the amounts of money that drugs companise produce in taxes and copyright' contracts?

[mentalbunny]

There are other kinds of taxes II4M. A government's duty is to look after the citizens of that country, so why shouldn't they be looking after the homeless?!

So, do you condone testing cosmetics on animals? I'm not talking about drugs, just cosmetics. And why do you (not) condone animal testing for cosmetics? You haven't really explained yourself clearly yet.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Taxes is nothing, if drug companies are so great and helpful, it is fair enough that their industry is the most PROFITABLE in the world. How is this money made? Product duplication and branding. Most drugs that are made, the vast majority of the money that is used in research (the excuse for insanely high profit margins) goes into making replica drugs of those out there. They serve little or no purpose, however they are another brand. So when one of theirs fails, people, including doctors who are given a list from certain companies from which to purchase, will buy an almost identical drug that looks, smells and tastes different with different packaging.

I am not bullshitting you, the majority of drugs testing is carried ouit only to line the pockets of the CEO's.

However even with this most people would still support drug testing on animals, so stop trying to use that argument, whether they are cute and cuddly, or slimy and scaly people will accept it if it's ends justify the means.

I think a fair deal is that if we can test our products on animals, theirs should be tested on those of us responsible fort their pain.

[In It 4 The Money]

Yup, i condone testing cosmetics on animals. Anything which will lead to a higher quality product for a human is worth the sacrafice of an animal.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 6:24 pm on July 17, 2003
Taxes is nothing, if drug companies are so great and helpful, it is fair enough that their industry is the most PROFITABLE in the world. How is this money made? Product duplication and branding. Most drugs that are made, the vast majority of the money that is used in research (the excuse for insanely high profit margins) goes into making replica drugs of those out there. They serve little or no purpose, however they are another brand. So when one of theirs fails, people, including doctors who are given a list from certain companies from which to purchase, will buy an almost identical drug that looks, smells and tastes different with different packaging.

I am not bullshitting you, the majority of drugs testing is carried ouit only to line the pockets of the CEO's.

However even with this most people would still support drug testing on animals, so stop trying to use that argument, whether they are cute and cuddly, or slimy and scaly people will accept it if it's ends justify the means.

I think a fair deal is that if we can test our products on animals, theirs should be tested on those of us responsible fort their pain.


Pharmacology is a huge industry to be in, £40,000 a year as a junior researcher is not bad, but even in the UK with public healthcare there's salesmen for pharmaceuticals. And it's growing so quickly because with current technology people are just demanding stuff to cure that little itch they've got on that place they can't scratch when before they wouldn't have cared.

Annother good industry is ready made meals or sandwich production, there are a lot of people who haven't got the time to cook their own food or just don't know how to.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Moskitto, that is exactly why we shoud be sceptical of any testing, even in the case of drugs little is of benifit, most of it actually is anything but benificial to humankind, except those making the drugs.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

I don't mean to offend, because I know some of oyu agree with me anyway. But HOW can you possibly be taking markets and money into consideration for this?

It should not reach the point where we need to discuss markets and economics.

As for the pro-testing people here, their points seem almost alcohol influenced.

You sound like a bunch of 13 year old schoolboys who want to sound "hard" and "bad" in front of the girls. People like you actually deserve death for that sick attitude towards other beings on this planet.

Animals are our companions. In It For The Money, why do you keep saying "ahh yes, there you go using the cure fluffy animal argument"? That is not the argument we are using. You're actually making our argument up and then arguing it. That's not a really intelligent thing to do.

We are saying that, just like WE do not like to suffer pain, animals to not either. There cannot be an argument. WE are animals. You say an animal should suffer so humans can prosper....WE ARE ANIMALS. I cannot understand your reasoning. You cannot have any logical, educated and valid reasoning for believing that testing on animals for cosmetics is actually justified.

As for the pharmaceutical thing. I belive it is alright, maybe, to test on animals for this. HOWEVER, SenoraChe says we apparently have technological capabilities so that it is not required. If this is so, then animal testing is NOT justified even for pharmaceuticals. However, I do not know enough about the situation with this alleged technology.

SenoraChe, I'm afraid I disagree on one of your views. "Animals are not here to be eaten". We are, like I've said, animals. All animals and plants are put here on this earth to benefit and serve eachother (for the fundamentals, not for cosmetics). If you say that "Animals are nto here to be eaten", then you are saying that an Eagle pouncing and taking a Mouse is not right? Or that a Tiger hunting, killing and eating a Wild Boar is wrong? Eating other animals is just nature.

However, agreed on everything else!

[elijahcraig]

Well, if we can avoid eating animals by eating other proteins, etc., there is no reason to eat animals.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from In It 4 The Money on 7:48 pm on July 17, 2003
Yup, i condone testing cosmetics on animals. Anything which will lead to a higher quality product for a human is worth the sacrafice of an animal.


Ohh excelent, you are of a lower intelectual capacity. I want a brand new form of face cream, I shall inject it into you and put droplets of it in your eye's because as a lower life form to my self you have no rights or use other than to exist for this use. perhaps later I will do an experiment into your pain tolerance. You know, seeing how much pain you can withstand before your body goes into shock and you die. It has no medical value I will simply enjoy it. According to you this is justified...

You create an excelent argument for reinstating the death penalty in this country.

[Funkier Monk]

What the hell is this all about?

(Edited by Funkier Monk at 1:00 am on July 18, 2003)

[Ex Nihilo]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 2:43 am on July 16, 2003
Ex Nihilo...they would kill us to eat us. Something that none of us are debating is wrong.

And we only say it is wrong if the animal being killed is kept in horrendous conditions with no compassion. I doubt a lion, for example, would be guilty of treating farmed humans inhumanely before killing them to eat.

Thus, your point is somewhatbacking us up.


So not showing compassion is immoral?

Oh, and I beg to differ on the whole "they'd only kill us to eat us" BS. Chimps have been observed killing other members of their own species for seemingly no reason what so ever.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

And that means what?

I cannot believe you have just used that to support your argument!!! Are you THAT stupid??

-You say animal testing is right because they are lower, less intelligent etc.
-I say it's wrong because it causes unneccesary suffering
-You say "well, they wouldn't hesitate to kill us"
-I say it would be to eat us
-Then you say "no, it wouldnt be just to eat us because chimps have been identified to kill their own kind for no reason.....

That was just for first time readers benefit. And it should also point out to you how stupid you are because.....

WHAT ARE HUMANS DOING TO EACHOTHER EVERY FUCKIN DAY!!

What did Adolf Hitler and his henchmen do to thousands upon thousands of people for no reason? KILL THEM!

Have you not heard of murderers? Serial killers? What do they do? KILL PEOPLE. Usually for NO REASON. I'm sure they have their own reasons, just like the chimps probably do. But we don't think such reasons are justified. Probably like we dont think the chimps reasons were justified.

So, who is more intelligent? What are the lower beings?

If you believe these chimps to be so unintelligent and "lower" than humans for the reason you give (they kill eachother for nothing), then you are an idiot because humans do the same thing on even larger scales.

I know that point went on and on and it didn't need to. But I LOVED your last post. The idiocy of it got me so excited that I just kept on writing and explaining my point.

Thank you for providing me with the ammunition to prove how much of an idiot you actually are.

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 11:51 pm on July 17, 2003
I don't mean to offend, because I know some of oyu agree with me anyway. But HOW can you possibly be taking markets and money into consideration for this?

It should not reach the point where we need to discuss markets and economics.

As for the pro-testing people here, their points seem almost alcohol influenced.

You sound like a bunch of 13 year old schoolboys who want to sound "hard" and "bad" in front of the girls. People like you actually deserve death for that sick attitude towards other beings on this planet.

Animals are our companions. In It For The Money, why do you keep saying "ahh yes, there you go using the cure fluffy animal argument"? That is not the argument we are using. You're actually making our argument up and then arguing it. That's not a really intelligent thing to do.

We are saying that, just like WE do not like to suffer pain, animals to not either. There cannot be an argument. WE are animals. You say an animal should suffer so humans can prosper....WE ARE ANIMALS. I cannot understand your reasoning. You cannot have any logical, educated and valid reasoning for believing that testing on animals for cosmetics is actually justified.

As for the pharmaceutical thing. I belive it is alright, maybe, to test on animals for this. HOWEVER, SenoraChe says we apparently have technological capabilities so that it is not required. If this is so, then animal testing is NOT justified even for pharmaceuticals. However, I do not know enough about the situation with this alleged technology.

SenoraChe, I'm afraid I disagree on one of your views. "Animals are not here to be eaten". We are, like I've said, animals. All animals and plants are put here on this earth to benefit and serve eachother (for the fundamentals, not for cosmetics). If you say that "Animals are nto here to be eaten", then you are saying that an Eagle pouncing and taking a Mouse is not right? Or that a Tiger hunting, killing and eating a Wild Boar is wrong? Eating other animals is just nature.

However, agreed on everything else!


SM- seriously, we learned to eat animals. today it is a cultural thing. we learn how to eat meat just as we learn to eat fruits, veggies, and grains. animals have no choice- for them they are predestined to live a certain way. some animals are vegetarians while others are not. today there really is no need to continue eating animals. we have so much damn food that we can avoid eating meat and live fine. not only would it help animals, but our own health, which reminds me of another point. if we were meant to eat meat than how come our bodies cannot digest it well/right? it stays in our bodies for the longest time which is not healthy at all.

As for the technology part i can send you some info on it if you would like. its up to you- i have entire files on it :)

By the way- you bring up some good points in your arguement :)

[Danton]

"We have so much damn food we can avoid eating meat" - SenoraChe

Tell that to the starving millions, I completey agree that animals should'nt suffer for the vain cosmetic benefits of society but turning this into a vegan/veggie argument detracts from that credible stance...

We are naturally carnivorous - this is indesputible, we have incisors and hunting instincts, I seriously question some of these synthetic meat substitutes. Man has utilized his surroundings and other creatures since the dawn of time - it is the natural way. If you look at a cow or chicken or pig it is clearly designed to be eaten, I'm very wary of people who favor beasts over their fellow man. People who become overly sentimental at the sight of a cute little bunny or lamb - that's conditioning.



"What do vegitarian worms eat? - Linda MCartney"

[In It 4 The Money]

I think the percentage of murders commited for no reason is approaching 1%, most human murders are commited for posession (often mirrored in the animal world) and for emotion (difficult to deduce if this happens in the animal world)


But this is way off topic. testing on animals is the way it is, the process is useful, it should be continued. Your arguments inplying that i am a lower form of life are childish ,it is quite clearly defined that testing should be applied to non-humans in the early stages.

[elijahcraig]

Are you people idiots? Good god.

It is alright for starving people to eat meat, but for us and most it is possible to avoid it. There is no reason not to. We are not natural carnivores, that is why it is possible to eat around meat and still get all the necessary nutrients.

Animal testing is Ok now? You are an idiot. It is cruel and oppressive.

We should oppose all oppression, not glorify it with stupid concepts of "it's subhuman so it's alright." You call yourselves socialists?

[Danton]

Who are you calling an idiot? get fucked!

We are omni-vours, like monkeys..many of whom eat meat also, for many people (me included) it is not possible to exclude meat from their diet and remain healthy - I am allergic to nuts/cheese etc..I tried, not for humane reasons but because of the BSE thing and my girlfriend at the time was vegan...well I got sick and fuck all that noise Jack......

"It is alright for starving people but.."What the fuck are you saying with that shit? we are enlightened, these poor fools know no better? Vegetarianism is a western disease and I'ts on the decline - fact. What good is a chicken except for it's eggs & meat? Christ! Do you think a chicken gives a fuck about you?



"WHACKO! meet the sausage creature" - HST

[elijahcraig]

OK, I'll put it this way: Don't eat meat if you can avoid it. OK? It's as simple as that. We need to oppose all oppression, not just the present government bullshit.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

SenoraChe, although you will not persuade me on the eating meat thing, I would be very interested to read about technological advances in terms of pharmaceutical development. If I were shown that there is no need to test on animals for this anymore, then I will wholeheartedly support an end to it.

As for the eating of meat, I understand what you mean, but I still think all of us animals are here to benefit from eachother. We all serve eachother in the way of providing life (food) for one another. I know we have developed meat substitutes and protein pills or whatever, but this is not natural nutrients. Besides, I love meat and I'm afriad I'd never be able to give it up!

In It For The Money, tell your friend Ex Nihilo that it is off the subject, not me. You say that 1% of murders are for no reason, but I don't think that was the point. I'm sure the chimps that your friend talked about did have their own reasons, but they were maybe so trivial and small that the humans observing them did not spot them. The same for those murders which do not slip into that 1% you talk of. We know that people usually have a REASON themselves for killing, but it's usually not justified.

[Danton]

Oppression? How can a dumb beast who knows nothing but eat - shit - sleep be oppressed? You can't change thousands of years of natural human instinct because it hurts the feelings of stupid animals and a minority of wooly human liberals. People like meat, it tastes nice and yes, it is good for you. Should we give animals the vote aswell?



"Chilli con carne"

[elijahcraig]

You should avoid harming animals (who some have up to 8 year old intelligence and some mourn the deaths of others) when possible. Now I know you are an idiot by the way you used the words "liberals" and "dumb stupid animals".

[Danton]

8 year old intelligence of what? pissing shitting sleeping and eating...."they mourn their dead" what, they mope around for a bit then remember to eat something, calling me an idiot does'nt bring any weight to your argument, go and fuck a donkey, in the ass....

Our violence against animals has reason and purpose and results, how would you feel if your child was mindlessley assaulted by a rabid dog? or goes blind after contact with the shit of some filthy animal or maybe a horse kick's you in the face out of annoyance?


When a cat kills a bird or mouse it is not for food but a plaything, sharpens it's instincts keeps it's primal energies ticking over.... You and your kind would'nt last long if you had to survive outside your cosy little world of pre-packaged hand-picked organic low in cholesteral dolphin friendly knick knacks.....be like CHE eat a fucking horse!

[In It 4 The Money]

Danton has a point. Humans have killed animals for millenia. And those were wild animals. We have now entered a whole new generation of domestic animals, animals that are bred so that they can fulfill a purpose. Its one thing to talk about elephants in the wild woh mourn their dead and quite another to talk about rats born in a lab who can work out how to run down a maze

[elijahcraig]

Our violence against animals has reason and purpose and results, how would you feel if your child was mindlessley assaulted by a rabid dog? or goes blind after contact with the shit of some filthy animal or maybe a horse kick's you in the face out of annoyance

That's by far the weakest answer you've presented yet. Animals kicking children? What the fuck are you talking about? That's nonsensical.

If you can avoid eating meat, then I would recommend you do it, there is no reason not to.

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from Danton on 2:26 pm on July 18, 2003
Who are you calling an idiot? get fucked!

We are omni-vours, like monkeys..many of whom eat meat also, for many people (me included) it is not possible to exclude meat from their diet and remain healthy - I am allergic to nuts/cheese etc..I tried, not for humane reasons but because of the BSE thing and my girlfriend at the time was vegan...well I got sick and fuck all that noise Jack......

"It is alright for starving people but.."What the fuck are you saying with that shit? we are enlightened, these poor fools know no better? Vegetarianism is a western disease and I'ts on the decline - fact. What good is a chicken except for it's eggs & meat? Christ! Do you think a chicken gives a fuck about you?



"WHACKO! meet the sausage creature" - HST


Actually- vegetarianism is an the rise due to new health reports and to people being more aware of animals rights too. I dont know where you heard that it was down because that is a lie.

As for vegetarism being unhealthy- wrong. Any diet can be unhealthy. The problem is that people do not know how to eat, they do not know how to balance food out. Let it be a meat or veggie diet- you have to do it right. But unfortunately people do not see this- they say that it is the veggie diet that makes you sick, thanks to the meat industry who like to make up lies so we continue to buy their products. People make themselves sick because they have no clue what they are doing. People get sick eating meat all the time- its been shown that meat causes a variety of health issues- because they dont know how to eat!!!

Now as for the starvation problem- its been said that vegetarianism would actually solve the problem. And its not due to animal rights, but to food distribution and farming. Meat and dairy products are not equally available to everyone- only to those that can afford it, which is usually those living in the west. Those in poor countries tend to eat more grains, when available. Water is scarse to the poor as is other things. For the poor, meat is even less acessable. Because meat and dairy are heavily consumed by western cultures, this is the stuff that people want to produce, which causes a lot of damage to others. It takes more land, time, and money to produce meat and dairy products. For the same amount of land, time, and money more grains, soy, veggies, legumes, and fruit could be produced. If more of this stuff was produced more people would be eating. Also, rather than giving the available grains and water to people, this stuff is given to the animals so they become meatier and produce a certain desired meat. In the end the animal is slaughtered so only a few can eat it. This is wrong. We should be giving those grains and water to people who dont have enough to eat rather than to animals so only a few can eat. This is why it is a very popular belief that a vegetarian diet would help solve the world's starvation problems. This has nothing to do with animal rights, but human rights.

[Danton]

Vegatarianism is on the decline in the U.K for the first time since the 70's. source - BBC I dont have a link.

Senora Che- I didn't say vegitarianism is unhealthy. I said it was to the detriment of my personal health.

Offer a starving person the choice of grains or meat, see what they choose. In your veggie utopia what would happen to the livestock? set them free to roam the earth? They would consume more of the land you wish to grow veg in.

"If we did produce more food more peole would eat it" That is incredibly naive.....So suddenly big business would grow a conscience? I havent got time to get into this now but neither of you addressed my points about human survival and Elijah could'nt grasp a simple concept about the indescriminate violence of animals against humans..so I'll have to catch this thread up another day..... I'm off to a Bullfight...

[Ex Nihilo]

Your right, Socialismo o muerte, that wasn't a very good argument. I guess what I was tring to say was that because animals lack the ability to comprehend human morality, we shouldn't bother applying it to them. If a couple of chimps attacked you (unlikely, though possible) they would probably beat you mercilessly, and leave you for dead, feeling no remorse whatsoever. How do you treat a creature like that? With morality? With compassion? Two things it could never understand? No. In the animal world the strong survive and the weak perish. We are the strong. We will survive. We'll dispose of the lower lifeorms however we choose, because, quite frankly, we can and it benefits us.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[Ex Nihilo]

I believe the innuits have a diet of almost 100% meat. In fact, I think there are a few tribes that are actually totally carnivorous. They obtain some of the vitamins normally found in plants by eating bone marrow and raw or rotting fish (vitamin C).

[dopediana]

Quote: from Ex Nihilo on 5:31 pm on July 18, 2003
Your right, Socialismo o muerte, that wasn't a very good argument. I guess what I was tring to say was that because animals lack the ability to comprehend human morality, we shouldn't bother applying it to them. If a couple of chimps attacked you (unlikely, though possible) they would probably beat you mercilessly, and leave you for dead, feeling no remorse whatsoever. How do you treat a creature like that? With morality? With compassion? Two things it could never understand?


morality, apes don't have. compassion, they do have. why would a female take care of the infant of another who gives no milk or perhaps has died? because of the mothering instinct. compassion is part of instinct in animals. a few years ago in philadelphia, there was a fire in the monkey house as a result of faulty wiring. 19 animals died. a mother was found leaning over her infant as he was clutched to her breast. she was trying to protect him from inhaling the smoke.

and while it's true that chimps will go and attack outsiders of their group or loners unmercilessly, that is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to be merciless with them. you're condoning abandoning human morality in conducting research on these animals just because they act like monkeys do and always have since the dawn of their existence. you're forsaking your human morals, saying "oh, they don't have any sense of ethics when dealing with others, so i'll forget about my morals while i deal with them." your argument is childish.



danton, horses don't kick you in the face out of annoyance just out of the blue like that. they do it when feeling scared or threatened. and if a horse charges you, as i have had happen to me when dealing with difficult horses, often abuse cases, you can exercise pure human intelligence in order to dominate them. you rush at them as well, waving your arms and yelling and they'll run away and leave you alone.

and of all animals to eat, horses should not be one of them. they're noble animals in their own right, even if some of them are not aware of it. their whole existence has been somehow devoted to helping mankind, first as food, then as a companion and fellow warrior. all they've ever done has been gracing the global scene with their strength and beauty and quiet submissiveness. without horses, the widespread western civilization you see before could not have happened. therefore all of us, especially you, ex nihilo, should be in awe of horses.

[Soul Rebel]

animals do not just attack for the hell of it. if another animal comes into their own territory- a chimp will attack to protect its territory, chimps of the group, children, and food. And just in case you didnt know- humans have the tendency to do the same thing. Robbers break into your house in an attempt to take something from you- just like another chimp would take food from another chip. Now, most people's reaction is to protect themselves which may mean attacking the robber or calling for help, just like a chimp would do in finding another chimp pushing in on its territory. But nobody says that this is wrong or barbaric. Its called self-defensive. Humans are animals and act like animals. It is only natural to protect yourself and it there is no difference when a human or a chimp does it, so to say that animals attack others or humans for no reason is ridiculous. There is a reason: self-defense.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 10:44 pm on July 17, 2003
Moskitto, that is exactly why we shoud be sceptical of any testing, even in the case of drugs little is of benifit, most of it actually is anything but benificial to humankind, except those making the drugs.


I was not supporting testing, I was saying that pharmaceuticals was a big industry. You are right, there are lots of drugs out there which do pretty useless things and are more "convienience" drugs than anything else, cold remedies are a good example of this. All I use is albas oil and some boiled sweets and just get on with my life, other people think they need 600 pills a day.

[Ex Nihilo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style...emonicmales.htm (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/demonicmales.htm)

Defense huh.....

---------------------------------

Defense of territory is widespread among many species, but the Kasekela chimpanzees were doing more than defending. They didn't wait to be alerted to the presence of intruders. Sometimes they moved right through border zones and penetrated half a mile or more into neighboring land. They did no feeding on these ventures. And three times I saw them attack lone neighbors. So they seemed to be looking for encounters in the neighboring range. These expeditions were different from mere defense, or even border patrols. These were raids.

--------------------------------------


Then came the killing of Godi. And seven weeks later, a second attack took place. Once again the victim was an isolated Kahama male--De was his name--and the attackers were a gang of four from Kasekela: three adult males and one adult female. One adult male, an adolescent male, and a younger female from Kahama watched from a short distance; clearly distressed, they were threatened away from time to time by one or more of the aggressors.

Upon sighting De, the Kasekela group rushed forward in obvious excitement, screaming, barking, and hooting, and surrounded their quarry. While the female of the raiding party, Gigi, screamed threateningly, the three Kasekela males closed in. De was helpless. According to the human observers, "He soon stopped struggling and sat hunched over, uttering squeaks." But at last he attempted to escape by climbing a tree, then leaping into another tree. Assaulted there, he fled onto a branch that broke under his weight and left him dangling low. From the ground, one of the Kasekela males was able to grab him by the leg and pull him down, and all three males, screaming, continued their assault. Finally Gigi joined in so that now all four were striking and stomping on the isolated male. They dragged him along the ground, biting and tearing the skin from his legs, and ceased their attack only after twenty minutes--having meanwhile driven away the two other Kahama males and, with threats, forced the young Kahama female to join their party. De was observed two months later, crippled, still severely wounded, and then never seen again. Missing, presumed dead.

One year later, a gang from Kasekela found their third victim. This time the target was Goliath, now well past his prime, with a bald head, very worn teeth, protruding ribs and spine. He may have been well into his fifties. It was many years since he had last competed for dominance. He had been a well-integrated member of the Kasekela community only five years before, and now (though he had since joined the Kahama group) he was little threat to anyone. But none of that mattered to the aggressors.

It began as a border patrol. At one point they sat still on a ridge, staring down into Kahama Valley for more than three-quarters of an hour, until they spotted Goliath, apparently hiding only twenty-five meters away. The raiders rushed madly down the slope to their target. While Goliath screamed and the patrol hooted and displayed, he was held and beaten and kicked and lifted and dropped and bitten and jumped on. At first he tried to protect his head, but soon he gave up and lay stretched out and still. His aggressors showed their excitement in a continuous barrage of hooting and drumming and charging and branch-waving and screaming. They kept up the attack for eighteen minutes, then turned for home, still energized, running and screaming and banging on tree-root buttresses. Bleeding freely from his head, gashed on his back, Goliath tried to sit up but fell back shivering. He too was never seen again.

So it went. One by one the six adult males of the Kahama community disappeared, until by the middle of 1977 an adolescent named Sniff, around seventeen years old, was the lone defender. Sniff, who as a youngster in the 1960s had played with the Kasekela males, was caught late on November 11. Six Kasekela males screamed and barked in excitement as they hit, grabbed, and bit their victim viciously--wounding him in the mouth, forehead, nose, and back, and breaking one leg. Goblin struck the victim repeatedly in the nose. Sherry, an adolescent just a year or two younger than Sniff, punched him. Satan grabbed Sniff by the neck and drank the blood streaming down his face. Then Satan was joined by Sherry, and the two screaming males pulled young Sniff down a hill. Sniff was seen one day later, crippled, almost unable to move. After that he was not seen and was presumed dead.

Three adult females, Madam Bee, Mandy, and Wanda, at one time had belonged to the Kahama group, along with their offspring. But Mandy and Wanda eventually disappeared, as did their young, while Madam Bee and her two daughters, Little Bee and Honey Bee, were beaten by Kasekela males several times. Then in September 1975, four adult males charged the old female, dragging, slapping, stomping on her, picking her up and hurling her to the ground, pounding her until she collapsed and lay inert. She managed to crawl away that day, only to die five days later. The assault on Madam Bee, incidentally, was watched by the adolescent Goblin and four Kasekela females, including Little Bee, who had become associated with Kasekela by then. Four months after Madam Bee was killed, her younger daughter, Honey flee, also transferred to Kasekela.

By the end of 1977 Kahama was no more.

[dopediana]

ex nihilo, that was a very decent post. those kasekela chimps sound like a bad lot.....
but then again, humans do that too. do you not see children forming cliques and bullying children who are weaker, not as intelligent, different, perhaps younger? some of them would eventually kill their victims, but adults often intervene. in the "real world" you have aggressive people as well. it's a fact of nature. some creatures are just aggressive and ill-willed for no apparent reason.

still, that does NOT give you the right to use chimps for testing.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

It appears as though this threadis going around in circles.

[dopediana]

Quote: from Socialsmo o Muerte on 9:49 pm on July 18, 2003
It appears as though this threadis going around in circles.

argh. why must you spam like that? it's on of my hugest web peeves. if it's come full circle, don't fucking post anymore. sheesh.

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

It was meant to mean that I don't think people should use any of the points theyve used already and that we should only try and post some new ideas/views/points.

I wasn't just saying that for the hell of it.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from the amaryllis on 8:14 pm on July 18, 2003
ex nihilo, that was a very decent post. those kasekela chimps sound like a bad lot.....
but then again, humans do that too. do you not see children forming cliques and bullying children who are weaker, not as intelligent, different, perhaps younger? some of them would eventually kill their victims, but adults often intervene. in the "real world" you have aggressive people as well. it's a fact of nature. some creatures are just aggressive and ill-willed for no apparent reason.

still, that does NOT give you the right to use chimps for testing.


O.K. O.K. so we test on aimals because it better than doing so on humans? Then you say these animals should be tested on for showing HUMAN behavior?

Drugs companies do NOT have as much as a benifit as you would believe.

Veggetarian can be healthy, when you think most people than are omnivourous (sp?) don't use their diet t the potential they could. A veggetarian is healthier than a fast food junkie.

veggie and fish is one of the healthiest diets that you can have, whilst that is happening you can still take a moral stadpoint and live a full and healthy life.

I don't know who said it, but some of us would last out in the wild, and indeed do. It is a good way to learn, and form oppinions about nmature, by being part of it. There seems to be a convenience obsessed group, fast food et al. As well as a morally "superior" group, many of which are just living cushy lifestyles by throwing their money into organic vegan products. But there are people out there who still try and work.

Meateaters should hunt, prepare and kill their own food, just try it and there would be ore veggetarians I know it.

Veggetarians should try living on their own farms for a while, and see if they are grateful for a piece of meat, they may not but some would.

As for telling starving people eating meant is bad, it is. A lot of farmable land is lost to fast food companies who have a lower yield, but maintain the capital and gullable market to make themselves rich.

If people are starving they should grow not farm animals, they get more energy from their efforts. Why? Because the energy is from the sun. The energy in animals is from the sun to the animals that die to the genetically modiffied unattural pellets they eat to the end product. Energy is lost at heat ast each stage, so which is more efficient? Fish is different, and can supplement a veggetarian diet to make it very healthy in deed.

If that didn't make sense I appologise because I can't be bothered checking over what I just posted.

[In It 4 The Money]

You have a point about the stages in the food cycle and the energy to mass ration at each stage but i fail to see the moral strength of eating fish instead of other meat.

[dopediana]

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 5:58 pm on July 19, 2003

Quote: from the amaryllis on 8:14 pm on July 18, 2003
ex nihilo, that was a very decent post. those kasekela chimps sound like a bad lot.....
but then again, humans do that too. do you not see children forming cliques and bullying children who are weaker, not as intelligent, different, perhaps younger? some of them would eventually kill their victims, but adults often intervene. in the "real world" you have aggressive people as well. it's a fact of nature. some creatures are just aggressive and ill-willed for no apparent reason.

still, that does NOT give you the right to use chimps for testing.


O.K. O.K. so we test on aimals because it better than doing so on humans? Then you say these animals should be tested on for showing HUMAN behavior?

Drugs companies do NOT have as much as a benifit as you would believe.

Veggetarian can be healthy, when you think most people than are omnivourous (sp?) don't use their diet t the potential they could. A veggetarian is healthier than a fast food junkie.

veggie and fish is one of the healthiest diets that you can have, whilst that is happening you can still take a moral stadpoint and live a full and healthy life.

I don't know who said it, but some of us would last out in the wild, and indeed do. It is a good way to learn, and form oppinions about nmature, by being part of it. There seems to be a convenience obsessed group, fast food et al. As well as a morally "superior" group, many of which are just living cushy lifestyles by throwing their money into organic vegan products. But there are people out there who still try and work.

Meateaters should hunt, prepare and kill their own food, just try it and there would be ore veggetarians I know it.

Veggetarians should try living on their own farms for a while, and see if they are grateful for a piece of meat, they may not but some would.

As for telling starving people eating meant is bad, it is. A lot of farmable land is lost to fast food companies who have a lower yield, but maintain the capital and gullable market to make themselves rich.

If people are starving they should grow not farm animals, they get more energy from their efforts. Why? Because the energy is from the sun. The energy in animals is from the sun to the animals that die to the genetically modiffied unattural pellets they eat to the end product. Energy is lost at heat ast each stage, so which is more efficient? Fish is different, and can supplement a veggetarian diet to make it very healthy in deed.

If that didn't make sense I appologise because I can't be bothered checking over what I just posted.


the little part that actually DID have to do with my post was utterly incoherent and impossible to understand. the rest was totally irrelevant.

and since fucking when do vegetarians tell starving people to not eat meat? starving people do grow vegetables and tend to livestock, but not for themselves. they're barely scraping enough by working for the plantation owners or people who buy vegetables who in turn sell food for ridiculously high prices. they starve because they harvest the food, aren't allowed to keep any of it, sell it to a richer person, who then sells it at the market for a 100x what they bought it for.

and the argument that if everyone were vegetarian there would be more than enough food to go around (well, there's already more than enough as it is) cannot be denied by your counterargument stating that all the livestock would eat it anyway. there would be less livestock because farmers wouldn't be breeding as many animals because there wouldn't be a demand.

you people all forget that we're in an active global market and people are trying to make money because if they don't, they'll die. and we've totally strayed from the topic of the thread. back to animal testing now.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from the amaryllis on 7:08 pm on July 19, 2003

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 5:58 pm on July 19, 2003

Quote: from the amaryllis on 8:14 pm on July 18, 2003
ex nihilo, that was a very decent post. those kasekela chimps sound like a bad lot.....
but then again, humans do that too. do you not see children forming cliques and bullying children who are weaker, not as intelligent, different, perhaps younger? some of them would eventually kill their victims, but adults often intervene. in the "real world" you have aggressive people as well. it's a fact of nature. some creatures are just aggressive and ill-willed for no apparent reason.

still, that does NOT give you the right to use chimps for testing.


O.K. O.K. so we test on aimals because it better than doing so on humans? Then you say these animals should be tested on for showing HUMAN behavior?

Drugs companies do NOT have as much as a benifit as you would believe.

Veggetarian can be healthy, when you think most people than are omnivourous (sp?) don't use their diet t the potential they could. A veggetarian is healthier than a fast food junkie.

veggie and fish is one of the healthiest diets that you can have, whilst that is happening you can still take a moral stadpoint and live a full and healthy life.

I don't know who said it, but some of us would last out in the wild, and indeed do. It is a good way to learn, and form oppinions about nmature, by being part of it. There seems to be a convenience obsessed group, fast food et al. As well as a morally "superior" group, many of which are just living cushy lifestyles by throwing their money into organic vegan products. But there are people out there who still try and work.

Meateaters should hunt, prepare and kill their own food, just try it and there would be ore veggetarians I know it.

Veggetarians should try living on their own farms for a while, and see if they are grateful for a piece of meat, they may not but some would.

As for telling starving people eating meant is bad, it is. A lot of farmable land is lost to fast food companies who have a lower yield, but maintain the capital and gullable market to make themselves rich.

If people are starving they should grow not farm animals, they get more energy from their efforts. Why? Because the energy is from the sun. The energy in animals is from the sun to the animals that die to the genetically modiffied unattural pellets they eat to the end product. Energy is lost at heat ast each stage, so which is more efficient? Fish is different, and can supplement a veggetarian diet to make it very healthy in deed.

If that didn't make sense I appologise because I can't be bothered checking over what I just posted.


the little part that actually DID have to do with my post was utterly incoherent and impossible to understand. the rest was totally irrelevant.

and since fucking when do vegetarians tell starving people to not eat meat? starving people do grow vegetables and tend to livestock, but not for themselves. they're barely scraping enough by working for the plantation owners or people who buy vegetables who in turn sell food for ridiculously high prices. they starve because they harvest the food, aren't allowed to keep any of it, sell it to a richer person, who then sells it at the market for a 100x what they bought it for.

and the argument that if everyone were vegetarian there would be more than enough food to go around (well, there's already more than enough as it is) cannot be denied by your counterargument stating that all the livestock would eat it anyway. there would be less livestock because farmers wouldn't be breeding as many animals because there wouldn't be a demand.

you people all forget that we're in an active global market and people are trying to make money because if they don't, they'll die. and we've totally strayed from the topic of the thread. back to animal testing now.


Sorry I think I quoted the wrong thing.

I never said starvng people are told not to eat meat, in fact I said if we were under the conditions we would see how stupid it is saying that, that was earlier in the thread page 7 or 8 or so I dunno.

The irrelevant bits were addressing bit from all over the thread, all of which have been discussed at some point. It was not an entire personal address sorry.

The crap about hunting was just reffering to the moralirty involved with veggetarianism. Or eating meat.

I was reffering to subsistance farming. So farmers producing for themselves, but finding it hard, would have a higher yield from growing crops.

I believe I was the first (dunno pretty sure) in this post to mention we already have enough food. I also mentioned it is the unequal distrobution that is the problem, that results in pollution (from waste), under-nourishment, and obesity. It was not therefore a counter argument, and definately not aimed at you. This is my fault again I meant only to quote about the chimps, and my only response to that was my first line or so, the rest was from different bits of the thread.

I never said veggetarians told people that were starving not to eat meat. However some members started discussing this a little earlier on. It was actually just a missunderstanding of the fact veggetables have a higher yield, and would make more sense for subsistance farmers.

Finally, I can't speak for everyone, but of course we know we are in a global ecconomy. However it is a very westernised belief that you will die without money. If farmers produced for themselves, and didn't get screwed over by trying to be competitive they would have more of a chance. However it is large companies that could push them off their land, that is part of the reason some don't.

The last bit about us being way off target is very true, but it makes it interesting.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from In It 4 The Money on 6:06 pm on July 19, 2003
You have a point about the stages in the food cycle and the energy to mass ration at each stage but i fail to see the moral strength of eating fish instead of other meat.


I dunno if there is any, however it is healthier, possibly the healthiest lifestyle.

Also there is not as much energy lost getting fish as in other animals, depends on the fish though, and how it gets to our plates.

[Rastafari]

fuck people who decide to rape, pillage, and deceive in the name of "progress"

If we are so against Imperialism, then why can't we see that oiling operations in Alaska aer simply depriving the natural citizens of said land of resources.

Any woman (or gay man :)) who treasures the glistening sheen of a makeup more than an individual rabbit's will or dignity, disgusts me

"Hey Mr. Scientist guy, don't spray that aerosol in my eye,
I'm a noble rabbit"

[dopediana]

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 9:28 pm on July 20, 2003

Sorry I think I quoted the wrong thing.

I never said starvng people are told not to eat meat, in fact I said if we were under the conditions we would see how stupid it is saying that, that was earlier in the thread page 7 or 8 or so I dunno.

The irrelevant bits were addressing bit from all over the thread, all of which have been discussed at some point. It was not an entire personal address sorry.

The crap about hunting was just reffering to the moralirty involved with veggetarianism. Or eating meat.

I was reffering to subsistance farming. So farmers producing for themselves, but finding it hard, would have a higher yield from growing crops.

I believe I was the first (dunno pretty sure) in this post to mention we already have enough food. I also mentioned it is the unequal distrobution that is the problem, that results in pollution (from waste), under-nourishment, and obesity. It was not therefore a counter argument, and definately not aimed at you. This is my fault again I meant only to quote about the chimps, and my only response to that was my first line or so, the rest was from different bits of the thread.

I never said veggetarians told people that were starving not to eat meat. However some members started discussing this a little earlier on. It was actually just a missunderstanding of the fact veggetables have a higher yield, and would make more sense for subsistance farmers.

Finally, I can't speak for everyone, but of course we know we are in a global ecconomy. However it is a very westernised belief that you will die without money. If farmers produced for themselves, and didn't get screwed over by trying to be competitive they would have more of a chance. However it is large companies that could push them off their land, that is part of the reason some don't.

The last bit about us being way off target is very true, but it makes it interesting.


ah, the yeoman farmer sounds ideal, doesn't it? but many farmers put up with the plantation system because they don't want to be isolated from a commune. to grow all your own food is one thing. but running a farm is a full time business. how else are you supposed to buy clothes, blankets, and other necessities? add a few sheep to your inventory? i don't think so.
and produce is favorably bought in bulk, so the plantations already have numerous advantages over peasant farmers. the produce is bought in bulk and sold for higher prices and the growers have to pay more money than they are receiving for food. it's an IMPOSSIBLE life. don't tell them to just grow their own food. fight for their rights. be a labor organizer. they need a voice, not someone telling them to go independent.

and vegetables DO have higher yield than meat, because individual vegetables don't consume acre upon acre of other vegetables for 3 years till they're in turn killed for consumption. reduce the number of livestock breeding farms.

and back to the original topic,

killing animals in the name of science is wrong. human vanity is not worth suffering. and animals ARE noble creatures. FUCK ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO THINK ANIMALS DON'T HAVE SOULS.



i'm feeling really hotblooded right now. i just watched "the pianist" with adrien brody and that film was pure ART. definitely oscar worthy. it wasn't a glorious war film. it was something that makes you remember and regret. which is what war films should do to you.

anyhow, it's late, and i'm a tired girl and i have swim practice in 6 hours and i still have to watch "memento." so i'm signing off. good night to you all.

[Danton]

Amaryllis......

About the horses, I love horses...perhaps more than any animal... I love to ride and I have the upmost compassion and respect for them. I would never eat a horse...unless I had to... then I would without hestitation. That was my point - human survival.

SenoraChe & Elijah...

From the Eskimo's to the indigienous tribes of the rainforest the primary source of sustenance is/was and will always be, hunted animals. From the skin to the bones everything is utilized. With the exeption of certain eastern religions vegitarianism is a western syndrome - a choice a....luxury. Even for many working class citizens an organic, vegitarian diet is not an affordable option, meat remains a staple.....



"Behold this marvel, this living paradox this missing link in the evolutionary chain" - Cornielious

[dopediana]

Quote: from Danton on 10:10 am on July 21, 2003
Amaryllis......

About the horses, I love horses...perhaps more than any animal... I love to ride and I have the upmost compassion and respect for them. I would never eat a horse...unless I had to... then I would without hestitation. That was my point - human survival.


eugh. without hesitation? i couldn't do it. i couldn't kill something i had a rapport with. it would be eating a pet. a companion. its life isn't worth any more or less than mine. if it wants to eat me, i'd defend myself, but horses aren't exactly carnivorous. although i know one who likes beef jerky...

[Danton]

You dont relize what your capable until you reach that point. When faced with a life or death choice you might surprise yourself. Remember the Argentine rugby team who resorted to cannabilism when thier plane crashed in the Andes, remember Che in Bolivia?




"Let's get down to brass tacks, how much for the ape?" - HST

[Sabocat]

And again I add....

If God didn't want us to eat animals....Then why did he make them out of meat?

Seriously though. I am dead set against factory farming. I believe that if you want to eat meat, you should have to go out and hunt for it. Factory farms are the worst things on the planet. I would suggest a quick trip to Bovina, Texas to see what I'm talking about. This entire town was nothing more than a stockyard as far as the eye could see of cattle waiting to get onto trains to slaughter. When I was there, it was well over 100 degrees, there was little if any water for these poor creatures, no grass...just dirt, and the air smelled of death. Not manure....death. (I grew up working on a dairy farm..believe me, I know the difference)It was like a bovine Aushwitz. Singularly one of the worst things I've ever seen.

I defy anyone to see that and still be ambivalent about the slaughter and torture of one of the gentlest creatures there is. As far as "I wouldn't eat a horse unless I had too", I'm assuming then of course because a horse is somehow more noble than a cow, you wouldn't have the same problem determining the cow's fate eh? Probably kill and eat the cow after the first stomach twitch. And honestly? how is a horse more "noble" than a cow? Where does that leave the poor lowly chicken eh?

All factory farming of animals has accomplished is making people lazy. Ask anyone if they had to kill and butcher the cow (or chicken for that matter) that they were getting their meat from if they would still eat meat. The answers may surprise you.

There is a comedian (Denis Leary) who has this great skit describing how speciesist we are as humans..

...Okay...and what are you?....I'm an otter...I do cute little human things with my hands...Okay...you're free to go....Next...and what are you?....Oh I'm a cow, and I give mil....Fuck you...you're a baseball glove, get in the truck...

(or something along those lines)


If you couldn't hunt/kill/butcher the animal you're going to the store to buy and eat, then you shouldn't be eating it.

The organization PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) used to have a great slogan..."The question isn't whether or not an animal "feels", the question is can it suffer.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from Disgustapated on 5:25 pm on July 21, 2003

All factory farming of animals has accomplished is making people lazy. Ask anyone if they had to kill and butcher the cow (or chicken for that matter) that they were getting their meat from if they would still eat meat. The answers may surprise you.

If you couldn't hunt/kill/butcher the animal you're going to the store to buy and eat, then you shouldn't be eating it.




This is what I have been saying. I get classed as a hippy, but one of the only one's that I know that will go out, when he get hungry get the his rabbit or hen or whatever it was, skin and drain it, cook it and eat it.

However when i am with friends oin these trips, most can't stand to see this done, but a number give in to their appetites when the smell comes through.

[Rastafari]

Quote: from the amaryllis on 4:27 pm on July 21, 2003
its life isn't worth any more or less than mine.

Thank you. My core belief on this subject is that a life is a life, regardless of what species. Humans aren't the "pinnacle" of civilization as we think ourselves to be, evolution tells one that.

[Rastafari]

Of course, as a farm-boy, I agree wholeheartedly with Distgustipated as well...

[In It 4 The Money]

All life is equal?


Then it shouldnt matter who dies if the choice is between a great scientist who has the potential to develop a cure for AIDS and an earthworm?

One of the major things which underlines our superiority over animals is our potential to improve our surroundings.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from In It 4 The Money on 9:42 pm on July 21, 2003
All life is equal?


Then it shouldnt matter who dies if the choice is between a great scientist who has the potential to develop a cure for AIDS and an earthworm?

One of the major things which underlines our superiority over animals is our potential to improve our surroundings.

Take the world as our surroundings..improved? To hell we have. We, like virtually no other creature except perhaps the beaver(on a much smaller scale), have been a leading destructive force of the planet we inherited.


I wouldn't say we are superior to animals. However I justify the ussage of them like so:Animals use other animals. I am an animal, no more no less, therefore I may, if I choose use animals.

If we were truely above animals we wouldn't need to abuse them.

Actually, as the debate is getting dead I am begginning to question the nature of modern medicine as a whole, even without animal testing.

In our current society, only those that are priveledged can get the top treatment. It is only an elite who can recieve the finest treatment, especially dental and corrective surgeries.

We would deny an animal the right to live, because we are so superior that they are a tool to be used in the making drugs we already have, and comercial over-the-counter drugs, as well as cosmetics.

However that would make the rich super superior if the can deny poor people the right to use life saving treatments based on income. Or money superior to humans. Or how it really is, humans anytyhing but superior, when you consider they kill other animals for vanity, and allow other humans to die because of their greed.

I am against cosmetic testing. I am against most drug testing (commercial/replica drugs). I now think I am heading away from what few tests are done on good drugs, knowing it is for the benifit of the greedy and decadent, not to mention priveledged in most cases.

[dopediana]

Quote: from In It 4 The Money on 9:42 pm on July 21, 2003
All life is equal?


Then it shouldnt matter who dies if the choice is between a great scientist who has the potential to develop a cure for AIDS and an earthworm?

One of the major things which underlines our superiority over animals is our potential to improve our surroundings.


that's utterly irrelevant. earthworms possess virtually no similarities to humans, not even belonging to the group mammalia. we wouldn't test on earthworms anyway. that was a fucking lousy analogy.

[Dirty Commie]

init4money-What gives humans the right right to imprison and torture animals so that some 40 year old rich ***** can wear make and say she's 21? Society disgusts me, why does everything 90% of the people in this country do revolve around making themselves richer, or more popular, or better looking. (sorry to get off topic)

Why should thousands of animals be subject to a life of suffering so a select few people can wear makeup, or take diet pills?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from Dirty Commie on 1:58 pm on July 23, 2003


Why should thousands of animals be subject to a life of suffering so a select few people can wear makeup, or take diet pills?

Simply because humans can, doesn't make it right, but it took a lot of work to get people this vain and desperate. It would nopt be easy to undo it when image can be held above health and life of humans, an animal would hardly get a second thought.

[Dirty Commie]

Change has to start somewhere.

[Rastafari]

Worms are barely even Chordates, friends, similar to chiak47 and some of our other "special" ex-members

I don't care if people eat meat, but animal testing is unnatural, unforgiving, and violates "natural will", as those who are bashing vegetarians say refusing meat does.

If we can send a man to the fucking moon, then Im sure we can provide comfort to the animals that are ritualistically slaughtered for our sustenance while maintaining a conveniance to the farmers as well.


"Help me, Dr. Zaius!"



(Edited by Rastafari at 1:27 am on July 24, 2003)

[Dirty Commie]

Worms are not chordates, anything falling under chordata has to have a some sort of spinal chord.

(Edited by Dirty Commie at 8:03 am on July 24, 2003)

[Rastafari]

ah...my bad worms (except Acorn worms) are annelids


Dorsal nerve cord
Pharynxial gill slits
Postanal tail
Notochord

[blackemma]

There have been some bright posts here and some incredibly ignorant ones and I've lost track of the amount of fallacies.

First, no one said all life is equal. Most of the arguments presented have been in the form of scenarios and not dealing with real life situations. The point to be made is that creatures who are capable of feeling physical and emotional pain - Mary Carmichael of Newsweek recently ran a long article showing that the majority of scientists now recognize that animals feel not only physical pain, but emotional pain as well - should not feel such pain unecessarilly. The fact these animals are bred for such a purpose is all the more disgusting. It amounts to a form of slavery. I don't see why producing animals for rape and slaughter is any more dignified than producing blacks for slavery. Bost are inhumane systems.

As far as animals being unable to understand such concepts as moral and immoral? That's no excuse. If it were, that would justify the Nazi holocaust on the mentally-handicap. then there's the "top of the food chain" argument, well sure, and I suppose that could apply to modern, capitalist society, couldn't it? I mean, aren't CEOs the strongest, fittest of all of us and therefore have a moral duty to treat the rest of us like shit. No, that's social darwinism. And anyone who read much Darwin would recognize he stressed a specie's ability to adapt over survival of the fittest, hence why he also favoured cooperation.

Human and animal needs are not in opposition. The capitalist class has largely benefited from this idea since they are the ones, as always, pulling in the money from such wasteful practices as factory-farming. If anything, human and animal needs can work together. The level of heart-disease, obesity, and malnourishment for Americans is on the rise all the time, as it is in "socialist" (ha) countries like China. Currently, 33% of Americans are obese. 2% of vegans are. Decide for yourself which lifestyle is healthier.

The issue of the environment is also worth considering as factory-farming is tremendously detrimental to the environment and is in fact the cause of much of world poverty, as another user has pointed out. If the world were to abandon meat cultivation in favour of vegetarian food production, it has been estimated that the world would be able to feed up to an additional eight billion people. You then ask whether or not a starving person would rather have a steak or a vegetable? I'm not sure, but I imagine they'd rather have a samosa than starve to death.

So before anyone throws out another ad antiquitatem argument or better yet bifurcation, let's think of the 'furry, cute bunnies', how's that?

(Edited by blackemma at 9:36 pm on July 25, 2003)

[Socialsmo o Muerte]

Don't mean to be rude blackemma, but I have said that all life is equal countless times!

Over and over again I pointed out that we are animals and thus, our life is just the same as the life of, for example, a rabbit.

Just thought I'd point that out!

[blackemma]

No, you make a valid point. Personally, I'm not sure if I would value a cow's life equal to a human - I've never been in the position to decide. What frustrates me is that it doesn't even matter because I'm not being forced to take the life of a cow. I can live a health, environmentally-friendly life without causing cruelty to animals, so why should I?

Some people do not have the means to live a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle, which I respect. The point is that any unecessary suffering should be avoided. That an animal should have to endure such pain in a factory-farm, if anyone had actually seen one up close there's no way they'd be unsympathetic to the animal rights movement, so that a fat banker can eat a Big Mac, I find revolting. That's why programs like Food Not Bombs works to distribute free, vegetarian food to the homeless as others who are forced to eat what is the nutritional equivalent of feces thanks to the capitalist system. Animal liberation is fully compatible with the ideals of socialism and I think ought to be taken up by more socialists, anarchists, Marxists, and reformists alike.

Thanks for your comments.